Lockhart v. Bloom

360 Ga.App. 741

859 S.E.2d 918

LOCKHART

v.BLOOM et al.

A21A0412

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 2, 2021

Reconsideration Denied July 15, 2021

Certiorari Denied January 11, 2022

Lawrence Bernard Schlachter, Roswell, Lloyd Noland Bell, Atlanta, Anna Green Cross, Darren Summerville, Atlanta, Maxwell Kent Thelen, Daniel Everett Holloway, for Appellant.

James Gabriel Banks, Paul E. Weathington, David Christopher Hanson, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Pipkin, Judge.

In this medical malpractice case, Connie Lockhart sued Glenn Bloom, M.D., an emergency room physician, and his employer, Cherokee Emergency Physicians, LLC, (collectively "Appellees") alleging that Dr. Bloom improperly placed an intravenous line in her leg, resulting in its amputation.¹ In several related enumerations of error, Lockhart argues that the trial court erred in granting Appellees’ motion for a directed verdict and in denying her motion for new trial on that basis We agree, and for the reasons explained below, we now reverse and remand the case for a new trial.

A directed verdict is authorized only when there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.

A grant of directed verdict is a ruling that the evidence and all reasonable deductions there from demand a particular verdict. It is illogical to say such a finding will be upheld if there is any evidence to support it. A grant of directed verdict can be upheld only where we determine that all the evidence demands that verdict. This requires a de novo review .... It is correct to say that a directed verdict cannot be granted if there is any evidence to support a contrary verdict, but there cannot be "some evidence" that all the evidence demands a particular verdict.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Singh , 326 Ga. App. 805, 805, 755 S.E.2d 319 (2014).

Among other things, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must demonstrate a violation of the applicable medical standard of care. Arnold v. Turbow , 357 Ga. App. 533, 536 (1), 848 S.E.2d 698 (2020). This must be established through expert testimony. OCGA § 24-7-702 (c) ; Dubois v. Brantley , 297 Ga. 575, 580-581 (2), 775 S.E.2d 512 (2015).

There is little dispute about the salient facts of this case. While Lockhart was a patient at Northside Hospital-Cherokee, she was treated by Dr. Bloom; the physician mistakenly placed a catheter in Lockhart's femoral artery instead of her femoral vein. Lockhart was transferred to the ICU and by the time the mistake had been detected, the medications that were administered though the catheter accumulated in her leg and destroyed tissue; ultimately resulting in an amputation of her leg. The case proceeded to trial at which Lockhart introduced the testimony of Eric Gluck, M.D. to establish the standard of care for inserting a femoral catheter, the procedure conducted by Dr. Bloom. Without objection, Dr. Gluck was tendered as an expert in critical care medicine. Dr. Gluck is not an emergency room physician, but testified that he had been board certified in critical care medicine for 27 years and had experience placing central venous catheters in the femoral region, where Lockhart's catheter was placed. Dr. Gluck testified that, at the time of trial, he "runs" the ICU at the hospital where he worked in Chicago and was chairperson of the critical care committee which sets policies and procedures for critical care departments at the hospital, which includes the emergency department. Dr. Gluck trained in New York and Utah, has practiced medicine in Connecticut and Illinois, and he testified at trial that he was familiar with the standard of care in placing a femoral catheter, which, he said, is the same whether the procedure is completed by an ER physician, general practitioner, or critical care physician. According to Dr. Gluck, the standard of care for inserting a femoral catheter requires the physician to confirm that the catheter was placed into its intended location, which can be done in four different ways: (1) by drawing blood from the catheter and observing the color or sending the blood sample to the lab to identify the sample as arterial blood or venous blood; (2) transduction which, involves specialized equipment to measure pressure; (3) evaluating for pulsatility, which involves differentiating between the higher pressure blood flow of arteries compared to the low pressure. non-pulsating flow of veins; and (4) using ultrasound to visually confirm placement.

Dr. Gluck further detailed how a femoral catheter is placed and how a physician can identify when it has not been placed in its intended location. Dr. Gluck opined that Dr. Bloom violated the standard of care when he did not confirm that the femoral catheter was placed in Lockhart's femoral vein rather than her femoral artery.²

Cross examination of Dr. Gluck focused on the fact that he was not an emergency room physician, and this was the basis of Appellees’ subsequent motion for directed verdict. Appellees specifically cited to the following testimony:

Q. When is the last time you placed a femoral central line in the emergency department, you, by yourself?

A. It would be years.

Q. How many years?

A. A very long time, maybe 15, 18 years.

Q. 15,18 years ago since you even placed a line in the emergency department. Do you place them in the ICU?

A. Yes, I do.

...

Q. You did not do an emergency medicine residency, did you?

A. No

Q. You don't know if they teach emergency medicine residents all across the country that they're supposed to verify the placement of a line in the emergency department, do you?

A. No, I just know they teach it at Swedish Covenant,³ so I do not know if it's a national standard or just something we do at Swedish.

Q. You do not know if that's a national standard taught emergency medicine doctors, do you?

A. No.

Upon further examination Dr. Gluck testified:

Q. When was the last time you did place a femoral line?

A. Probably four or five months ago, but that was me placing the line. On a daily basis I stand over the shoulders of my fellows and residents who are placing lines in the intensive care unit under much more emergent circumstances than existed in this particular case.

Q. When was the last time you stood over the shoulder of one of your fellows and residents who was placing a femoral catheter, a femoral line?

A. Last week.

Q. Are you confident that you understand the standard of care as it applies to placing the femoral lines, regardless of the geographic location within the hospital?

A. Yes.

After resting their case, Appellees moved for directed verdict on the grounds that Lockhart's sole standard of care expert was not qualified to offer expert testimony on the standard of care for placing a femoral catheter in the emergency room.

In granting Appellees’ motion for directed verdict, the trial court found that Dr. Gluck's testimony regarding the standard of care for the relevant procedure was "equivocal" and did not meet the requirements of OCGA §§ 24-7-702 (b) (2) and (b) (3). The court noted that Dr. Gluck "was unable to state that he knew what practices were being taught as the national standard of care" and that he "did not identify the standard of care applicable in Georgia or in an emergency department setting," ultimately concluding that he was unqualified to establish the standard of care to be utilized by Dr. Bloom as an emergency room physician.

1. Appellant argues that it was error to grant a directed verdict because Dr. Gluck's testimony was in the record.

A directed verdict may only be granted "[i]f there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict[.]" OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). After Appellees’ motion for directed verdict, the trial court ruled that Lockhart failed to provide competent expert testimony to establish the standard of care owed by Dr. Bloom.⁴ The trial court's decision was largely based on the fact that Dr. Gluck was not an emergency room physician and provided conflicting testimony regarding his knowledge of the standard of care.

Although Jones v. Chatham County involves a tax appeal, in light of the strong procedural similarities, we find it instructive. 270 Ga. App. 483, 606 S.E.2d 673 (2004). After a jury trial on the valuation of his real property, Jones appealed, arguing, among other things, that the testimony of the appraiser, who testified as an expert for the tax assessor, was inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and should have been excluded. This Court rejected Jones’ argument because he did not object at the time of the appraiser's testimony, but instead argued it as the basis of his motion for a directed verdict...