Skip to main content

Reglan and Tardive Dyskinesia: Medical Malpractice or Guilt by Association?

There was phone message on my desk to call a lawyer. I had no idea what he was seeking, but knew that I couldn’t be a target since plaintiff attorneys do not personally contact their victims to make a introduction. I had no idea if his inquiry even pertained to a medical malpractice issue. Perhaps, he was cold calling to convince me that his estate planning skills could enrich the next several generations of Whistleblowers. Maybe he was going to notify me about a huge inheritance. Could it be that he wanted a screening colonoscopy for himself ASAP, and threw out his lawyer title to assure he would get a prompt call back? I then drifted into a reverie where lawyers were lined up outside my office all waiting for me to perform colonoscopies on them.

I returned the call and he asked if I would help in the defense of an internist who is being sued for medical malpractice. Years ago, this physician prescribed Reglan, an anti-nausea medicine, to a patient who subsequently developed tardive dyskinesia, an irreversible neurologic disorder that has a well-known association with the drug. I recall learning about this association when I was in medical school during the late Pleistocene Era. Although this adverse reaction is old news, the FDA has recently mandated a ‘black box’ warning of this complication on the drug’s product information material. Individuals with tardive dyskinesia suffer from involuntary and continuous oral, facial and bodily movements. It’s an awful condition.

Readers should keep in mind that an associated reaction is not proof of causation. It is a much weaker connection, which is not always grasped by the public or the press. Association means there is no proof, only vague suspicion. Yet, as drug companies know, an association can sink a drug.

Reglan is primarily prescribed to treat nausea or to strengthen lazy stomachs that do not empty food properly into the small intestine. I have prescribed it very rarely, not from fear of side-effects, but because the drug is not very effective. In addition, even when the drug does work, it tends to lose its efficacy over time, a phenomenon that we physicians call tachyphylaxis.

I do not know the facts of this particular case. Before making a judgment if the community standard was breached, I would need to know specific clinical details.

  • Was Reglan the best option for the patient’s clinical circumstance?
  • What were the existing therapeutic alternatives?
  • Was standard dosing utilized?
  • Did the patient taking the drug as prescribed?
  • How long was the patient on Reglan?
  • Did the patient follow-up with the physician as instructed?
  • Was the patient aware of the risks and benefits of the drug?
  • Was the diagnosis of tardive dyskinesia in dispute?
  • Could there be another cause of tardive dyskinesia besides Reglan?
We did not discuss any of the relevant clinical information. I declined to participate in the case. Primarily, I did not want to invest the time that this effort would require. Moreover, agreeing to serve as an expert would mean that I would have to be available for depositions and trial. These latter entertaining activities can burn up hours and days of a physician’s time. Patient appointments would have to be cleared, perhaps for days. In the event that a trial would be necessary, how do I know how many days of my office schedule to cancel? Trial lengths are unpredictable, and delays and recesses are part of the process.

I also would not relish the opportunity of being interrogated in a deposition by opposing counsel. In a depo, unlike trial, any question is fair game. The attorney might very well have become an expert on Reglan, being able to ask me about published articles that I am not familiar with, but that he can quote authoritatively. If readers are wondering why I might not know about these publications, it is because specialists and primary care physicians have to read so broadly on their specialty, that we cannot have deep vertical knowledge of every medical topic. It is easy for a lay person, however, to develop command of a narrow niche. Capable pharmacy representatives illustrate this phenomenon well.

While I would like to think that I could keep my cool, the attorney has an edge in this duel. Not only might he have deep knowledge of a narrow medical issue, but he is a professional interrogator. This is not a casual conversation. Questions in depositions are asked for specific reasons. While I won’t use the term ‘set up’, questions are asked early in the depo to get the witness on the record. Then, an hour later, or at trial, the attorney may try to ask how those answers can be reconciled with contradictory information you later provided. If you are not accustomed to navigating across a treacherous legal minefield, then it is clear who has the advantage here.

It is an easy task to make any witness uncomfortable. Any of us could do this. If we were questioning an honorable physician, politician, businessman or priest, we could change the subject matter and ask insinuating questions that no ordinary and decent individual would welcome.

I concluded the conversation by telling the attorney that I would be pleased to review the record and offer an informal opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, but I would not do so under oath. For me, there’s a Black Box warning against diving into the medical malpractice arena.

Comments

  1. Interesting take. You, a practicing physicians who like many other practicing physicians, does not have the time or willingness to assist in a case against a fellow physician. Much less an injured plaintiff.

    Yet most physicians rail against those physicians who testify for the plaintiff (regardless of the merit of the case) as "whores" because they get paid for their time.

    Seems problem identification is easy, but solutions that require your time aren't part of what you're prescribing for a cure. Oh well, we'll always have damage caps!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment. You are correct that I don't have the time or inclination to enter the legal arena. My full time job and life leave little idle time, and I'm not going to fill it with testifying, waiting in court, etc. In contrast, physician experts who testify for plaintiff attorneys often do this for a living. This is often a significant segment of their professional life. In other words, these 'experts' are not struggling to find the time to testify; they welcome opportunities to do so. I have offered solutions on prior blog posts, but it is hard to overcome the views of idealogues and those who are ocnsumed with self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aren't you consumed with self interest? In fact, your whole post is about your time and your self interest. And all your "reform" solutions are about helping you.

    So who exactly is consumed with self interest here?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Three experiences crossed my mind as I read your post. By the way I am a retired attorney, and I would be happy to see you for a colonoscopy to help fulfill your dream, but I have my own doctor for that whose office is much closer.

    The first experience, or rather experiences, is seeing commercials on TV nearly every night for attorneys who promise "compensation" for people who suffer alleged side effects from various prescription medications. I am not as familiar as an M.D. or pharmacist with prescription drugs, but I recognize many of the side effects as those which the drug companies include in their literature as possible side effects. If the drug companies warn of the side effects in advance, then my attitude is that the patient and/or his physician and/or his pharmacist (the physician and pharmacist should anticipate that the patient will not be willing or able to read the fine print in the literature that comes with the drug) has assumed the risk and the drug company should be off the hook.

    The second experience is in the course of teaching American Government online, I reinforce that part of the textbook that says that the fact two things are correlated does not necessarily means that one causes the other.

    The third experience is ready Thomas Sowell's book Intellectuals and Society in which he repeatedly makes the point that the fact often the fact that businesses take certain actions, such as denying more loans to minority applicants or not allowing as many into college, conveys cultural differences between groups rather than causing them. His argument is that finding statistical difference should not be sufficient evidence to show intent.

    All this points in the same direction - correlation is a clue, but it is not proof.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael, appreciate your humor and our mutual respect of Thomas Sowell. Agree that there is an epidemic of trying to connect stuff suggesting causality, when no true connection exists. To the anonymous commenter who again suggests that I am pursuing self-interest, read other blog posts here peruse the blog and you will soon see that my own profession and myself are often in the crosshairs.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary