Florida Jury Awards Family $25.8M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Walgreen Co.

Associated Press via Fox News.com ^ | August6 18, 2007

[Kaslin]

BARTOW, Fla. — A jury awarded $25.8 million Friday to the family of a cancer patient who was given a wrong prescription, had a stroke and died several years later, lawyers said.

Beth Hippely was prescribed Warfarin, a blood thinner, in 2002 to treat breast cancer. The prescription filled at a Walgreen pharmacy was 10 times what her doctor prescribed, court documents said.

The Polk County Circuit Court jury found the prescription error caused a cerebral hemorrhage resulting in permanent bodily injury, disability and physical pain. The mother of three died in January at the age of 46.

A 19-year-old pharmacy technician, with little training, misfiled the prescription, according to court documents.

The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by Hippely, her husband Deane Hippely and their children against the Deerfield, Ill.-based Walgreen Co. for negligent breach of duty and wrongful death.

"Beth Hippely died unnecessarily because this tenfold overdose with Warfarin by the pharmacy she trusted caused her cancer to come back with a vengeance and it interrupted all of her cancer treatments," her lawyer Chris Searcy said. "They have been seeking justice for almost five years and this was a case that screamed out for justice."

[KoRn]

God, why don’t they ever have screw ups like this for me with pain meds? lol

[jdub]

I thought you were replying to my hypothetical case i posted, not the florida one. You obviously didn't read anything else that I wrote, did you?

If you believe an attorney committed malpractice in representing you, by all means seek out an attorney and hold him responsible. You will be suprised to find that lawyers don't protect crappy attorneys the way doctors protect those they know to be incompetent.

Attorneys carry malpractice insurance, same as doctors. But you aren't really interested in the facts, are you?

[Iwo Jima]

I don't think that jdub was saying that THIS lady lost both her feet. He was asking about another case, maybe real, maybe hypothetical, I don't know.

At least that's how I read his post. I would be interest in hearing you reaction to that factual situation.

[Iwo Jima]

I, too, was confused about why the Warfarin was prescribed. Perhaps this is just very bad reporting.

But the central fact is that the warfarin was dispensed in such excessive doses that it caused a hemorrhagic stroke, which is almost always devastating and was here. Why it was prescribed and what affect it had on her cancer is interesting, but probably not all that relevant to the case.

I, too, try to always check my prescriptions. But many people don't even see their scripts and wouldn't know what a proper dose was if they did. They don't know what the generic for a brand name is, or sometimes even what they are taking a medication for. Sometimes they are old or sick, and someone else handles their medication. There should be a lot more patient counseling by the pharmacist than there is, but even then, to expect very many people to catch a medication error is expecting a lot.

[packrat35]

She poured it on herself. Nice straw man argument though!

[DakotaRed]

Apparently discussing the subject of this thread isn’t what interests you. Silly me, I read the article this thread is based upon instead of a hypothetical.

I guess hypotheticals are more factual to you than actual cases.

[DakotaRed]

You will be suprised to find that lawyers don't protect crappy attorneys the way doctors protect those they know to be incompetent.

I find this interesting. Can you link to any cses of an attorney suing another attorney, expecially some of the larger lawfirms?

[DakotaRed]

jdub stated his “case” was hypothetical. Sorry, but I don’t consider “hypotheticals” as “factual situations.”

Of course, diverting the attention of a thread into a “hypothetical” can be a crafty method of winning an argument without addressing the actual facts of the subject.

[jdub]

wrong. That McDonalds had received previous complaints that they were re-heating their coffee to such a high temperature that people were getting burned. So is it not reasonable that a person who gets coffee at the drive through might put the cup between their legs? And is it also not foreseeable that in the course of driving you might spill that coffee on yourself? If so, then is it reasonable to hand someone a cup of coffee that you know is hot enough to burn them, and that SOMEONE is eventually going to spill it on themselves? Now if she had poured it on her head on purpose, you might have an argument.

[jdub]

jdub stated his “case” was hypothetical. Sorry, but I don’t consider “hypotheticals” as “factual situations.”

for my own reasons I posted it as a hypothetical. trust me, it happened.

[jdub]

Apparently discussing the subject of this thread isn’t what interests you. Silly me, I read the article this thread is based upon instead of a hypothetical. I guess hypotheticals are more factual to you than actual cases.

i think we pretty much exhausted the merits of the case sometime yesterday afternoon.

[boop]

"If you're not at fault, it's a nuisance, but for crying out loud, get over it. It's just part of living in a free society. So you have to report it everytime you get malpractice insurance? Boo hoo, cry me a river. If that's that worst thing you have to complain about, you have led an incredibly blissful life."

Just a "nuisance" to have your name dragged through the mud, and accused of something you didn't do? How would you like that to be done to you? Now have it done three times. Now have someone tell you you're "not permitted" to have a low opinion of lawyers in general.

[jdub]

I find this interesting. Can you link to any cses of an attorney suing another attorney, expecially some of the larger lawfirms?

Perhaps, but I'm kinda busy. I've been assigned by the great lawyer conspiracy to dream up some baseless, frivolous lawsuit against some internal medicine doctor in Washington State.

[packrat35]

You just admitted they spilled it on themselves. END OF STORY

[DakotaRed]

If you state a case as “hypothetical,” don’t blame others if they don’t accept it as “factual.”

[DakotaRed]

When you’re not so “busy,” I’d appreciate reading about it. I don’t doubt you, I've just never read anything about it.

As for your “frivolous lawsuit against some internal medicine doctor in Washington State,” sarcasm is very unbecoming. That being said, if they were wrong or negligent, I’m all for suing them for a reasonable judgment, if they made no effort at compensating for their wrongful or negligent acts or the effort was wanting.

It is the excessive and outrageous I disagree with.

BTW, since you are in to “dreaming up baseless, frivolous lawsuits,” what do you think about another one? One where we could have a class action lawsuit against the Democrat party for all Viet Nam Veterans for the valor they stole from us for their shameful actions back then? I’ll join in on that one, if you and IJ are willing to handle it, or whatever large law firm you know of will take it.

Maybe we could even help our Troops today counter all the negativity from the left and from the lamestream media as well.

Whaddaya say?

[Iwo Jima]

Hypotheticals are a perfectly valid way of learning, teaching, or proving a point. Jesus Christ taught through the use of hypotheticals (he called them "parables"). Medical school teaches medical students through hypotheticals. Law schools use them, too. Board certification examiners use hypotheticals to test their examinees.

There is nothing wrong with a well constructed hypothetical, which jdub's was. You'll have to think of another reason to avoid his question.

[Iwo Jima]

Neither am I. I know some, though. They are mostly medical malpractice defense lawyers.

[Iwo Jima]

Lookie here, folks. LOOKIE HERE, LOOKIE HERE.

We have here maybe the ONLY person in America who thinks that the 2nd OJ trial -- in which the civil jury found OJ was negligent and ordered him to pay damages even though the criminal trial found him not guilty -- was a BAD THING!

This proves the vicious, emotional, hysterical, illogical, maniacal, lunatic ravings of some anti-lawyer attackers, including scum-sucking packrat35. Who wants to align themselves with packrat35?

Class? Class? Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

Packrat35, are you really OJ Simpson?

[DakotaRed]

I’m not avoiding any question, I’m dealing in the subject of this thread, the wrongful death or a woman in Florida.

You need to come up with a better reason to hijack the thread away from the initial subject matter.

Funnier still, I just went back and looked at every single comment I’ve made and that you two made directed to me. In not one can I find any “hypothetical yet factual situation addressed to me.” It was you who blasted in at me demanding I support my views with him later chiming in with his well timed braying supporting you demanding I address some “hypothetical situation” directed at someone else, apparently.

My apologies if I don’t hang on every word you two say to others. Quite frankly, you have impressed me even less than I imagine I impress you.

Maybe, he “hypothetically” asked me a question? I don’t intend to go and search for this “hypothetical situation” he says he made.