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

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."

In the tobacco settlements, the state governments settled cases which could NEVER have been won before a jury and settled them for obscenely outrageous sums which no jury would EVER have awarded. They did this so that rich and powerful men could become even more rich and powerful.

In Texas, our attorney general went to prison and was disbarred over that settlement. Other attorneys involved were disbarred or disciplined and had to give back their fees. I like that. How about you?

NOTHING about the tobacco settlements argues in favor of tort reform, against jury verdicts, or the justice system in general. It does argue that dirty politicians are corrupting the system to enrich themselves, and that should be stopped.

Apples and oranges? More like apples and orangutans. Nothing remotely similar.

Did the family lose 25 million dollars?

To me, a lawsuit is to recover loses, not to get wealthy off of someone else's mistake, or even negligence.

I agree that the award will most likely be cut way back, but that doesn't stop the ambulance chaser from taking the bulk of the money that is supposedly to be awarded to the family that suffered the loss.

Outrageous settlements or awards drive up prices for everyone while an ambulance chaser benefits by amassing a fortune, such as that by John Edwards. They have driven companies out of business that once performed needed services for a community. They hurt everyone.

As for my “contentions,” I expressed an opinion on this as have others.

Now, where is your “contention” that $25 million is a justifiable award? What benefit to society is there in these outrageous awards being given by juries?

Now with c-sections being way more common, CP should be all but gone. But there hasn’t been any change in the incidence. It was a garbage lawsuit, brought by grieving parents and used by a POS like Edwards to extract $ for himself. All based on lies.

Once again, you are proving your ignorance and emotionalism. Your statement to the effect that the position that CP can be caused by medical mistakes during birth is a lie, is itself a lie. John Edwards is wrong about many, many things, but that is not one of them.

As a medical malpractice DEFENSE attorney for over 20 years, I DEFENDED my share of CP cases. Never did we take the position that CP cannot be caused by birth trauma.

Birth asphyxia is a known cause of CP. There are other known causes. Extensive studies in the 80s found that about 20% of CP cases are caused during birth. The No.1 cause of CP was "unknown."

I defended CP cases by taking the position that while no knowledgeable person would deny that CP CAN be caused by hypoxia during birth, the cause of this child's CP was something else. I had as my expert the premier pediatric neurologist in Houston. Please tell me what you know that he didn't?

It must be sad to be so ignorant about things on which you have such strong opinions. Could your opinions possibly be wrong?

Did the family lose 25 million dollars?

have you bothered to read anything IJ has said? Have you considered, even for a second, what the ongoing costs of care of someone crippled for life would be?

Do you have any idea of what would result if our legal system adopted your notion of excusing liability resulting from negligence?

It sounds as if your solution is to simply give the injured party their money back for the wrong prescription. When the family goes bankrupt paying for the care of the victim, who then pays for the care? Please explain to me how it is a sound conservative principle that the responsibility should then be born by The People, rather than the negligent party.

Once upon a time, I would have been shocked by 50%,too. But not anymore.

The last mediation I attended was post-trial after a $2.5 million judgment. One defendant offered 10 cents on the dollar, the others offered nothing.

They offered no reasons that they would hope to prevail on appeal (and they have no basis to hope that they could), but promised to string it out for 4-6 years, filing motion for re-consideration, motion for re-hearing, motion for en banc review, petitions for writ, oral arguments,etc., etc., ad nauseum, during which time they would continue to bill and I would get nothing and my elderly client would be dead and never see a penny.

Of course, in a just world,the defense attorneys would not be able to do that and would have to pay big time for even trying. But we don't live in a just judicial system. We live in a system where defendants and defense attorneys can abuse and manipulate the process with impunity.

So, I am neither shocked nor offended by a 50% fee through appeal.

I remember you. Once you were complaining that you had had baseless suits filed against you, but you admitted you were voluntarily non-suited. Did you ever consider that your hospital may have been concealing the truth, and the injured party had no choice but to file against everyone involved? If the lawyer misses the statute of limitations, not only is his client out of luck, but he has committed malpractice. As for your costs, don't you have insurance?

Going by your logic, since some docs are quacks, all are quacks. Since you are a quack and incompetent, shouldnt you protect yourself from your inevitable mistakes?

I can only relate my personal experience, so I will.

The attorney representing us for the wrongful death of our son usually takes one third of the award for these types of cases. He's a hell of a guy and knew us and our son personally so he's taking a little less in our case.

Legal expenses have come out of his 1/3. We have not paid any taxes on insurance settlements or wrongful death awards.

As to the jury award...you just can't compensate anyone for suffering and death of a loved one with money. That kind of thing has no real price tag. Our goal was to make our son's death financially painful enough for those involved that they will change their ways. It's the only thing you can do.

In our case, everyone involved was thoroughly covered by insurance. Well, insurance companies don't hurt. They run their numbers and settle or not based upon formulas. The people who acted irresponsibly face nothing, except an increase in their insurance costs.

So, you either try to make a point based upon money amount, or you shrug your shoulders and wonder what the hell is the point in fighting anyway? No one will hurt as much as you do.

My husband and I accepted a settlement far lower than the rest of our family thought reasonable. But the system we were dealing with was already working to change the way they did things, our lawyer advised that we wanted to avoid the emotional rigors of a trial at all costs, and the people who screwed up were going to go on with their regular lives irregardless of our decision.

Ok, it’s all good because I have malpractice insurance. Just like since you have homeowners insurance, I’m sure you welcome lawsuits by people who slip on your sidewalk. Even if the person who slips is drunk/stoned and they take a swing at you while you’re trying to help them, or even better, threaten to kill you. How about if the person who slips goes home and gets his (loaded) rifle and is found driving back to your ER/house when the cops pull him over. I’m sure you’d just laugh off something like that when the druggie/violent felon sues you for not giving him narcotic pain medicine. After all, you have insurance.

My point is that people tend to think that the 1/3 lawyer’s share (and I’ve seen contingency fee offers of up to 50%) has to cover all the expense of trial prep, etc., thus justifying the multi-million dollar payoff. And I am certain that there are those in your profession who are satisfied with that misconception being out there. Please don’t try to convince me that it is not one big lottery system with people like Johnny Edwards gaming the system for the big pay day. And we the people ultimately end up paying the freight. A significant portion of your profession sucks, counselor. I certainly hope you are one of the good guys.

Did the family lose 25 million dollars?

If the $25 million was all for compensatory damages and did not include punitive damages, YES!!!!!!!! So says the jury.

The woman's brain was needlessly destroyed by blood thinner-induced hemorrhagic stroke. What value do you put on your brain? What would you have awarded for such a loss and the related losses and expenses of care to the family? How much in medical and personal care expenses were proven?

I don't know how long this woman was in this shape before she died, but a lifetime of total care can cost $20 million.

I agree that the award will most likely be cut way back, but that doesn't stop the ambulance chaser from taking the bulk of the money that is supposedly to be awarded to the family that suffered the loss.

How so? How will the lawyer EVER take the bulk of the money awarded? And if what the lawyer gets is the result of a negotiated contract, what is the basis for your objection to the exercise of the family's and the lawyer's freedom of contract?

On what basis do you denigrate the unknown the lawyer by calling him an "ambulance chaser"? Why do you not assume (as is likely) that he is a well-respected, highly sought after lawyer whom the family approached and beseeched him to take their case? Just pure envy?

Outrageous settlements or awards drive up prices for everyone while an ambulance chaser benefits by amassing a fortune, such as that by John Edwards.

Whatever truth that sentiment may have had in the past, it is no longer true and has not been for about a decade. As to your envy of John Edwards, see my previous post about the fact that medical negligence can cause CP. Once again, your envy and covetousness is most unbecoming.

As for my “contentions,” I expressed an opinion on this as have others.

As is your tight. But your opinion is based on ignorance, emotionalism, envy, and illogic. Your opinion is in need of serious re-examination.

Now, where is your “contention” that $25 million is a justifiable award? What benefit to society is there in these outrageous awards being given by juries?

I never made such a contention, as I do not know the evidence or the allegations. If I were the trial judge, I might very well reduce the amount of the verdict to conform to the evidence, and I am certain that there are caps and limits which would have to be applied.

Setting aside the "outrageous" comment, the considerable benefit to society in jury verdicts of this type is accountability and responsibility for one's actions which is a foundation of our society, our legal system, our economic system, our wealth, and many other things that makes America great. Making people who needlessly destroy a woman's brain pay for the harm that they have done not only compensates the victims, it protects you and your family by making it less likely that such a thing will happen to you and yours.

Finally, please explain to me how anyone is harmed by even an excessive jury verdict that is properly cut back by the trial judge before he enters judgment?

1. I don't own the sidewalk, dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

2. Your incoherent rant tells me that you are incapable of an objective discussion. You have been presented by other Posters, far more eloquent than myself, facts to either refute your and others' statements or to explain what actually exists in the real world, and you have chosen to respond with emotion rather than reason.

Your bitterness and hatred over having been sued has blinded you to the reality that in the real world it is far more common for the injured person to suffer at the hands of the justice system than it is for the person being sued (or more likely, his insurance company). Iwo Jima has given you a typical example of how the Insurance company responds. They don't care that their client injures someone. They don't care that they are suffering as a result, not only physically but probably have been financially ruined as well. All they care about is that they can hold onto their money.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe the Insurance industry and its claims of how they are suffering as a result of all the recent hurricanes? How do you reconcile that with the FACT that they continue to record record profits year after year? They do the same with malpractice. In most states there may be only a handful of jury awards each year. But those awards are used to justify charging exorbitant malpractice rates to you. I suggest that your anger is misdirected. The ones making all the money off of malpractice are the insurance companies, not plaintiff's lawyers.

I will respond. I practiced medicine for over 40 years and was never sued. The reason was simple--psychiatrists are seldom sued.

I don't know why you are so upset with people doubting the necessity of 25 million for a stroke. Why not 250 million or 500 billion?

There will be tort reform, but when is unclear. In the meantime, everyone should review their state's Worker's Compensation plan. In Minnesota you pay insurance with the understanding if your employees are injured your insurance pays according to a table and the decision of an Administrative Law Judge. Without this provision no one would hire anyone in Minnesota. Incidentally, the plan pays for the plaintiff's lawyers on an hourly basis.

Eventually, medicine and other private service providers will have a similar plan. It makes sense and it is fair.

It will happen when the surgical sub-specialties leave private practice because they can no longer afford the premiums. In the meantime rudeness and ad hominem attacks are not permitted in court and should not be part of FR. I leave you to judge who is rude and who calls names.

Neither I or my family would agree to such an outrageous settlement. Past, present and future medical and other costs plus a percentage (30%) for pain and suffering would be sufficient.

You are a physician???? Oh, my word, what I could say....

I am not an "expert" in CP. I hire experts in CP. Pediatric neurologists of impeccable reputation. If you would just take the time to read up on basic medical information, you would know that there is not just one CAUSE of CP. The No. 1 CAUSE is UNKNOWN. Birth asphyxia makes up about 20% of the causes.

In a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the cause of this particular CP was medical negligence, specifically lack of oxygen to the brain during birth which should have been detected and corrected by C-section before permanent damage is done.

One way this can be done is by zeroing in on the precise area of the brain which is affected and when that part of the brain develops. At least that's what my pediatric neurology expert did to prove that the last CP case I DEFENDED was not caused by birth asphyxia because the affected part of the brain is fully developed well before birth and is not sensitive to the type and amount of oxygen deprivation that child suffered. Ergo, the damage was done months before birth for reason or reasons unknown but NOT due to medical negligence during birth.

That's the type of approach that logical, honest, ethical lawyers take in proving or disproving a claim of birth-related CP. Now do you understand?

What type of medicine do you practice? I trust that it has nothing to do with pediatrics, family practice, obstetrics, neurology, or radiology, or you would not need to be educated by an internet lawyer about CP. Maybe you're a dermatologist.

As to the rest of your rant, I have not the time nor the inclination to address each of your emotional, self-indulgent, petty, and baseless complaints. The world does not revolve around you. If sometime you are wrongly sued and have to spend $ to defend yourself, well, them's the breaks. I have been in that situation and it was not pleasant, but I would never advocate gutting the judicial system as a result.

Past, present and future medical and other costs plus a percentage (30%) for pain and suffering would be sufficient.

Please tell me what you would award in this case: A 35 year old woman has (condition) that requires her left foot to be amputated. She is admitted to the hospital, and prepped for surgery which includes writing directly on the left foot that it is the one to be amputated. Surgeon comes in, and due to some combination of playing grab-ass with a nurse, and possibly intoxicated (not proven)he finally amputates...the right foot.

As woman is coming out from the anesthesia in recovey, she notices that her right foot is the one bandaged, and starts freaking out. staff rush her back to surgery, put her back under and proceed to amputate the left foot.

So what should she get? Is just paying her medical expenses and a lifetime of prosthetics sufficient?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.