Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County 530 Pa. 320 (1992) 608 A.

2d 1040

Case Analysis By: Kelsey Bradford

I. Procedure
A. Plaintiff: William Hayward and Mary Evelyn Hayward Defendant: MEDICAL CENTER OF BEAVER COUNTY, Dr. Paul A. Pupi, Dr. Vincent D. Cuddy, and Coghlan, Cuddy and Pupi Associates B. Appellant William Hayward and his wife commenced this medical malpractice action against appellees Medical Center of Beaver County (hospital), Dr. Paul A. Pupi, Dr. Vincent D. Cuddy, and Coghlan, Cuddy and Pupi Associates C. This case originated in a trial court in Pennsylvania D. Trial court granted summary judgment concluding that appellant knew shortly after the operation that his lung had been removed, that such removal had been the result of misdiagnosis and that the operation had caused his medical problems. E. The case then went to the Supreme Court where they upheld the decision of the trial court. The case was then argued and tried again in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

II. Facts
On November 8, 1980, appellant was admitted to the hospital complaining of chest and back pain. Chest x-rays showed the presence of a mass in appellant's right lung, and appellees Cuddy and Pupi were consulted regarding proper treatment. After consultation, the doctors performed exploratory surgery and removed a portion of appellant's lung tissue for pathological analysis. Appellee doctors diagnosed the mass as a probable carcinoma and proceeded to remove that portion of the lung affected by the suspected tumor. Final pathological studies, however, disclosed that the mass was not a malignant tumor but was merely a blood clot. Appellee Cuddy informed appellant of this on November 21, 1980. At that time, appellant and several members of his family questioned appellee Cuddy regarding the necessity of the surgery in light of the misdiagnosis. Appellee Cuddy assured them that the surgery was necessary regardless of the non-malignant nature of the mass. Immediately following surgery, appellant experienced shortness of breath. Appellant visited appellees Cuddy and Pupi for follow-up care on December 23, 1980 and February 21, 1981.

On both occasions, appellant complained of progressive shortness of breath and difficulty breathing. Appellee doctors told appellant that this condition was to be expected following the removal of a portion of the lung. Appellant's condition progressively deteriorated and resulted in his hospitalization several times beginning in May of 1981. Eventually, appellant's difficulty breathing caused him to terminate his employment in November of 1982. Around that time, appellant consulted a lung specialist, who explained to appellant that his shortness of breath was due to his decreased lung capacity, which resulted from the removal of part of his lung in 1980. On or about May 19, 1983, appellant consulted Dr. Michael Wald in connection with a Workmen's Compensation claim. After examining appellant and reviewing his medical records, Dr. Wald told appellant that the November 1980 surgery performed by appellees Cuddy and Pupi was unnecessary and was a substantial factor in appellant's disability.

B. I would like to know if the doctors who diagnosed the plaintiff performed the proper tests to determine his diagnosis. I also want to know why a whole portion of someone's organ would be removed because it was "probable" carcinoma.

III. Issues
A. This issue being litigated in this case is negligent medical malpractice B. Yes, this is clearly a case of negligence

IV. Holding
A. The court held to reverse the decision of the Superior Court and remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. B. A jury could very well find that appellant reasonably should have investigated the need for the surgery at the time that he was informed of the misdiagnosis, and thereby, have discovered the alleged malpractice. A jury, however, could just as well find that appellant acted reasonably in not investigating further and in being satisfied by appellee Cuddy's assurances that the surgery was indeed necessary. Because reasonable minds could differ as to when appellant's injury was reasonably ascertainable, a jury question is presented, and therefore, summary judgment is not appropriate.

C. Yes, because it is impossible for the jury to be able to make the judgment about whether a procedure is medically necessary or not.

V. Implications
A. Patients need to make sure they understand the medical procedures that will be performed on them, and they should take control of their own health care beyond what doctors tell them. B. The doctors in this case should have made absolutely certain that the portion of Mr. Hayward's lung was cancerous and needed to be removed before they took it out. C. Administrators should make sure that patients are being followed up with following surgeries in case they are having complications. D. If the case had been decided differently, the hospital might have continued to allow its surgeons to perform procedures and make misdiagnoses without realizing their mistakes. This decision showed the surgeons that they needed to reevaluate their decisions about diagnoses for patients.