What procedures should have been in place to notify the risk management department of all aspects of the series of events involving Sue as they occurred?

Consider the facts of the case below and answer the following questions: What procedures should have been in place to notify the risk management department of all aspects of the series of events involving Sue as they occurred? Does Dr. Jenkins have any immunity from liability based on the Good Samaritan doctrine? Fact: In the spring of 2001, Sue Smith began experiencing heartburn and nausea. Her family doctor made a diagnosis of gallstones. The family doctor recommended Sue have her gallbladder removed surgically. Sue then contacted Dr. Sears, a general surgeon. This same surgeon had operated on Sue approximately five years earlier to repair a bowel obstruction. On June 3, 2001, Dr. Sears operated on Sue to remove her gall- bladder laparoscopically. This procedure involved several incisions, each less than one inch, around the abdomen. The various incisions accommodated the various instruments and a small camera that allowed the surgical team to view the inside of the abdomen and to dissect and remove Sue’s gallbladder. Sue’s doc- tor informed her she would be home within 48 hours and back to work within an additional three days. Dr. Sears removed the gallbladder. He also removed several areas of adhesion (excessive scar tissue) on the bowel. During this part of the procedure, Dr. Sears performed a small bowel resection. A nurse on the operating staff noticed through the visual on the camera that Dr. Sears had perforated a small area of the bowel with an instrument shortly before he performed the bowel resection of the same portion of the bowel. She commented on this to Dr. Jenkins, an associate of Dr. Sears. There were four other staff members in the operating room during surgery. When questioned by Dr. Jenkins, none recalled seeing Dr. Sears perforate the bowel. The notes of the doctor with regard to the surgery did not mention the perforation of the bowel. It did state however that the area of the bowel was resected due to a small bowel obstruction. After surgery, Sue developed a serious infection involving fevers, a purulent yellow and white dis- charge from the incision, and on June 9, a foul-smelling green discharge. On this date, another member of Dr. Sears practice, Dr. Jenkins, was on call. Upon examining the nurse’s findings, Dr. Jenkins returned Sue to surgery. Dr. Jenkins found a large amount of bowel that had leaked through perforations in the bowel and spread throughout the abdomen causing a massive infection. Dr. Jenkins resected a large area of the bowel and cleaned the abdomen as much as possible in a three-hour surgery. Following surgery, Sue was placed in intensive care in critical condition for a period of three days. One day after being returned to a regular room, Sue developed pneumonia and once again was placed in intensive care. She was eventually discharged from the hospital on July 6. Two additional surgeries were required to correct the conditions caused by the infection and perforated bowel. Additionally, Sue was treated by a pulmonologist and received respiratory therapy for a period of six months due to conditions caused by the severe pneumonia she had developed while in the hospital. At no time was Sue informed that a nurse claimed to have seen Dr. Sears perforate Sue’s bowel. Further, Sue is unaware of the nurse’s comment at all. Dr. Sears informed Sue that she was just one of those unfortunate people for whom those outside risks of complication occurred and that it is something that some- times “just happens” in medicine. On August 1, 2004 Sue contacted another physician for consultation because of her ongoing problems. This physician, Dr. Tootau, stated his opinion that Sue was the victim of gross malpractice. Sue immediately contacted an attorney and along with the information above, brought the following information with her to the initial meeting: Medical Bills (doctor, hospital, prescription, outpatient therapy) $347,516 Lost Wages $14,400 Pain & suffering Disfigurement Shortness of breath and lung pain causing inability to engage in even moderately strenuous sports or other physical activity Predisposition to pancreatitis (three episodes in 2002; four episodes in 2003, all requiring hospitalization one to four days) Inability to engage in normal marriage relationship resulting in divorce Additionally, Sue claimed to have seen Dr. Sears in a local restaurant recently where she observed him order four alcoholic drinks in a period of less than 90 minutes. She also claims her brother Marty smelled alcohol on Dr. Sears breath when he came out of surgery to report Sue’s condition to the family. The attorney is familiar with Dr. Sears and is aware that he lost privileges at a different hospital two years prior to Sue’s surgery as a result of staff smelling alcohol on his breath and an appearance of impairment. However, the attorney also knows that another member of his firm has seen Dr. Sears many times at Alcoholics Anonymous® meetings.