June R. Husted, mother and next-of-kin of Todd F. Husted v. Everett Echols, III, M.D., Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

FILED
JUNE R. HUSTED, ) Nov. 15, 1995
mother and next-of-kin of )
TODD E. HUSTED, Deceased, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Davidson Sixth Circuit
) No. 89C-2247
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9507-CV-00286
EVERETT ECHOLS, III, M.D., )
)
Defendant/Appellee, )
)
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY,)
TENNESSEE, ET AL, )
)
Defendants. )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE THOMAS W. BROTHERS, JUDGE
JOSEPH H. JOHNSTON
P.O. Box 120874
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Lawrence E. Levine
Jill A. Hanson
LEVINE, MATTSON, ORR & GERACIOTI
210 Third Avenue, North
P.O. Box 190683
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-0683
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
JUNE R. HUSTED, )
mother and next-of-kin of )
TODD E. HUSTED, Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Davidson Sixth Circuit
) No. 89C-2247
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9507-CV-00286
EVERETT ECHOLS, III, M.D., )
)
Defendant/Appellee, )
)
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY,)
TENNESSEE, ET AL, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION
This is a suit for wrongful death by suicide allegedly resulting from negligence of the
defendant, a psychiatrist. After a jury could not agree upon a verdict, the Trial Judge directed
a verdict and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed and presented a single issue as
follows:
Whether the negligent misconduct of defendant Dr. Everett
Echols was a proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's
decedent, Todd Husted.
The record contains evidence from which the following facts could be found:
On May 30, 1988, deceased was incarcerated in the Metropolitan Jail of Metropolitan
Nashville. The defendant was employed to treat the inmates of the jail on a part time basis.
On May 31, 1989, defendant examined deceased, prescribed lithium, cogentin and amoxipen,
and ordered two blood tests for presence of drugs, one immediately and one seven days later.
One of the purposes of the first test was to ascertain the amount of antipsychotic medication
present in the blood of deceased prior to ingesting the drugs prescribed by defendant. One of
the purposes of the second test was to ascertain the blood level of medication resulting from
the ingestion of the drugs prescribed by defendant as a guide to the amount of drugs to be
prescribed thereafter.
-2-
On June 3, 1988, the mother of deceased mailed to the jail psychologist certain
medical and psychiatric records of deceased which listed four previous suicide attempts. On
June 7, 1988, the mother and the psychologist talked by phone. On the same date, the
psychologist conveyed to defendant the information received about previous suicide attempts.
On June 14, 1988, defendant renewed the same three prescriptions without re-
examining deceased or his medical records. On June 20, 1988, deceased committed suicide.
A test of his blood at that time showed no measurable content of lithium. No blood samples
were ever taken or tested as ordered by defendant. Deceased committed suicide while in a
psychotic state because of the lack of medication in his blood. Defendant had no idea of
whether deceased was taking the prescribed medications because he never saw any blood test
results.
The general rule is that a finding of negligence of a physician must be based upon
competent expert testimony of "the recognized standard of acceptable medical practice in the
profession and specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in
which he practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action
occurred." T.C.A. Section 29-26-115. Stokes v. Leung, Tenn. App. 1982, 651 S.W.2d 704.
There is evidence in this record to support a jury finding that the death of deceased
was due, at least in part, to the negligence of defendant. Dr. James F. Hooper, a qualified
psychiatrist, testified in part as follows:
A. Dr. Echols saw this man, evaluated him, decided
that he was psychotic, and started him on medication. He put
him on medications for a 14-day period.
He re-prescribed that medication without seeing the
patient, without reviewing the chart, without looking at any of
the lab data that he had ordered, relying, basically, on the word
of someone that worked at the jail who said this guy seems to
be doing okay. And I think that's below a reasonable standard
of care.
....
-3-
THE WITNESS: At a minimum, Dr. Echols
should have re-examined the patient, before he re-prescribed
the medication.
He had ordered some lab tests. They had not come
back. He did not bother to find out whether these lab tests had
been done or not, or what the results were, so he had no idea as
to whether his Lithium level was high, low, or what.
He had been advised by his supervisor, according to this
hypothetical, that he should see the patient and reevaluate him.
He did not reevaluate him.
He had expressed an interest in receiving further
history. He had not reviewed any further history, either from
the medical chart, or a direct phone call to Dr. Husted, the
patient's mother, herself a psychologist, or even communicating
with Mr. Trageser, to see if there were other records available.
Somebody just said the patient seems like they're doing
okay, so he re-prescribed the medications.
....
A. I believe that Todd Husted's suicidal behavior
made him a clearly foreseeable suicide risk, and that Dr.
Echols' failure to adequately evaluate and treat Todd Husted
was a direct proximal cause of his death by suicide.
In a jury case, the issues of negligence and proximate cause are generally for the jury.
Such issues may be pre-empted by the Trial Judge only where the evidence and reasonable
inferences therefrom are so free of conflict that all reasonable minds would agree with the
decision of the Trial Judge. Williams v. Brown, Tenn. 1993, 860 S.W.2d 854, 857.
Defendant insists that the proof of proximate cause was incomplete because there was
no evidence that the suicide of deceased was foreseeable. On June 14, 1988, when defendant
re-prescribed medication without seeing deceased or his record, the record, if examined,
would have included a letter from the psychologist-mother of deceased narrating his history
of attempted suicide and self-mutilation.
Under the circumstances, it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant and dismiss
the suit.
-4-
The judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit against this defendant is reversed
and vacated, and the cause is remanded for a new jury trial. Costs of this appeal are taxed
against the defendant-appellee.
Reversed and Remanded.
_______________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
_____________________________________
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
_____________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
-5-