PDA

View Full Version : Woman Becomes Quadruple Amputee After Giving Birth


jAZ
01-22-2006, 12:11 PM
Holy hell that sucks...

http://www.wftv.com/news/6253589/detail.html

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0119/6251759_240X180.jpg

POSTED: 5:59 pm EST January 19, 2006
UPDATED: 4:06 pm EST January 20, 2006

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Sanford mother says she will never be able to hold her newborn because an Orlando hospital performed a life-altering surgery and, she claims, the hospital refuses to explain why they left her as a multiple amputee.

The woman filed a complaint against Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, she said, because they won't tell her exactly what happened. The hospital maintains the woman wants to know information that would violate other patients' rights.

Claudia Mejia gave birth eight and a half months ago at Orlando Regional South Seminole. She was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center in Orlando where her arms and legs were amputated. She was told she had streptococcus, a flesh eating bacteria, and toxic shock syndrome, but no further explanation was given.

The hospital, in a letter, wrote that if she wanted to find out exactly what happened, she would have to sue them.

"I want to know what happened. I went to deliver my baby and I came out like this," Mejia said.

Mejia said after she gave birth to Mathew last spring, she was kept in the hospital with complications. Twelve days after giving birth at Orlando Regional South Seminole hospital, she was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center where she became a quadruple amputee. Now she can not care for or hold her baby.

"Yeah, I want to pick him up. He wants me to pick him up. I can't. I want to, but I can't," she said. "Woke up from surgery and I had no arms and no legs. No one told me anything. My arms and legs were just gone."

Her 7-year-old son, Jorge, asks his mother over and over what happened to her. Neither she nor her husband has the answer.

"I love her, so I'll always stick with her and take it a day at a time myself," said her husband, Tim Edwards.

The couple wants to know how she caught streptococcus, during labor or after. She doesn't know. She knows she didn't leave the hospital the same.

"And why, I want to know why this happened," she said.

Her attorney, Judy Hyman wrote ORHS a letter saying, according to the Florida statute, "The Patients Right To Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act," the hospital must give her the records.

"When the statute is named 'Patients Right To Know,' I don't know how it could be clearer," Hyman said.

The hospital's lawyers wrote back, "Ms. Mejia's request may require legal resolution." In other words, according to their interpretation of the law, Mejia has to sue them to get information about herself.

That's the sticking point, the interpretation of the Patients Right To Know act, a constitutional amendment Florida voters passed a little more than a year ago.

Mejia's other attorney, E. Clay Parker, said the hospital is not following the law

"We were forced to file this and ask a judge to interpret the constitutional amendment and do right," Parker said.

Mejia hopes the right thing is done. She said not knowing exactly why it happened is unbearable. She only hopes she'll be able to soon answer her little boy's question, 'What happened?'

"He told me everyday, 'What happened,' and I don't have any answers for that," she said.

ORMC said Mejia is requesting information on if there were other patients or someone on her floor with the streptococcus. They said, if they release that to her, that would be a violation of other patients' rights.

Copyright 2006 by wftv.com.

SLAG
01-22-2006, 12:13 PM
Germany Or Florida ...


Great Game

4th and Long
01-22-2006, 12:16 PM
The hospital, in a letter, wrote that if she wanted to find out exactly what happened, she would have to sue them.
Even though the hospital is HORRIBLY wrong with that statement, by all means, I'd sue them silly. Your patient's bill of rights DOES give you access to your medical records. I'd say she's about to be one wealthy woman.

SLAG
01-22-2006, 12:18 PM
Even though the hospital is HORRIBLY wrong with that statement, by all means, I'd sue them silly. Your patient's bill of rights DOES give you access to your medical records. I'd say she's about to be one wealthy woman.


HIPAA is a Joke

mlyonsd
01-22-2006, 12:19 PM
Uck. What a depressing article. Thanks for ruining my morning jAZ.

Bob Dole
01-22-2006, 12:24 PM
HIPAA is a Joke

What's the punchline?

SLAG
01-22-2006, 12:25 PM
What's the punchline?


its in my sig

4th and Long
01-22-2006, 12:30 PM
HIPAA is a Joke
I disagree. The Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Title II) require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health plans, and employers. It also addresses the security and privacy of health data. Adopting these standards improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in health care.

Oxford
01-22-2006, 12:50 PM
I disagree. The Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Title II) require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health plans, and employers. It also addresses the security and privacy of health data. Adopting these standards improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in health care.

Yada - Yada - Yada. It is the interpretation of the act that causes the problem, because the thing is written so broadly that anything can be a violation. They can't even post full patients names on the surgery schedule anymore because someone legitimately in the department but not directly involved in the care of a patient may see their name.

A worthy goal gone awry........... what else is new?

Bowser
01-22-2006, 12:52 PM
So basically, the hospital ****ed up roayally, and is making this woman and her family jump through as many hoops as possible to find out what she should legally already know. What a joke.

Hell of a way to become a millionaire. At least she'll have the money to be able to see that her children are taken care of.

FAX
01-22-2006, 12:54 PM
This whole thing sucks so bad, it's beyond my ability to think through. It is quite common to acquire infections in hospitals, but this? Letting it go to the point that her arms and legs require amputation? All of them?

This may be one of the saddest ****ing things I've ever read.

FAX

SLAG
01-22-2006, 12:57 PM
I disagree. The Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Title II) require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health plans, and employers. It also addresses the security and privacy of health data. Adopting these standards improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in health care.

The people accessing the electronic data and the security of the data is what i find funny

chiefsfaninNC
01-22-2006, 01:23 PM
So basically, the hospital ****ed up roayally, and is making this woman and her family jump through as many hoops as possible to find out what she should legally already know. What a joke.

Hell of a way to become a millionaire. At least she'll have the money to be able to see that her children are taken care of.


What I am reading between the lines is that she caught something transferred from another patient in the same hospital. Because of hippa it is illegal for the hospital to give out the info.

jAZ
01-22-2006, 01:50 PM
What I am reading between the lines is that she caught something transferred from another patient in the same hospital. Because of hippa it is illegal for the hospital to give out the info.
They are refusing (it seems) to give her her own records. They could quite easily give her her own and where it overlaps with someone else's rights, then stop there and wait for the courts to handle it.

It's not like they have to give out the identify of the person they believe had the infection she acquired in order to tell her definitively that someone else in the hospital had the infection on or near the day she was there.

4th and Long
01-22-2006, 01:53 PM
What I am reading between the lines is that she caught something transferred from another patient in the same hospital. Because of hippa it is illegal for the hospital to give out the info.
She was there to give birth. It is highly unlikely she had time to catch anything, and even if she did, it did not have enough time to do the damage the hospital is suggesting.