Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/845926.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,404 chars

I can only imagine how hard it would be to let a faculty member go.
However, she has repeatedly provided evidence that she should not be
providing tertiary nor in my opinion secondary rhinology care.

-9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/10

In response, Dr. Futran sought feedback about Dr. Litvack from male colleagues, Dr.

Merati and Dr. Humphreys, who shared concerns about Dr. Litvack’s capability and

clinical judgment.

In contrast, Dr. Litvack described the epistaxis case as consistent with ESC

practices:

I evaluated a new patient on an irreversible blood thinner who presented
with spontaneous epistaxis while at home. This was not an established
patient of the Department, nor had this patient undergone surgery by
myself nor any of my former partners. It was, and remains, my
professional medical opinion that this patient should have been directed
by ESC staff to an emergency room when they called to make an
appointment. It furthermore remains my professional medical opinion and
standard of care that a patient on irreversible blood thinners with ongoing
epistaxis requires intervention beyond the scope of what is typically
available in a stand-alone clinic setting. When I had the opportunity to
evaluate this patient face to face, I had a professional obligation and
committed to care for him to the best of my ability.