Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 764 N.E.2d 35 (2002) 198 Ill.2d 420 261 Ill.Dec. 744 I. Procedure. a.

Who are the parties? i. Andrina Hansens estate administrator, Mt. Sinai Hospital, one of her treating nurses and later Baxter Healthcare Corporation. b. Who brought the action? i. The administrator of Andrinas estate. c. In what court did the case originate? i. The circuit court of Cook County. d. Who won at the trial-court level? i. The hospital and attending nurse settled before trial on the malpractice charge for $2,880,000. The plaintiff won at trial level against Baxter and was awarded $18,047,000 e. What is the appellate history of the case? i. The case was applealed and the appellate court found the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict. ii. The appellate court refused to disturb the verdict except to reduce the judgment amount. iii. 309 Ill.App.3d 869, 243 Ill. Dec. 270, 723 N.E.2d 302. iv. Case did go to the Illinois Supreme Court. Facts. a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? i. Andrina Hansen Suffered an air embolism because an intravenous tube became detached from a catheter inserted into her jugular vein. ii. The embolism caused brain damage and paralysis. iii. Andrina died a little more than five years later iv. The administrator of Andrinas estate filed medical malpractice claims in the circuit court of Cook County against the hospital and one of her treating nurses. v. He later added survival and wrongful-death claims based on a products liability theory against its manufacturer Baxter healthcare Corperation. vi. Baxter designs, manufactures and distributes IV tubing sets to hospitals nationwide. vii. These IV sets are prescription medical devices used to deliver fluids consisting of tubing and a connector. viii. There are two types of connectors: friction-fit and luer-lock ix. In March 1991, Andrina was admitted to Mt. Sinai Hospital for treatment of stomach ulcers. x. Following successful sx, fluids were administered intravenously to Andrina through her jugular vein. A procedure know as a central line application.

II.

xi. The baxter friction-fit connecter used to connect the IV tube to a catheter came apart, causing Andrina to suffer a seizure. xii. She also suffered an air embolism resulting in brain damage, paralysis and, ultimately, death. xiii. The administrator's complaint alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the tubing was unreasonably dangerous because it was designed, manufactured, and sold without a Luer-lock connection; (2) the friction-fit connection failed when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner; and (3) Baxter failed to warn of the likelihood of unintentional disconnection and the need to use tubing equipped with the Luer-locking device. xiv. According to Margaret Foss, a registered nurse and Baxter vice-president, Baxter was aware at the time Andrina was injured that friction-fit connectors sometimes failed due to patient movement. Foss admitted that this could cause air embolisms in central line applications. She conceded that friction-fit connectors were inadequate for central line use and that, in such instances, medical professionals should use Luer-locks. xv. She testified, however, that Baxter did not encourage sales representatives to recommend Luer-locks for central line applications. Instead, Baxter simply made both products available to its customers xvi. Baxter's sales representatives provided similar testimony. For example, one representative admitted that she knew prior to Andrina's injury that friction-fit IV sets could unintentionally disconnect and should not be used in central line applications. xvii. Birenda Lal, Baxter's chief engineer in charge of the IV product line, was called as an adverse witness. He testified that friction-fit connectors could accidentally disconnect. He also stated that friction-fit connectors were being used in central lines and agreed that an air embolism could result if they became disconnected. For this reason, he recommended using Luerlocks in central line applications. He added, however, that Baxter did not advise hospitals to use one product or the other, and Baxter had not developed and marketed Luer-locks to prevent accidental disconnections or to increase patient safety. xviii. Lal testified that adding Luer-locks to all connectors was technically feasible and would add between three and five cents to the cost of each unit. xix. Neil Sheehan testified as plaintiff's expert witness without objection. Sheehan is a mechanical engineer and had worked for several companies that developed and sold IV components. Sheehan had personally designed and, in some cases, patented medical devices, including IV equipment. He explained that the main problem with using a friction-fit connector was that the amount of force needed to disconnect it depended on several factors, including (1) the force used to connect it; (2) its composition; (3) the method used to sterilize it; and (4) variations in molding. xx. Sheehan also described the technical aspects of the Luer-lock. He stated that a Luer-lock prevents the accidental disconnection of IV lines and that it is four to five times stronger than a friction-fit. In order to disconnect a

xxi.

xxii.

xxiii.

xxiv.

xxv.

xxvi.

xxvii.

xxviii. xxix. xxx.

Luer-lock without unscrewing it, the components would have to be pulled apart with great force until the threads on one component tore Dr. William Schumer, chief of surgery at Mt. Sinai Hospital, testified that decisions regarding the purchase of medical supplies were made by a nursing products committee. He said that Luer-locks were not used at Mt. Sinai prior to the incident, and he believed that most hospitals did not use them at that time. The chair of the nursing products committee at Mt. Sinai testified that the hospital staff relied on product manufacturers to advise them of the appropriate uses for their products. The nurse responsible for the actual purchase and distribution of medical supplies at Mt. Sinai stated that at the time of Andrina's injury she did not know the difference between a friction-fit connector and a Luer-lock connector Dr. Ricky Maddox, a second-year resident in general surgery at Mt. Sinai at the time of Andrina's operation, testified that he placed the catheter in Andrina's jugular vein. Although he knew about using friction-fit connectors on IV tubing, he was unfamiliar with Luer-lock connectors. Dr. Henry Roztoczynski, Andrina's surgeon, testified that he was aware that friction-fit connectors could unintentionally disconnect and that Luerlock connectors were safe to use in central lines. He never mentioned Luer-lock connectors to his colleagues at Mt. Sinai and did not advocate their use prior to the incident involving Andrina. Baxter presented testimony from two expert witnesses first William McVay a medical device consultant with a degree in mechanical engineering testified as an expert witness. He acknowledged that Baxter was aware of the danger of using friction fit connectors in central lines but Baxter was not obligated to reveal this information. Kathleen Medica, a registered nurse with a master's degree, testified as an expert witness for Baxter. In her opinion, a friction-fit connector was much more likely to fail than a Luer-lock, although she did not know whether this was a well-known complication in the field. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a general verdict for the decedent's estate. The trial court denied Baxter's post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Baxter then appealed

b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion? i. The only fact I would like to know is why at the time if the company knew the risks of a friction lock IV then why were they not required to disclose possible complications. III. Issues. a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?

i. Duty to warn ii. Malpractice iii. Survival and wrongful-death based on product liability b. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues? i. I agree with how the court framed the issues because an innocent woman died because a company did not warn of possible complication from a friction IV. The pt who suffered from the embolism had a successful sx if it wasnt for the improper use of an IV Ms. Hansen would still be alive. IV. Holding. a. What is the courts precise holding (decision)? i. On the count of malpractice and wrongful-death those were settled before trial by Mt. Sinai Hospital ii. On the count of product liability theory the court found for the plaintiff and awarded $18,047,000 b. What is its rationale for that decision? i. The rational behind the decision is the defendant had a duty to warn of possible complications due to the friction IV. c. Do you agree with that rationale? i. I agree with rational because as a manufacturer if you know your product in inferior to another and can cause serious complications you have a duty to warn of those complications. Implications. a. What does the case mean for healthcare today? i. Today this case means there has to be stricter labeling and warnings when it comes to medical equipment. b. What were its implications when the decision was announced? i. When the decision was announced it meant companies had a duty to warn if they knew of any possible complications with their devices. c. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications? i. Healthcare administrators need to really do their homework when it comes to selecting medical devices. They need to make sure they are choosing the safest product to advert any liability on their part. d. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently? i. If the case had been decided differently it would mean that if a company knew about adverse effects of a particular product they would not have to disclose their knowledge.

V.