Court of Appeals reinstates malpractice suit in child’s death

Listen to this article

In Brief

• Minnesota Court of Appeals revived medical malpractice claims against Olmsted Medical Center and Dr. Luke Hunter.
• The lawsuit stems from the death of 3-year-old D-Angelo Pitchford after leaving the emergency room without treatment.
• Appeals court found expert reports sufficiently established a causal link between alleged negligence and the child’s death.
• Court ruled the district court applied an overly demanding causation standard at the expert-disclosure stage.

A lawsuit against Olmsted Medical Center in Rochester has been reinstated by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The hospital will face medical malpractice claims related to the death of a young child.

D-Angelo Pitchford was just 3 years old when he began vomiting a substance that looked like coffee grounds. His mother, Andreja Pavlovic, called the triage nurse line, and she was advised to bring D-Angelo to the emergency room. The father, Darius Pitchford, took him to Olmsted Medical Center (OMC), and a blood test revealed a high white blood cell count. There was difficulty in obtaining that sample, and staff at OMC advised Pitchford that they needed more blood work. Pitchford was confused about how a high white blood cell count was identified since he was under the impression that no blood was obtained from his son because of the difficult blood draw.

Pitchford refused to allow nurses to start an IV. Citing the difficult blood draw, Pitchford said he did not want his son to be unnecessarily poked. Pitchford also became frustrated with what he perceived to be medical staff being lazy. During this time, Pitchford gave D-Angelo water, and D-Angelo vomited it up.

Dr. Luke Hunter explained to Pitchford that the white blood cell count was high, but Pitchford refused further blood work, asserting that he thought that the doctor was lying to him. Pitchford explained that he wanted to leave OMC.

Hunter advised Pitchford that leaving the ER could result in his son’s death, something he advises any patient who leaves against medical advice. In his notes, Hunter reported that he was very concerned when he examined D-Angelo and feared D-Angelo might be in danger if he left without additional examination.

However, Pitchford wanted to leave because he felt that the doctor was “nonchalant” about the situation. They returned home, and Pitchford and Pavlovic decided to get a couple of hours of sleep before taking D-Angelo to a children’s hospital in the morning. Pavlovic put D’Angelo in bed with her, and she discovered him deceased two hours later.

D-Angelo died from complications from a paraduodenal hernia. D’Angelo’s grandmother, Cynthia Pitchford, filed suit, alleging medical malpractice by OMC and Hunter and violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) by OMC. Respondents claimed an insufficient outline of causation. The district court dismissed, finding that the grandmother did not comply with expert-identification requirements.

However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed the medical malpractice claims. Under Minn. Stat. section 145.682, those asserting medical malpractice actions must provide expert disclosures identifying qualified experts, explaining the applicable standard of care, describing how the defendant violated that standard, and outlining a specific chain of causation linking the violation to the injury. If the disclosures contain only conclusory assertions or fail to adequately establish a prima facie case, the court must dismiss the malpractice claim with prejudice after the statutory notice-and-cure procedures are followed.

D-Angelo’s grandmother argued that the district court applied an improperly demanding causation standard, requiring a level of detail more appropriate for summary judgment than for the expert-disclosure stage. She maintained that her experts adequately established causation by asserting that the hospital and physician had a duty to report suspected medical neglect and involve law enforcement, which would have prevented D’Angelo’s removal from the emergency room.

The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s experts’ reports met the requirement for causation. The experts opined that the hospital’s failure to report the father’s medical neglect and involve law enforcement allowed the child to be removed from the emergency department before receiving treatment, leading to his death. They explained that immediate resuscitation, monitoring, diagnostic testing, and ultimately surgery would likely have stabilized and saved the child. The experts asserted that law enforcement would have promptly intervened to keep a critically ill pediatric patient in the hospital. The court found that the experts outlined a specific causal chain linking the alleged breach of duty to the child’s injuries and death.

The court also rejected the dismissal of the grandmother’s causation claims because the experts did not adequately specify timelines. The district court had required the expert reports to provide detailed predictions about law-enforcement response times and specific intervention outcomes. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found a plausible chain of causation sufficient.

Court of Appeals Judge Sarah Wheelock wrote, “The medical experts cannot be expected to attest to the response time of local law enforcement to reports of child abuse by OMC, nor can they be expected to testify to the legal authority for placing critically ill children in emergency departments on emergency holds. Both of these topics are simply outside the realm of a medical expert’s knowledge or expertise, and neither topic involves information requiring medical-expert testimony to help the jury decide the case.

“The medical experts cannot be expected to attest to the response time of local law enforcement to reports of child abuse by OMC, nor can they be expected to testify to the legal authority for placing critically ill children in emergency departments on emergency holds. Both of these topics are simply outside the realm of a medical expert’s knowledge or expertise, and neither topic involves information requiring medical-expert testimony to help the jury decide the case.”

Reversing the district court, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the claims by applying too high of a standard for causation at this stage of litigation. It revived the medical malpractice claims.