PROVIDENCE — A jury has awarded $2 million to a Warwick man who claimed he
suffered brain damage because he didn’t receive proper care after having open
heart surgery at Rhode Island Hospital in 1998.
Richard T. Barrett, 59, a self-employed contractor who lived in East
Greenwich at the time of the surgery, sued
The damage erased certain memories of his children, affected his ability to
form new memories, hampered his ability to make complex decisions and impaired
his ability to communicate, according to his lawyer.
“Every day is a challenge for him,” lawyer Daniel P. McKiernan said.
A Superior Court jury awarded Barrett $2 million on Friday following nearly
two days of deliberation and a 19-day trial before Judge Netti
C. Vogel. With interest, the award could total up to $3.6 million, according to
court documents.
“I believe justice was done,” Barrett said in a statement released by his
lawyer yesterday. “I feel vindicated. I want to thank the jury for approaching
their jobs with an open mind and for the respect they showed to the judge and
to me as a fellow citizen.”
David W. Carroll, a lawyer representing the hospital and the doctor, said he
plans to file a motion for a new trial, and if that is denied, he will pursue
an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“The care that was given was excellent,” Carroll said. “We are exceptionally
disappointed in the jury verdict. We believe there are solid grounds in favor
of our appeal.”
Barrett made the news last year when he appeared before the state Senate
Labor Committee during a debate over mandatory overtime at the state’s public and
private hospitals.
Barrett told legislators he has a distinct memory of a small boy running
around his
Barrett said the nurse seemed to be a “temporary” who came on after he heard
the nurses on the earlier shift talking about how many hours they had worked.
At the time, McKiernan said, “There was a walkout of nurses protesting
mandatory overtime,” and he said Barrett’s case was an example of how
“mandatory overtime has caused a number of otherwise avoidable lapses in care.”
In his lawsuit, Barrett claimed that a nurse or another staff member brought
a small child into the surgical intensive-care unit, and that the child
interfered with the equipment that was helping him breathe. Also, the suit
said, “This event was not recorded in Mr. Barrett’s chart.”
In their response to the lawsuit, the defendants denied “that any agent,
servant or employee of the defendants brought a child to work in the surgical
intensive care unit.” And, the defense said, “There is no reason to document an
event that did not occur.”
The allegation of a child being in the hospital room was not pursued during
the trial. When asked why it hadn’t been, McKiernan said, “It was a decision I
made as a trial attorney for reasons of keeping the case streamlined, and
ultimately I decided that who was there rendering the care was less significant
than the quality of the care that was rendered.”
McKiernan said Barrett ended up with brain damage because of a
“constellation of factors” over a three-day period at the hospital.
For example, he said Barrett was removed from a ventilator four hours after
surgery and immediately became agitated, which is “a classic sign” of low
oxygen. But, he said, there was no documented evidence that the problem was
medically investigated, and when his agitation increased the next day, Barrett
was given a sedative, which calmed him down but did nothing to improve his
oxygen levels. At one point, his blood gases were not checked for 13 hours and
Barrett ended up back on a ventilator, McKiernan said.
“By that time, his condition was worsening and becoming more complicated,
like a boulder rolling downhill,” McKiernan said.
Feng performed coronary artery bypass grafting
surgery on Barrett during the morning of Oct. 7, 1998. As the attending
physician, Feng did not provide minute-to-minute care
for Barrett, but he was ultimately responsible for that care, McKiernan said.
McKiernan said, “The case was well tried by my opposing counsel, David
Carroll and Dennis Carley. There were a great number
of very complex medical issues and a huge volume of testimonial and documentary
evidence. Justice was done in this case because of the efforts of the members
of the jury who dedicated themselves to the issues and took their oath very
seriously.”