FARMINGTON – A Franklin County Superior Court jury returned a finding of no negligence on the part of a medical center relating to the death of a six-year-old in 2003, after two hours of deliberation.
Six of the nine-member jury found that the plaintiff in the case, the estate of Aidan Edwards, had failed to prove that the defendant, Western Maine Family Health Center, had been professionally negligent in regards to medical advice offered to Edwards’ mother, Ruth Lundy, some hours before Edwards’ death.
Susan Roberts, a registered nurse who had been working at the center in 2003, had been the one to speak with Lundy about her son’s condition over the phone. She reacted to the verdict by shaking Lundy’s hand and giving her a hug.
Edwards was six years old on April 25, 2003, when his body was discovered by his mother, Ruth Lundy, then living in Weld, that morning. Edwards, the medical examiner later found, had died sometime in late evening of April 24 or early morning of April 25. The examiner determined the boy had died as a result of “volvulus,” a condition in which part of the intestine twists and cuts off the blood flow to the organ, causing tissue to begin dying if not treated.
On April 24, Lundy contacted the center, then located in Farmington, telling a medical assistant that her son was lethargic and complaining of a stomach ache and abdomen pain, as well as vomiting, and wasn’t eating or drinking. The assistant made a note of the call and informed Roberts, who had been one of Edwards’ caregivers in the past.
Roberts attempted to call Lundy back twice and eventually discussed Edwards’ condition with Lundy, receiving a similar list of symptoms. She told Lundy to give Edwards small amounts of liquids and to bring him in to see a doctor the next morning. Lundy put Edwards to bed, last hearing from him at 11 p.m.
The autopsy revealed that Edwards had died after a length of his small intestine had wrapped around scar tissue generated by an appendectomy procedure three months earlier. As a result of the volvulus, Edwards became severely dehydrated and went into shock, experts believe.
Throughout the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney, John McArdle, argued that Roberts, knowing of the appendectomy, should have had Edwards come in for an immediate examination or have told Lundy to take her son to the emergency room. McArdle, through expert witness testimony provided by a registered nurse and pediatric surgeon, told the jury that had Edwards been seen in person by a medical professional, a serious abdominal complaint would have been diagnosed and treated. That treatment, he argued, would have likely been successful.
“If they had seen the boy they could see how bad the dehydration was,” McArdle said in his closing statement, “they could have treated the dehydration and they could have seen what was causing the dehydration.”
“It’s just not right to make a guess about the patient from two phone calls,” McArdle told the jury.
Mark Lavoie, representing the defendant, said that the symptoms given to Roberts were similar to the symptoms of stomach flu, a common ailment, and one that does not usually necessitate immediate medical attention. Lavoie argued that Roberts could not have anticipated a relatively rare condition such as volvulus, and that Lundy did not report any worsening in her son’s condition, or note any advent of “severe pain,” which typically accompanies volvulus and other conditions involving an infarction, or tissue death.
“This child sadly died,” Lavoie said, “of an extremely unusual condition that presented itself in an unusual way.”
Lavoie also pointed to the finding of a pre-litigation screening panel, consisting of a lawyer, registered nurse and an individual appointed by the state’s superior court system, which unanimously found Roberts and the center to have been not professionally negligent. He described Roberts, who now works in Boston, as a well-trained, caring medical professional whom Lundy had continued to visit with her two children following the 2003 death of Edwards.
The jury deliberated for roughly two hours before returning. Their verdict indicated that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had been professionally negligent. Six jury members were in accordance with the verdict and three were opposed. Unlike a criminal trial, the jury does not need to be unanimous, if six members agree on a verdict.
