Steff Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 http://www.wftv.com/news/6253589/detail.html Woman Becomes Quadruple Amputee After Giving Birth POSTED: 5:59 pm EST January 19, 2006 UPDATED: 4:06 pm EST January 20, 2006 ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Sanford mother says she will never be able to hold her newborn because an Orlando hospital performed a life-altering surgery and, she claims, the hospital refuses to explain why they left her as a multiple amputee. The woman filed a complaint against Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, she said, because they won't tell her exactly what happened. The hospital maintains the woman wants to know information that would violate other patients' rights. Claudia Mejia gave birth eight and a half months ago at Orlando Regional South Seminole. She was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center in Orlando where her arms and legs were amputated. She was told she had streptococcus, a flesh eating bacteria, and toxic shock syndrome, but no further explanation was given. The hospital, in a letter, wrote that if she wanted to find out exactly what happened, she would have to sue them. "I want to know what happened. I went to deliver my baby and I came out like this," Mejia said. Mejia said after she gave birth to Mathew last spring, she was kept in the hospital with complications. Twelve days after giving birth at Orlando Regional South Seminole hospital, she was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center where she became a quadruple amputee. Now she can not care for or hold her baby. "Yeah, I want to pick him up. He wants me to pick him up. I can't. I want to, but I can't," she said. "Woke up from surgery and I had no arms and no legs. No one told me anything. My arms and legs were just gone." Her 7-year-old son, Jorge, asks his mother over and over what happened to her. Neither she nor her husband has the answer. "I love her, so I'll always stick with her and take it a day at a time myself," said her husband, Tim Edwards. The couple wants to know how she caught streptococcus, during labor or after. She doesn't know. She knows she didn't leave the hospital the same. "And why, I want to know why this happened," she said. Her attorney, Judy Hyman wrote ORHS a letter saying, according to the Florida statute, "The Patients Right To Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act," the hospital must give her the records. "When the statute is named 'Patients Right To Know,' I don't know how it could be clearer," Hyman said. The hospital's lawyers wrote back, "Ms. Mejia's request may require legal resolution." In other words, according to their interpretation of the law, Mejia has to sue them to get information about herself. That's the sticking point, the interpretation of the Patients Right To Know act, a constitutional amendment Florida voters passed a little more than a year ago. Mejia's other attorney, E. Clay Parker, said the hospital is not following the law "We were forced to file this and ask a judge to interpret the constitutional amendment and do right," Parker said. Mejia hopes the right thing is done. She said not knowing exactly why it happened is unbearable. She only hopes she'll be able to soon answer her little boy's question, 'What happened?' "He told me everyday, 'What happened,' and I don't have any answers for that," she said. ORMC said Mejia is requesting information on if there were other patients or someone on her floor with the streptococcus. They said, if they release that to her, that would be a violation of other patients' rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 This actually illustrates a very interesting part of our health care system...doctors aren't exactly required to give patients full information about their conditions. In many cases, the only way a patient can get full information about their treatment from the doctor is to in fact file a malpractice suit, simply to make use of the disclosure requirements of the courts. It's disturbing...but that's how the law is written right now. All she wants is the information on her case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) All she wants is the information on her case. Pretty reasonable considering she has no more arms and legs as a result of a condition they claim, but can't confirm to her, that she had. And I dunno what the rules are in Florida.. but BEFORE surgery can be performed here in Illinois the patient must sign a release, and if they can't, then the next of kin does, and they have a witness also sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 That just blows my mind that she would have to sue to find out why they did that. If she had flesh eating bacteria all and toxic shock syndrome, dont you think she would have had an idea about it before she went into labor? Holy cow, this scares the hell out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxhawks Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 the hospital is basically daring her to sue them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 probably caught something from the hospital while she was giving birth. LAWSUIT!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Yeah man id so sue that hospital for all its worth...... especially since they wont even tell her why she had to lose her arms and legs wtf is with that.... I can understand doctors holding back some information in some cases but this is too much.... And yeah you would think someone would have to sign a paper or something for the hospital to do all that to her..... I hope we find out what the story behind all this is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 That is about the most brutal thing I have ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSouthSider59 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Cheesis K Reist, now that's pretty f***ed up.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 10:31 PM) That is about the most brutal thing I have ever read. I couldn't have said it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Did nobody read the last line: ORMC said Mejia is requesting information on if there were other patients or someone on her floor with the streptococcus. They said, if they release that to her, that would be a violation of other patients' rights. She shouldn't have free reign of other people's records. Yes, she should be able to see her own record, but not other patients without a court order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) Did nobody read the last line: She shouldn't have free reign of other people's records. Yes, she should be able to see her own record, but not other patients without a court order. Balta said as much - that there has to be protection of other patients' privacy and sometimes a lawsuit is required to force hospital compliance with the request. But that said, I don't see how the hospital answering the general question of whether some other patient(s) had streptococcus without revealing any identifying information about the other patient(s). At its heart, this seems like the hospital playing it very carefully so as not to open themselves up to more culpability than they are already facing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:33 AM) At its heart, this seems like the hospital playing it very carefully so as not to open themselves up to more culpability than they are already facing. And I don't have a problem with that. What do they tell you to do when you're in a car accident? Say nothing! Admit no fault! That's all the hospital is doing. Balta was talking about her wanting her own records. He didn't say anything about other patients' records. Edited January 24, 2006 by mreye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) And I don't have a problem with that. What do they tell you to do when you're in a car accident? Say nothing! Admit no fault! That's all the hospital is doing. Balta was talking about her wanting her own records. He didn't say anything about other patients' records. I don't disagree, but hanging their hat entirely on patient privacy is a bit disingenuous imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 06:48 AM) Did nobody read the last line: She shouldn't have free reign of other people's records. Yes, she should be able to see her own record, but not other patients without a court order. I don't think that's what she wants. From the article and the quote from the hospital they claim she has to sue them for HER records. She wants to know how she got the infection. If there was someone else with an infection. I don't see where she is asking for their personal information. Black out any info covered by the HIPPA laws, but good grief.. tell the woman the truth. Doesn't matter anyway. She's gonna win big, and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:38 AM) I don't disagree, but hanging their hat entirely on patient privacy is a bit disingenuous imo. Yes, but perfectly legal, I would assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Take this for what it's worth. I heard it at one time, but have nothing to back it up. The thing in the hospital that is responsible for the transfer of most staph infections is the TV remote control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) Take this for what it's worth. I heard it at one time, but have nothing to back it up. The thing in the hospital that is responsible for the transfer of most staph infections is the TV remote control. I heard that and bed rails. Gross thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.