The physician thought for a moment. He knew there was no one in the office that spoke Chinese, so he would be unable to speak to the girl’s parent. “I’m sending you home with two prescriptions – one to help with the queasiness and the other is an anti-depressant to help you feel better, happier. It’s important that you take them as prescribed. I want you to come back here in four weeks for a follow-up. If at any time you feel worse, I want you to call the clinic right away – okay?”

The teen nodded and left, and Dr. P moved on to his next patient.

Three weeks after seeing Dr. P, and a week before her follow-up appointment, Miss C hanged herself with a belt. She was discovered by her mother and brother and rushed to the hospital, but she had suffered catastrophic brain injury and required round the clock care. She died 3 years later and her parents sought the counsel of a plaintiff’s attorney who took on the case against Dr. P.


Continue Reading

Dr. P was shocked and saddened to hear about what happened to the girl, and to find that he was being blamed. He met with the defense attorney provided by his insurance company. “I don’t believe I did anything wrong,” he told the attorney. “I prescribed appropriate medication for the patient. I think it was her situation – the divorce – that was the real culprit.”

Legal Background

The case slowly proceeded to trial. Depositions were held. Experts were hired.

At trial, the plaintiff argued that fluoxetine should not have been prescribed because Miss. C was not showing signs of clinical depression. The plaintiff also pointed out via experts that the FDA had issued a black box warning regarding the use of fluoxetine in adolescents – specifically that it increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior. In an impassioned closing argument, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that Dr. P should never have prescribed the antidepressant to Miss C without speaking to her parents or explaining the warnings directly to her.

The defense argued that the clinical evaluation for depression supported the diagnosis. The defense also noted that the suicide attempt immediately followed a breakup with the patient’s boyfriend and a fight with her father.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and awarded over $3 million.

Related Articles

Protecting Yourself

The time pressure felt by Dr. P caused him to overlook communication options with the patient’s father. If he couldn’t find an employee who spoke the language, he could have used the computer to translate the basics for the father, or at the very least had the father come into the exam room and have the patient do the translation. Not properly communicating with a 15 year old’s parent when prescribing an antidepressant was extremely unwise.

As the plaintiff’s attorney pointed out, there is a black box warning for fluoxetine regarding the risk of suicidal behavior in adolescents. Dr. P should clearly have told the patient to be aware of this, and should have made the parent aware of it as well. A different choice of antidepressant might have been made, or better yet, Dr. P should have considered referring the patient to a psychologist or psychiatrist for an assessment. Perhaps the teen could have been helped with talk therapy. The best option is not always prescribing something, although this is often what patients want and expect.

The bottom line in this case is this: take the time you need to adequately assess your patient, or face the consequences.