Malpractice Issues in Radiology:Res Ipsa Loquitur

Abstract

1475 phy, most likely due to contamination of the contrast medium or spinal needle used for the myelography. The plaintiff’s expert asserted that the fault lay with the radiologist or technologists under his supervision at the time. The expert witness retained by the defense, in his deposition, disagreed that the defendant–radiologist was responsible for the complication that arose from the myelographic procedure. The expert pointed out that the myelogram kit or the contrast medium itself may have been contaminated with the S. bovis bacteria before they were placed in the hands of the defendant–radiologist. The expert went on to testify that, although unusual, S. bovis infection secondary to a myelogram is a known risk of the procedure and can occur without negligence. He also added that the bacteria could possibly have already been in the patient’s bloodstream and that the meningitis simply had not become symptomatic until the time of the myelography. After completion of the depositions of both expert witnesses, the defendant–radiologist, and other individuals who were involved with the myelogram CT procedure, the defense attorney moved for dismissal of the lawsuit, asserting that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support the res ipsa theory. The trial judge agreed with the defense attorney’s argument and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff then appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.