A $150 Million Mistake Part 2

Voiceover: Every minute someone’s life takes a terrifying detour not down a dark alley, but into the sterile, bright halls of healing. They walk in seeking care and find themselves plunged into a nightmare. Most malpractice claims in hospitals are related to surgical errors, whereas most claims for outpatient care, which accounts for more than half of the paid malpractice claims, are related to missed or late diagnosis.    

Now, before you raise a pitchfork at every white coat you see, let’s be clear this isn’t an indictment. It’s a revelation. Because the truth is, any provider, any nurse, any human being capable of brilliance is also capable of a mistake. This is about understanding why and using that knowledge to build a safer future for every patient who walks through those doors.    

Welcome to Scrubs and Subpoenas: Tales from the Witness Stand, a podcast where we’ll peel back the sterile sheets and delve into the real stories of medical malpractice. Each episode a cautionary tale, a blueprint for change, a reminder that even in the darkest corners of human error, there’s a light. The light of knowledge, the light of empathy. The light of a future where healthcare becomes not a gamble, but a guarantee.    

So, joinus as we dissect the mistakes, illuminate the flaws, and ultimately learn to heal, not just bodies, but the very system itself.   

Jannah Amiel: Hello and welcome back to another episode of Scrubs and Subpoenas: Tales from the Witness Stand. I’m your host, Jonna Amiel and rejoining me is Dr. Wendy Wright. Dr. Wright, how are you? 

Wendy Wright: I’m great, thanks for having me back today. 

JA: Absolutely. Thanks for coming back. When we spoke last time-I mean, this is a whopper of a case and I’m really happy that you came back so we can dive in more to like, you know, what happened. So, for those of you who have listened to part one, I’m sure you are scratching/itching for part two and we’re going to really get into the clinical piece of it. So with that said, Dr. Wright, I’m going to ask, you know, we kind of touched on what happened. We know the story from kind of a high level, butI want to dig into the encounter.  

Like, can we start from the beginning and talk about all the things that potentially led up to the outcome of this case? 

WW: Absolutely. So, thank you again, everyone, for joining us. And I hope that you walk out of here not with an overwhelming fear, but but really what can I do to prevent myself from ever finding myself in that circumstance because we all make mistakes. So, for those of you who tuned into episode one, we focused a lot on scope of practice and making sure you’re credentialed where you are practicing, etc. 

So, we’re gonna kind of move away from that and we’re gonna talk about the clinical piece of this case. So, let’s set the stage. We have a family nurse practitioner working in a very rural setting in Oklahoma. 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: Maybe 4-bed ER, very small hospital, staffing the facility by herself, which is not unusual in rural America. So, in comes via ambulance, a 19-year-old young woman who had been with her 

boyfriend and had had a-was complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath and had had a syncopal episode. 

And according to court documents, and I can tell you these because I sat in the courtroom and heard this testimony, the patient was brought in by a paramedic who interacted with the nurse practitioner and said, ‘I’m very concerned that this could be a pulmonary embolus.’ This woman had been in a car accident a month or so before.  

So, the thought was, was there some injury that maybe predisposed her to a pulmonary embolism? So, the nurse practitioner evaluates this 19-year-old woman who, also by the way, is accompanied by her boyfriend and is also on oral contraceptives, another risk factor for pulmonary embolism. Evaluates this young woman and places an order for a CT scan, CTA of 

the chest to evaluate for pulmonary emboli. 

JA: Right. 

WW: So, at this point, everything is going according to plan, because there’s chest pain, there’s shortness of breath, you got a young woman on birth control. That is something we all need to think about. Now I will say that this case is from 2015. 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: And so, if it were now, I would say to all of you, think pulmonary emboli even more because of COVID and its influence on increasing fibrinogen, increasing D-dimer. So, moral of the story, Jannah, is we’re seeing more pulmonary emboli than we’ve ever seen in my entire career. So I need our listeners to be thinking of pulmonary emboli, particularly in this age group.  

JA: Okay. That’s scary. Yeah. 

WW: So this young woman gets up to go to the bathroom to collect a urine as part of the workup and has a syncopal episode in the bathroom. Hits her head. At that point, the nurse practitioner cancels the order and none of us can really understand what happens, but cancels the order for the CT of the chest and changes the CT order to CT of the head because of the syncopal episode. 

So, this is a very small facility and so, it takes a while. Can’t get-it’s not like being in a big teaching institution where you’re going to get a CT and a radiologist to read this within 10 minutes. Everyone’s there. I mean, this is a one staff person and an RN in an emergency room. 

JA: Yeah, like everybody’s there at the hospital at one time. Yeah. 

WW: So, in the meantime, laboratory labs are collected, including the urine, the patient’s getting prepped to go off for the CT of the head and the urine comes back. 

And it shows methamphetamine, positive for methamphetamine. So, the NP interviews the boyfriend, the young woman, and the woman says, ‘I am not using drugs.’ And so, there’s this question of, is there truly amphetamines in our system or is this a false positive? So, plans are being made to get an additional urine, but what did not come out-if any of our listeners read the transcript of this case, you will not hear that this nurse practitioner placed an order to a large teaching hospital 40 miles away and spoke with a cardiologist about the chest pain, the findings on the EKG, the fact that she’s having syncopal episodes, and the fact that the urine came out positive for methamphetamine. 

And at this point, none of the testing, none of the imaging had been done. And the cardiologist, which did not come up in trial because we were prohibited from discussing the cardiologist because he was not named in the case, told the nurse practitioner to keep her in house and to let her sleep it off and to monitor her. 

So, meanwhile, all of this is kind of going on and the patient is getting worse. There’s more 

shortness of breath. There’s more chest pain. They’re waiting on the head CT to come back. And the NP places another call to the same cardiologist and is refused to transfer. Now, no imaging has been done. So, we’re now hours kind of into this adolescent 19-year-old woman’s stay in the ER. And so the NP admits her to a floor and is monitoring her on the floor of this hospital when she’s getting worse and she then calls a different facility, speaks to an advanced practice nurse practitioner who says, ‘You gotten imaging of this person’s chest? You need to get imaging.’ 

Does a CT, orders up the chest CT again and lo and behold, by the way, no D-dimer was done, which is part of what came out in the clinical in the case was that CT of the chest and a D-dimer should have been the first thing that was ordered up in someone with a suspected pulmonary emboli. And so it comes back grossly positive, a saddle emboli. 

And she then requests a transfer and they give her the transfer. This woman is transported down to a big teaching facility, arrives at around 3 o’clock in the morning and dies at 5:30 in the morning from a pulmonary-a saddle emboli and its sequelae. So, there were a lot of 

moving parts and I think what’s really important for our listeners to know is that none of these cases are cut and dry. 

JA: My God. Yeah. 

WW: Because if they’re cut and dry, it would have been over. I mean, everyone would have settled and said, you know- 

JA: That’s good point. 

WW: Right? And as ever as the books tell you it’s going to be. So, there were just a lot of these kind of moving parts in these and the nurse practitioner saying, ‘I’m trying to transfer this woman 

out,’ but no one will take her. And when you call and you speak to a specialist, you expect as a nurse practitioner that the guidance that you get from cardiology is going to be, you know, good guidance. And here it wasn’t. 

JA: Right. 

WW: And unfortunately, you know, the nurse practitioner paid the consequences and she was named in this over $150 million malpractice suit. And you think about this number, because this number is profound to all of us. How do you get to that number? Well, you take a 19 -year 

-old who lost their lives-lost her life, and then you take- 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: The lack of income, right? And you take the parents’ grief and the loss of consortium and all of that, and then you add punitive damages. And this is where the concern really was high for our client that I was working on, because if there’s punitive damages, no malpractice insurance covers that punitive damage. 

JA: I didn’t know that. 

WW: Yes, so malpractice covers up to the upper limits. Most of us carry a million. Some carry two million per incident, but they’ll cover up to one million per incident or two million, whatever 

your policy states. But if the jury says this was punitive, which basically means it’s done to punish the defendant because they were egregious in their management of that patient, then no malpractice insurance will cover. 

So, it would have been the responsibility of the hospital and all of the people who are being sued in this case. So punitive damages are very, very scary to any defendant because you’ve got to find a way to come up with that money. 

JA: Wow. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, the one thing, Wendy, that like sticks out and I’m curious, like if this ever came out in the case, because like I keep it’s repeating in my head, like an echo. Why did you forget about the chest, the scan? Like, like how did this get lost in the shuffle? And I, and I wonder like, if it’s one of those priority things that we learn, like, somebody fell and hit their head. Now that’s the bigger priority than the chest. Like what happened? 

WW: Right, right, and I wish I could tell you because here’s what also happened. In preparing this nurse practitioner for trial, her attorneys felt that she was not going to be a good witness. And so, what happened was they cut her loose before the trial. 

So, when it came to trial, all of the other defendants were assuming the liability, but they had released this nurse practitioner from all liability in order to spare her from being on the witness stand. Because the fear was that she was not going to be a witness that was going to be conducive to an okay settlement. So, we have no testimony from this nurse practitioner. 

But people around the RN that was working there basically said it was chaos and that there were a lot of families coming in and it was the middle of the night and she was just trying to figure it out. I don’t know because this nurse practitioner had a background in the ER and had a background as a paramedic, either an EMT or a paramedic prior. I think… 

You know, hindsight is 20/20 and Monday morning quarterbacking is always perfect, right? You always know what the outcome is gonna be after it’s happened. But it makes you wonder, sometimes maybe do we put on a blinder and ignore the bigger pieces and just look at what’s 

in front of you and it’s really hard, you know? 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: It’s really hard to understand what really happened and I don’t have an answer for our listeners. I wish I did. 

JA: And I think that makes it complicated for you. I imagine from your perspective as someone who serves as like an expert witness. I mean, this is the first time I’ve heard that they’ve done that type of stuff. I’m sure it happens more often than I even imagined, but it seems like it makes it more complicated without that piece for you to try to fill in what you can. 

WW: It certainly does make it more complicated. Now, just as a reminder, I was not an expert on standard of care here. I was an expert on was she credentialed appropriately and did she meet 

the criteria to be working in that setting? And what was very interesting was the person who was brought in to testify on standard of care was an emergency room physician. The ER, you know, everyone brings in their own, right? The defense is gonna bring in theirs, the experts gonna bring in theirs. 

JA: Right. 

WW: But the defense was able to find an ER physician who said that this nurse practitioner was working this and was responding to what was happening as it was going on in front of her. The patient did make it to the transfer facility and the patient was alive 2 hours after the transfer happened and she arrived on their scene. So, they were saying, you know, there was a lot of kind of back and forth about did this NP, you know, she really responsible for this? At the end of the day, it was around an 8-hour window of time that she was in the emergency room.  

Now, I don’t know what you see, but 8 hours in the ER is not unusual in today’s environment. It was a really tough case. We did have the evidence to support and refute on either side, but I just- 

JA: Absolutely. 

WW: I’m not sure truly what happened in that circumstance and why that CT of the chest was stopped. Yeah. 

JA: Yeah. And what about, you know, I’m curious about from like the patient’s history, like, did that come up at all in this type of case? Of course, you mentioned that she was taking oral contraceptives, which dings in my head clots, right? Like you think that that’s a risk factor for that. The meth seems like maybe like that plays a role or-doesn’t, I mean, it doesn’t seem like it directly correlates, but was that something that was like focused on during this time? 

WW: I mean, this is what the plaintiff alleged was that the nurse practitioner went down this meth road and ignored a lot of the other stuff that was kind of happening in the background and got hung up on methamphetamines in the urine. Now they did go ahead and do a repeat blood test. And by the time the patient left, there was no meth in her serum, but I think it just took up time. And for lack of better words, it took up highway space. 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: In this NP’s-kind of working up and going down that rhythm. You know, as I say to people, as I talk about this case is, ‘I’ve been there.’ I’ve been in an office and if you wouldn’t mind me digressing for one second, but I had a patient walk in, I was a new grad, 4 months out of school and she walked in for back pain and urinary symptoms. So, I start my conversation, ‘Tell me about your urine symptoms.’ ‘Well,I’m peeing more often.’ And so I keep going down this road, right? So I’m thinking UTI and then I said, ‘So, tell me about your back pain.’ She’s like well it wraps around front and I’ve started to exercise so I think I’ve pulled some muscles so I’m going down the exercise route.  

Well, thankfully someone was looking out for me because I said to her, ‘When was the first day of your last menstrual period?’ And she said, ‘About 3 or 4 months ago.’ I said, ‘Three or 4 months ago? Is that unusual?’ ‘No, I’m a regular all the time.’ Well I then said, ‘Tell me about this pain you’ve got.’ She said, ‘The weirdest thing is I can time it.’ I’m like, ‘Time it? What do you mean you can time it?’ She goes, ‘It’s every 5 minutes.’ 

I’m like, whoa, holy cow, buckle up and I’m not lying to you. I’m not making this case up. But I said to the nurse in the office, ‘Dip that urine, but please run a pregnancy test.’ And under the door comes this positive pregnancy. I went running out of there. I’m dripping sweat at this point. I’m gonna be- 

JA: No. No. God.  

WW: My gosh, every 5 minutes. So, I measure her fundal height. It’s 32 centimeters. So, I’m thinking, okay, she’s in premature labor. No, the head was crowning. I put her in the wheelchair and head over to the ER with the physician who’s shouting the whole time like, ‘Get her out of here. We don’t want her in internal med.’ I’m like, ‘I’m working on it. I’m working.’ It just really brings up the case she delivered within an hour of getting to the ER, just so you know. 

JA: No way. My gosh.  

WW: Full-term baby boy. So, I said to the physician that I was working with that day, do you think the board of nursing would have stripped me of my license had I prescribed the ciprofloxacin for a positive pyelo? He’s like, ‘Yup, probably.’ And it just makes the case like, you’ve got to follow-you follow what they tell you, but you’ve also got to keep in mind that overarching, ‘Okay, this is not making sense to me.’ 

JA: Yeah. Yes.  

WW: And start putting those pieces together. 

JA: My gosh, that is frightening. Good on you for getting her out. 

WW: It is frightening and I’m thankful we had a hospital. If I told you what the physician said when I told him she was pregnant and in labor, he’s like, ‘Get her out of here.’ ‘I am trying to get a wheelchair’ and help me but she literally was in labor and she said on the way to the ER,‘There’s no way I’m pregnant and there is no way I’m in labor.’ And my response was, ‘Tell it to the ER nurses.’ 

JA: Hahaha! Yeah. Right.  

WW: I’m going home and gonna have a stiff drink tonight. But yeah, I mean, was-you just have to follow what they tell you. And when it doesn’t make sense, you have to follow it more and you have to ask those questions. And if it requires that you have to do extra imaging and extra testing, you gotta do it. 

JA: Yes. And you know, this comes up often. This reminds me of Dr. Miller often says that like providers and practitioners can get anchored in a diagnosis, anchored in a thing. And to your point, Dr. Wright, like the blinders are on and all you can think about is that one thing and you’re missing all of this information that’s swirling around as well. 

WW: Listen, Dr. Miller is hands down much smarter than I am. And if she says you get anchored, that is so on point, so on point, because I think that’s absolutely true. You come in and you go, t’Tat’s what it is.’ But if I can add one little pearl to that, I always say in my clinic, when the bell in your head goes off, you listen to the bell. You have this inkling like- 

JA: No, yeah.  

WW: I wonder if it’s a pulmonary emboli. Listen to the sound in your brain and let go of your preconceived, ‘I think it’s this.’ Because that’s what gets people into trouble is they’re hanging on to what they thought it was and didn’t take a few extra minutes to kind of go down that additional road. But stop arguing with the bell. When it dings in your head, you got to respond. 

JA: Yeah. Yeah, I think that’s really smart advice. Now, something that you’d mentioned earlier, you put these things together, the 19-year-old taking that oral contraceptives, the thinking clots, the fact that the paramedic had mentioned that, thinking about COVID, you’re totally right. I had to even put that on my own radar. But are there standards today, standards of, think of like standing orders, say like, if this comes in with this, this, this. 

You must do this right away. Meaning that if today, if we had like a similar case in your opinion that kind of rolled into the ER, is there like a standard that says, hey, we need to do this CTA right now, like right now, D-dimer right now. 

WW: In America, the ER is known for protocols. They’re known for lab sets, imaging sets. And in 

fact, us in primary care always look at what the ER does and says, ‘Did they need to order 72 lab tests and 22 imaging?’ You know, it’s because they’ve got a set. 

JA: Yeah. Haha. 

WW: And when someone’s short of breath and having chest pain, there is a set and that includes CTAs. And so yes, there are protocols. In primary care, we’ve got algorithms, we’ve got guidelines, but it also requires that people slow down and do the research for that. We’ve got 

criteria that we can pop into apps. One of them that comes to mind is the Wells criteria. 

JA: Yes. Okay. 

WW: And how at risk is this patient for this to be a pulmonary emboli with these symptoms and you pop the stuff in and it tells you are they likely to have a clot or not. But no test is perfect, right? No screening tool is perfect or calculator. So, this is where we have to use our judgment as well. 

JA: That’s helpful. 

You know, and sometimes we talk about the number of tests and like diagnostics and things that are run on a patient. And like, I myself can think of the times that I’ve been in the ER working with physicians that have been like, ‘I just, I don’t know. I don’t know.’ So, they’re running more, they’re running more trying to find the thing. And sometimes I run into the encounters of working with like physicians or providers and practitioners that are like, I don’t 

want to keep ordering so much stuff. Like this is, this is just a lot. Is that something that-I mean, I imagine that there’s a back end rationale also that weighs in like insurance and reimbursements and stuff like that, that might play a role into your decision that you’re caring for a patient, you’re looking at this patient, you’re going through your list of to do’s and you’re just not quite sure and you want to order more tests, more tests, more tests.  

But is there something that that stops you that saying this is too much and now you got to go somewhere else? 

WW: Sure, so one of the advice that I give every nurse practitioner that works in my clinic is if you feel like you are having to piecemeal together, well, you need to go to the lab here and you 

need to go get this image here and we’re gonna do this additional test over here. If you’re feeling like you’re having to do that in an acute situation, that patient does not belong 20 miles from an ER, right? If- 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: If you’re-I just think of so many times where the nurse practitioners are like, okay, I need blood cultures and I need this. Well, by the time we get those back, the patient’s gonna be 

really bad. So, if you’re feeling like they need a CT and a chest X-ray and blood cultures and all kinds of labs, they probably are best not served 20 miles from an emergency room. 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: But you know what? The answer is absolutely yes. All of us try to be conscious. And we try not to order things that don’t need to be ordered. But at the end of the day, I-you know, this week I sent out a message on the portal to every one of my patients. And I do this once a year as a reminder of what healthcare is all about. And I said in this portal message, ‘Please remember that our job is your health. Our job is not to manage your cost, to manage 

your deductible. 

We will work with you on it, but if we make a recommendation, it’s because we feel it is in the best of your health. And we are very sorry that it is costly to you, but our job is to make sure 

that you are well and safe.’ 

JA: Yeah, that’s good. 

WW: I’m sorry it costs a lot of money. I know it personally and professionally that healthcare is expensive, but so too is losing someone’s life. So, I make a recommendation and I thank 

you for bringing this up because it does bring up one other point from a malpractice perspective and protection. I always say this is my recommendation for you. You can choose 

not to do it. 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: But I recommend it. If you choose not to do it, it is your own being. But I’m going to document that I recommended you have these three tests. I can tell you hands down, it’s a very different malpractice case working on a defense of an NP who said, ‘I wanted them to have these three tests. I followed up with them 2 days later. They said they weren’t going to do them.’ That’s all documented. Guess what? The patient is liable for that. 

JA: Right. Yeah.  

WW: And there’s going to be no case. No attorney is going to take that one on when it’s clearly documented based on guidelines. This is what you need to have. And then the clinic followed up with them and it’s documented that they said they’re not going. And despite that, we 

encourage them to go, but they’re not going. That’s a really easy defense. It’s not going to go 

anywhere. Nope. 

JA: Yeah. Yeah, we can’t force people to do things, right? But it’s super important that you have it documented that you did make that recommendation. 

WW: Absolutely. And I say this to patients all the time, ‘I can’t force you to do anything you don’t want to do. All I can do is tell you what the guidelines recommend and it’s your job to decide if 

that’s appropriate for your body or not. But just know, I’m going to document it. And I’m also going to drop into the chart a Z code called treatment refusal by patient.’ And that’s a very, very protecting code that it-and I write, we discussed the importance of the CT. I’m concerned about a pulmonary embolism and this patient is refusing to do so. I discussed the risks and I have a quick text created, but discuss the risk that this could be associated with death. And despite that patient is continuing to refuse. 

JA: I think that’s very smart. 

WW: And it’s a Z code. Everyone can search it up and it’s called treatment refusal by patient. There’s also one treatment refusal by parent if you’re dealing with a parent as well. It’s a really good protective code to use. 

JA: Wow. Yeah, no, that’s really good advice. You know, thinking about all the tests, I’m thinking about the nurse practitioner calling cardiologists, talking about like referring out things like that. In your opinion, do you think it would be appropriate, inappropriate rather, as I’m thinking about myself and putting myself in the scenario of being in the ER and trying to call out and like not 

getting any type of support or response or help to refer to somebody else? Like, all right, this person’s not helping me. I’m going to call, I’m calling Wendy. I’m gonna call somebody else. I’m gonna call somebody else. 

WW: Absolutely. And I worked with a physician that I would not have referred my animal to. But when that physician was on, I had to go to that physician. And when I didn’t get an answer, I called someone else. And because if I didn’t feel good about it, I just either called someone else or did what I thought I should do. Because you can’t argue coulda, shoulda in court. If I don’t feel good about it, even if a physician said, they don’t need to be transferred, I’ll pick up the phone. I encourage everyone listening- 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: Pick up the phone to a different facility. Talk to someone else because you talk about blinders. They have blinders too. 

JA: Yeah. That’s true. So, that is an appropriate thing to do. And that’s good because we talk about it pretty often about like, don’t forget to refer out. And if you don’t get the support or the 

answer at all, or you still feel like what you talked about, there’s something thinking in your head. You got to keep going. You got to keep moving forward. Yeah. 

WW: Or if you just, you want a next door opinion, right? You want, wanna just say, ‘This is what I’ve done. What am I missing?’ And don’t be afraid to use your resources. You know, I own this clinic. There’s 11 nurse practitioners. We don’t have physicians on site. And so when the NPs, the new ones say to me, ‘Well, what do I do?’ 

JA: Yeah. 

WW: I say,’You use your resources. You ask a peer who’s been here for 17 years. I’ve been here for 32. I can tell you if I haven’t seen it, probably a family physician hasn’t either. But if I don’t have an answer, then let’s call cardiology because there’s always someone on call. Let’s call hematology. There’s someone on call. Let’s use your resources and don’t be afraid. What’s the worst thing they can say to you? This was a ridiculous call. Well, who cares?’ 

JA: That’s right. 

WW: I did what I needed to do to make sure my patient was safe and that’s the most important thing at the end of the day and document it. Document that you spoke with them. 

JA: Right? Yes. Yes, very good. Dr. Wright, thank you so much. You know, before we wrap this up, this has been such a big story and I’m happy that we got to talk about this together and really work through not even just the clinical implications and like what happened and what that means, but the legal part that we just don’t always really understand how this comes together and how this plays a role in. But is there anything that you want to leave the audience with that’s 

listening that’s heard this story that guaranteed we’ve got some gaping mouths right now going, ‘My gosh, I can’t believe this.’ What would be your parting words for them? 

WW: Yes. So, there’s a couple of other things. One was that this NP had been terminated 30 days prior and was working her last shift in the ER. And she had been terminated. This is a twist to leave you hanging, but she had been terminated for a number of reasons. One being bringing her dog to work. 

JA: Plot twist, plot twist, Dr. Wright. 

WW: But in any event she had been terminated and they allowed her to work out 30 days. Now the plaintiff alleged that it was to cover a shift and that they didn’t want to reschedule but in my clinic, if you’re terminated, you’re terminated. I’m sorry, it’s because it brings up a whole other issue if something bad goes on. And if someone’s been terminated, I guess I would always say, ‘Why are you allowing them to stay?’ So, this was one other case. But for our 

listeners, it’s never quite as simple as it seems. It’s never as clear cut. But all I will say to our listeners is if something doesn’t feel right to you, trust your gut, advocate for the patient. 

Call people even if you’re going to wake someone up in the middle of the night. Who cares. At the end of the day you want to protect yourself, you want to protect your patients and so I hope we can come back together again on some other cases. I’ve got some other 

really cool cases that I’d love to share with you all but thank you all so much for joining us today. 

JA: Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for your time, Dr. Wright. These are great. And we absolutely would love to hear more from you. And I’d love to sit in with you and talk about these stories because it is such a great learning opportunity and a great reminder about doing what it is that we do. Right. So, thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Appreciate everyone for listening and tuning in. And if you like this story, we got lots more. Check us out on Fridays for 

more Scrubs and Subpoenas episodes. And goodbye for now. 

WW: Goodbye for now. 

Voiceover: Thank you for listening and learning with Scrubs and Subpoenas: Tales from the Witness Stand, presented by Fitzgerald Health Education Associates. Please rate, review, and subscribe to this podcast, and for more NP resources, visit FHEA.com. Join us again next time as we dissect more medical malpractice cases.