LEGAL UPDATE Dentist Anesthesiologist Antitrust and Constitutional Claims Dismissed Jacobs missed the statute of limitations and the claims were time-barred. The court did not address the merits. This case demonstrates the length to which non-Anesthesiologists may go to secure a title and the ability to advertise that they are Anesthesiologists without legal support or medical training. It underscores the need for PSA to maintain its aggressive stance against use of the term Anesthesiologist by any other licensed practitioner.
Charles I. Artz, Esq. PSA General Counsel A new federal court decision dismissing two dentists’ constitutional and antitrust claims involving their use of the phrase “Dentist Anesthesiologist” is instructive in PSA’s ongoing efforts to maintain supervision, direction and management over CRNAs. In Seay v. Oklahoma Board of Dentistry, 2021 WL 1394478 (W.D. Okla. 2021), the litigation dispute focused on specialty licenses in dentistry. Dr. Seay and Dr. Jacobs are “dentist anesthesiologists” who both hold advanced degrees. They are licensed as general dentists, although their practice is focused exclusively on providing anesthesia services. Oklahoma law prohibits those dentists from advertising to the public as specialists because the term “dentist anesthesiologist” is not recognized as a specialty and precludes them from obtaining a specialty license. They filed suit against the Board for deprivation of their constitutional protected property and liberty interests without due process of law; equal protection violations; freedom of commercial speech; and restraint of trade in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Fortunately, the federal court dismissed all of the claims. The federal court dismissed those claims because they were filed too late, i.e. Dr. Seay and Dr.
13
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR IMPORTANT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DECISION INVOLVING ANESTHESIOLOGIST The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Lageman v. Zepp, 237 A.3d 1098 (Pa. Super 2020). The Supreme Court is not required to automatically hear any case and it is significant when it does. In this case, Dr. Zepp, who is a PSA member, provided anesthesia to a patient with a bowel obstruction undergoing an exploratory laparotomy and lysis of adhesions. Under the guidance of ultrasound, Dr. Zepp inserted a needle into what he believed was the jugular vein to establish a central line. Dr. Zepp used manometry, which is the “gold standard” for confirming that the small catheter is located in the vein rather than the artery, with the expected result. Prior to administering any fluids, Dr. Zepp passed the ultrasound transducer over the catheter. It revealed that the patient had an unusual anatomical orientation whereby the carotid artery lay below the jugular vein and that the catheter was located in the carotid artery rather than in the jugular vein. Dr. Zepp immediately abandoned the procedure and called in a vascular surgeon for assistance. The bowel surgery was successful, but the patient sustained a stroke that left her paralyzed on the left side. After a six-day trial, the jury found in favor of Dr. Zepp. The patient appealed, and the Superior Court overturned the jury’s decision citing the trial judge’s continued on page 6
The Pennsylvania Society of Anesthesiologists Newsletter |
SENTINEL
5
