Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

The concept of differential diagnosis is often at the heart of Indiana medical malpractice trials. A differential diagnosis is the process used by doctors to determine the cause of a patient's symptoms. The doctor creates a list of the conditions that could be causing the patient's problems, and then pares down the list through a process of elimination until a diagnosis is determined.

A differential diagnosis is frequently employed in the setting of patients presenting to the emergency room with acute abdominal pain. Patients with acute abdominal pain account for 5 to 10% of all emergency room visits in the United States. The list of potential causes of acute abdominal pain is huge and ranges from relatively minor conditions (constipation) to potentially life-threatening conditions (aortic aneurysm).

Problems arise when doctors assume the patient's symptoms are being caused by a minor condition without ruling out a potentially deadly condition. For example, patients with acute appendicitis are sometimes discharged from hospital emergency rooms with a diagnosis of gastroenteritis, or stomach flu. Such a patient may go on to have his appendix rupture, leading to prolonged hospitalization or even death.

If you or a loved on has been injured as a result of a doctor's failure to properly employ a differential diagnosis, an experienced Indiana medical malpractice lawyer may be able to help.

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. have filed suit against Clarian Health Partners, claiming that the Indianapolis-based health care giant charges unreasonable rates for services provided to uninsured patients.

The class-action lawsuit could change the way medical services are billed by Indiana hospitals and health care facilities.

Abby Allen of Avon and Walter Moore of Indianapolis were both patients at Clarian North Medical Center in Carmel, one of more than 20 Indiana hospitals owned by or affiliated with Clarian Health Partners. Neither Allen nor Moore had insurance coverage for the treatment received at Clarian North.

Allen and Moore's suit alleges that Clarian was required by law to charge a reasonable amount for the services provided to them. Instead, the suit claims that Clarian charged Allen and Moore "at rates significantly inflated over what Clarian accepts as payment from insured patients and patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid for the same services and supplies."