Begging an Attorney

Penn's pulmonary hypertension being a pre-existing condition as well as his complete AV canal are the reasons he had surgery in the first place, and should not preclude a lawsuit on that basis. It was inevitable at some point, however, one physician at Texas Children's (where we had him transferred on September 6) suggested that Penn should not have had his surgery at such a young age, and with such high pulmonary hypertension, that they are actually contrainidications for surgery. His thoracic duct had to have been cut during surgery as well, as he developed chylous pleural effusions which dumped over 300 ccs/day on each side, with insignificant decline when put on non-fat and ND feedings. He was also given calcium to rescusitate him during the process of being given inhaled anesthia before surgery, which was never conveyed to the surgeon, and therefore he put in his note to that effect, as well as to point out that it made him suspect infant myocardium damage as Penn's calcium levels got exceedingly high on CPB.

During his course of treatment or lack thereof at Methodist, he was not given proper nutrition for most of his stay; his intake was 10-17 ccs/hour most of the time. Only upon our inquiries did the physicians increase his intake. He developed blood clots throughout his body, and it can be traced back to the medical director dc'ing his Heparin post-surgical drip order. His AT3 was not followed despite the fact that on day one post-op it was noted that he had subpar albumin, and his heparin had been dc'd. On day three it was noted that he was in mild DIC (disseminated intercoagulopathy), but that it would not be corrected due to the fact that he was not 'bleeding'. He had clots in his bilateral femorals as well as his IVC, and finally in his SVC and around his heart. There were signs of this, that were not identified by physicians, such as hematomas all over his upper body. They did an ultrasound of his SVC at the time, but couldn't find anything and never re-examined the issue, until they found a clot by trying a procedure for dialysis called CVVH, which didn't work because there was no drawback on the needle indicating a clot. They never figured out what the hematoma was from, and never bothered to really address it. There are many reasons that you should look at our case, too numerous to list in this email. I know that the case has to be intelligible to a jury. I understand that it is easier to take on cases whereby there is gross malpractice, but I beg of you to please please really consider our case. I know I cannot bring my son back, but I pray that something changes at Methodist because of what happened to my son. There are other children there that were going through very similar complications, and never should have been. Have you heard of the story about Josie King? Please I beg. Do not decline us based on the fact that you don't see 'gross' malpractice nor on the fact of proposition 12. PLEASE!