This is a case of a 97-year old female with a host of co-morbidities and multiple hospitalizations. Of her myriad illnesses, the patient had Parkinson’s disease and a history of strokes. In question was the psychotropic drug Haldol, a medication which was given to the patient for agitation while she was in the hospital. In the plaintiff’s counsel’s opening statement he told the jury that they would hear the words “Haldol” and “contraindicated in Parkinson’s” again and again, alleging that the side effect of dysphasia ultimately led to aspiration pneumonia and death.

Under examination by the defense attorney, our defendant doctor, testified with strength and conviction that he was aware of the contraindication of Haldol, however, after carefully weighing the risks and benefits of other medications available, he determined that a single dose of Haldol was the safest way to proceed with his elderly and agitated patient. In support of his defense, the physician testified that Haldol had been administered twice to the patient in her prior hospitalization of one month ago, without any adverse reaction.

In conclusion, a convincing case was made that the cause of the patient’s neurological deterioration was the result of the intracranial bleed and not because of the administration of Haldol. A defense verdict was returned by the jury.

**Although the disposition of this claim predates the formation of EmPRO, the management of the claim was handled by EmPRO’s management company (PRIMMA, LLC). To learn more about the EmPRO story, click here.