Question

A phlebotomist prepares to draw three tubes of blood from an outpatient. The only vein that is visible is the basilic vein on the right arm. He was taught that the basilic vein is the last choice venipuncture because it is hard to anchor and a major nerve lies close to it, but it is so large that he decides he can draw it without a problem. When he inserts the needle, sure enough, the vein rolls and needle slips beside the vein. The patient cries out in pain, and jerks her arm. The needle goes even deeper, but blood begins to flow into the tube, so he continues the draw. The patient tells him it is hurting and to pull the needle out, but the tube are filling quickly, so he continues to fill all three tubes before ending the draw. The woman is still in pain and her arm begins to swell in the area of the draw. The phlebotomist quickly wraps a pressure bandage around the arm and tells her she is free to go. The patient is later diagnosed with permanent nerve damage and sues the clinic. Questions:

1) Can the phlebotomist be held liable for the woman's injury?

2)What tort might be involved in this case?

3) Do you think that standard of care was breeched in this case? Why or why not?

Answer 1

1) No, phlebotomist is not responsible for woman's injury.
Here,Woman has given jerk on her hand, if she does not do so, she didn't get injury. So this is her fault.

2) Here the tort is, the phlebotomist's intension was not to hurt the woman, he didn't do it intentionally, he was only wanted to draw blood, but nerve slipped and mistakenly went deep inside.

3)Yes, because when the woman was crying in pain, needle was hurting her, then phlebotomist should not continued to draw blood, he should stop. Press the injury to stop blood flow, should dress her hand and give her medication after taking advice from clinic doctor.