Appeals court reviews tribunal ruling in malpractice case over anticoagulation management

An appeals tribunal heard argument over whether the medical‑malpractice tribunal correctly dismissed claims against Drs. Streeter and Krueger arising from perioperative anticoagulation decisions and postoperative management.

Appellants’ counsel argued two expert letters identified multiple deviations from the standard of care related to anticoagulation management and that those letters — though similar — were admissible and sufficient for the tribunal to find negligence. Counsel emphasized that both surgeons participated in the operation, that a single insufficient Lovenox dose was given rather than a proper loading/bridging strategy, and that an INR was not measured to verify therapeutic anticoagulation before proceeding.

Defense counsel for Dr. Krueger countered that Dr. Krueger’s role was limited to managing adhesions and assisting the supervising surgeon, that the record did not show Krueger exercised independent clinical judgment on anticoagulation, and that the connection between Krueger and the alleged anticoagulation omissions was too attenuated. Counsel argued the expert letters were identical and did not tie specific criticisms to Krueger’s distinct role.

Justices examined the record passages describing a pre‑operative discussion, the single‑dose Lovenox administration, and the timely‑related cardiology clearance. Counsel disputed whether the cardiology clearance was relied upon or whether the surgeons deviated from that plan and whether both surgeons owed identical duties. The tribunal’s decision and the adequacy of the expert letters were central to the panel’s review. The court took the matter under advisement.