A recent lawsuit against a prominent St. Louis neurosurgeon and her practice highlights the perils of MRI or Computed Tomography (CT) dye usage. According to allegations outlined in a recent lawsuit, a prominent radiology technician improperly used a contrast dye during MRI tests which led to the patient developing a debilitating and incurable condition, namely GAD. The patient has brought this suit against Dr. Mahalakshmi A. Vaidya, M.D. on behalf of herself and all of her patients, named in the lawsuit who contend that they have developed GAD as a result of improperly administered contrast dye injections.
MRI Contrast Dye Lawsuit
The reason that the lawsuit is currently pending is because Vaidya repeatedly failed to instruct her patients about the risks associated with MRI or Computed Tomography (CT) dye administration. The St. Louis Cardinal’s Baseball Team is currently under investigation after one of their players, Chris Davis, was diagnosed with GAD. As a result of this diagnosis and the lawsuit, the team will pay for the medical expenses and loss of wages that resulted from the illness of their player. There are other medical issues associated with GAD that have been brought into light through litigation, such as the fact that many patients experience nausea, dizziness, chest pain, headaches, vomiting, sweating, tingling in extremities, numbness, and anosmia.
Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Mahalakshmi A. Vaidya improperly administered or contrast dye and that this resulted in patients suffering unnecessary side effects.
One of the plaintiffs, identified as Dr. B, was an African-American female who suffered from progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (MML), a progressive, primary neuropathy condition in which there is a significant loss of neurological function and eventually death. According to the St. Louis Cardinal’s Case, Dr. Vaidya failed to appropriately screen patients with such a disease prior to prescribing the dye, and as a result of this he negligently injured plaintiffs B, C, and D. Plaintiffs argue that there is a strong likelihood that Dr. Vaidya did know about the risk of administering the contrast dye and did nothing to mitigate that risk. In addition to sustaining injuries, plaintiffs seek damages based on their fear of living in the community, having to change medications, excessive medical expenses, and other associated losses.
As part of the St. Louis Cardinal’s Case, attorneys note that there was a directness to the actions of Dr. Mahalakshmi A. Vaidya.
Specifically, there is a correlation between Dr. Vaidya’s receipt of mri contrast dye and the admission of plaintiff’s B, C, and D to the hospital emergency room. Although there is no causal relationship between the two, plaintiffs contend that there is a link between the actions of Dr. Vaidya and the subsequent injury of plaintiff’s B, C, and D. During the admission process, plaintiffs were provided with the mri contrast dye but were not told of the risks of its use or its consequences. While most hospitals to tell patients that drugs used in the treatment are received for safety purposes, and that contrast-dye products are used only as an indicator or colorimetry tool, the St. Louis Cardinal discovered that Dr. Vaidya had previously treated patients with the contrast-dye agent for malpractice. While admitting that their carelessness was inexcusable, and caused plaintiffs to suffer unnecessary injuries, the Cardinal maintained that it was not deliberate, but only a mistake.
Plaintiffs further argue that the FDA has failed to protect medical professionals from harm through adequate warning letters and educational campaigns.
As part of the recall, the FDA sent letters to over two hundred doctors reminding them about the MRI contrast dye and the potential for serious side effects. However, according to plaintiffs, none of the letters were followed up with adequate warnings about the mri dye and its potentially fatal side effects. Even when told that there might be serious or dangerous side effects, doctors continued to administer the dye despite knowing that the mri dye could cause skin damage, burning and scarring, permanent eye damage, and even death. In addition, although the FDA did issue a warning about the mri dye in circulation at the time of its release, and again because of the risk of its side effects, none of the recalled agents were included.
Plaintiffs further claim that the FDA and its Office of Drug Safety and Regulation did not take reasonable steps to protect them from Dr. Vaidya’s recklessness.
Because the MRI contrast dye was never intended for use as a cosmetic or pharmaceutical drug, the manufacturers were not required to list the ingredients on the product labels. Further, because the FDA did not include the ingredient in the recalls and drug safety notifications as required, defendants’ drug-safety warnings were inadequate to warn consumers of the mri dye’s dangers. For these reasons, plaintiffs ask that the court declare that the FDA and ODS’s failure to act appropriately when dealing with drugs and cosmetics constitutes negligence and entitles them to damages.
