A 54yo male was brought to the emergency department by law enforcement after a motor vehicle collision while under investigation for DUI. The chart states he had run over a curb and struck bushes, with only minor vehicle damage described, and that he was ambulatory with assistance at the scene. On arrival, his documented complaints were limited to back pain; he denied headache, neck pain, chest pain, abdominal pain, extremity pain, vomiting, diarrhea, cough, and fever. Initial vital signs were notable for tachycardia, hypertension, and oxygen saturation of 92%. His blood alcohol level was later found to be markedly elevated at 424 mg/dL, with a repeat level of 303 mg/dL several hours later.
Additional labs showed leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and mildly elevated liver enzymes.
The nursing and physician assessments documented the patient as awake, alert, and oriented, with GCS 15, spontaneous eye opening, oriented verbal response, and ability to follow commands. The neurological exam was charted as within defined limits, gait as within functional limits, and the patient was noted not to have altered mental status, confusion, or wandering behavior. On physician exam, the head was documented as normocephalic and atraumatic, pupils were equal and reactive, the neck was described as supple, speech was normal, and he moved all extremities. The skin exam documented no abrasions or ecchymoses, and the musculoskeletal exam noted pre-existing back pain but otherwise nontender range of motion in the extremities.
The ED workup included laboratory testing, continuous telemetry, IV fluids, a chest x-ray, and an EKG. The chest x-ray was read as normal, and the EKG showed sinus tachycardia. The patient received two liters of IV normal saline, supplemental oxygen, and a single dose of oral antihypertensive medication. Serial vital signs remained abnormal for much of the visit, including persistent tachycardia and elevated blood pressure, although the chart states these improved over time. Notably, the record does not document that a CT of the head was performed, and it also does not document CT imaging of the cervical spine or other advanced trauma imaging during the ED stay.
At 10:17, the ED physician ordered telemetry, IV placement, two sets of labs including CBC/CMP/troponin/ethanol, chest x-ray, and EKG.
A chest x-ray was performed and read as normal single-view chest with no pneumothorax, no effusion, and no acute osseous finding on that study.
EKG showed sinus tachycardia; final interpretation also noted a possible anterior myocardial infarction of indeterminate age, with no prior ECG for comparison.
Ethanol drawn at 10:43 resulted at 424 mg/dL.
CBC showed WBC 2.76 and platelets 82.
CMP showed AST 112 and ALT 71.
Troponin was 22.
He received a peripheral IV, telemetry monitoring, and two 1-liter normal saline boluses.
Because he remained hypertensive and tachycardic, the physician documented at 11:54 that HR was still 122 after some fluids, and ordered another liter plus amlodipine 5 mg for blood pressure.
Amlodipine 5 mg PO was given at 12:23.
Serial vitals during observation
11:15: HR 128, BP 194/120, SpO2 92%; he was placed on 2L NC
12:00: HR 122, BP 186/119, RR 26, SpO2 95%.
12:30: HR 123, BP 185/121, SpO2 95%.
13:00: HR 122, BP 112/48.
13:30: HR 120, BP 174/105, RR 10.
14:30: HR 105, BP 147/96, SpO2 95%
15:15: HR 98, BP 157/99, SpO2 95%.
15:30: HR 98, BP 170/114, room air, SpO2 95%.
A repeat ethanol level was ordered at 14:44, drawn at 14:48, and resulted at 303 mg/dL at 15:09.
After several hours of observation, the treating physician documented that the patient had no new complaints, had ambulated, and was appropriate for release to police custody. He was discharged from the emergency department at 3:37pm.
The later autopsy attributed death to blunt trauma of the head sustained in the motor vehicle collision and identified a left subdural hemorrhage and posterior neck soft tissue hemorrhage.
For consideration:
Was a head/neck/cervical CT and/or any advanced imaging SOC in this circumstance?
Was a BP of 170/114 and/or a last BAL of 303 appropriate for DC?
Thank you in advance, questions welcome.
Files:
No questions yet!
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
Minor motor vehicle accidents in the setting of intoxication do not always require advanced cross-sectional imaging. Based on the description, in this scenario, there did not appear to be a clear indiction for head imaging. Alternative care should include a time of observation and documentation of re-evaluation with a normal exam and no traumatic complaints, which appears to have taken place here. Additionally, without symptoms, a BP of 170/114 and a downtrending BAL of 303 without signs of clinical intoxication would not be barriers to discharge.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
As discussed above, there does not appear to be a clear indication for cross-sectional imaging with appropriate monitoring and re-evaluation.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
Board Certified Emergency Medicine Physician with 11 years of practice including in level 1 trauma centers. Medical Toxicologist with expertise in alcohol use and intoxication.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
On a regular basis, probably every shift.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
My main concern is the fact that no imaging was done in a severely intoxicated patient and there is no reported documentation so far outlining a rationale for foregoing imaging (was the patient a chronic alcohol user who appeared clinically sober, was a detailed neurological exam done later?). I am also concerned about the persistent tachycardia. The blood pressure in itself, as a number, was not a contraindication to discharge but raises concerns for unaddressed issues that had not been evaluated properly.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Intracranial hemorrhage is a potentially life-threatening injury. It is likely this patient would have been admitted for further care, and the outcome could have been avoided.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I have received emergency medicine for over 15 years. I am one of only a handful of physicians in the country triple-boarded in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, and EMS. I serve as Vice-Chair of a large academic emergency department.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
I see patients with a combination of the factors that are notable in this case almost every shift. Specifically, head injury after MVC In an intoxicated patient inquire common as well.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
Patient was discharged with a persistent elevated bp over 180/100 and tachycardia…high risk for hypertensive emergency requiring admission. Discharged with still markedly elevated blood alcohol level complicating the accuracy of assessment. Decreased platelet counts concerning for elevated risk of bleeding.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Failure to diagnose the hemorrhage and control bp led to his death.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
Board certified in EM. Reviewed over 100 cases to date.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
MVA and or evaluations of intoxicated patients. Regularly , not daily diagnose patients with intracranial hemorrhage.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
The patient was observed for an extended period of time, never had symptoms or complaints c/w a head injury. Anyone able to drive with this level of intoxication is not new to high levels. There is not SOC for what the level of ETOH must be to be d/c, nor BP if no symptoms of hypertensive urgency/emergency. This case is unfortunate but per what is presented/documented , I cannot say the MD failed SOC. If there had not been a period of observation, that would have been a failure. But its reasonable to use time and reassessment rather than just blanket imaging, particulary in an asymptomatic patient.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
I do not believe the physician caused the injury. He did a sufficient history/exam and observation period. He proved the alcohol level was even going down (rather than still increasing) thus his proving the history and exam to be more reliable. Ultimately, the cause of the injury is the patients decision to be intoxicated, and then drive while intoxicated.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I have reviewed about 100 cases, approx 33% plaintiff, 67% defense. I refuse cases that I do not feel are appropriate. I work at a Level 1 trauma center and testify based on how I manage patients I see myself.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
Multiple times a day, as a level 1 trauma center , we see a large volume of blunt trauma, and often alcohol related.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
The actual documentation and medical record would be necessary to review to be certain. Clinical intoxication and ethanol levels don't necessarily correlate. I would question if his BAC contributed to the lack of subject complaints of head and neck pain and if they EP should have considered that.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Again, would have to review the autopsy and timeline and clarify the acute nature of SDH. The breach is less clear than the causation based on the information provided.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
15+yr of EM experience much in Lvl I, II, III trauma centers. Frequently care for intoxicated patients. 8 years as medical expert work for both plaintiff and defense including testifying witness experience
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
1-2x/month on average (ie, intoxicated patients with some degree of injury)
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
It all depends on the medical documentation in this case. A blood alcohol level is not a determination of intoxication, as this level will vary based on prior history of alcohol use and abuse. The standard of care in emergency medicine is to ensure that the patient is clinically stable before discharge and clinically sober. This means that vital signs have improved (documented improvement in this case) and that the patient is awake, alert, ambulatory, and with clear speech). It seems the physician documentation in this case was thorough. Additionally, it was documented to be a low mechanism MVC. While an unfortunate outcome, I believe the physician treatment and documentation meets the standard of care in this case.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
It all depends on the medical documentation in this case. A blood alcohol level is not a determination of intoxication, as this level will vary based on prior history of alcohol use and abuse. The standard of care in emergency medicine is to ensure that the patient is clinically stable before discharge and clinically sober. This means that vital signs have improved (documented improvement in this case) and that the patient is awake, alert, ambulatory, and with clear speech). It seems the physician documentation in this case was thorough. Additionally, it was documented to be a low mechanism MVC. While an unfortunate outcome, I believe the physician treatment and documentation meets the standard of care in this case.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I believe I would be a good expert for the defense in this case based on the above. I do not feel I would be a good expert for the plaintiff.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
I treat an intoxicated trauma patient very frequently in my high volume ED.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
The Neurological exam was very brief and seemed more like a Macro than a true examination. The Physicians did not document any consideration of any imaging at all. The examination of the neck was also not documented. The patients thrombocytopenia was not documented that I can see. This is a red flag.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Based on the information provided there was no documentation to support that the physician thought of a traumatic head or neck injury. Multiple societal guidelines (ACR and ACEP) say that clinical decision rules for Intracranial hemorrhage cannot be used in patients with intoxication. So this would not have been appropriate to use in this case. Even if they were, they were not correctly documented. Would it have been indicated to perform Head and Neck CT? More than likely yes and potentially CT thorax and Abdomen given the vital sign abnormalities as well as thrombocytopenia. However, I would be interested to know what the timeline was after the patient was discharged. How long before he expired after discharge? Is there a chance that the patient suffered an injury while incarcerated that may have also caused the his death? I say this because the posterior neck hematoma is a little bit odd for a motor vehicle collision. I have seen Many hundreds or even thousands of patients in high speed MVA's and none of them have that injury pattern... A neck hematoma posteriorly would make me worried about blunt force trauma In terms of the Vital signs and blood alcohol level... The patients tachycardia did resolve, and they were persistently hypertensive. Hypertension without symptoms does generally not warrant further emergent workup. If you were considering the effects this may have had on the subdural, then normotension without severe hypertension or hypotension is generally preferred. The BAL number while initially 5 times the legal limit did drop to 300. There are some states that mandate a particular BAL level before patients are released and Florida is not one of them. Most guidelines focus on the patient reaching cognitive and functional capacity. In fact trying to get patients to a particular number can actually be dangerous as it can cause withdrawal symptoms in patients who are chronic alcoholics. That being said I do not see any documentation that the patient was clinically sober or was capable of making medical decisions. The documentation prior to release was somewhat lacking. So I'm not so much concerned about the actual number, but I am concerned that it was not well documented.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I practice at a trauma center and see similar patients all the time.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
Very often. Often times we see many of these types of patients during a shift.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
Patient was discharged prior to sobriety. While it is reasonable to discharge a patient who is still legally intoxicated, it is impossible to perform a definitive exam to rule out injury to the head or cervical spine on a legally intoxicated patient. Appropriate care would have mandated that the patient remain in the hospital and be reexamined once legally sober or that advanced CT imaging of the head and c-spine be performed due to the presence of a significant mechanism of injury. NEXUS criteria or Canadian C-spine rules cannot be applied in this case due to intoxication. Furthermore, additional caution is warranted given the thrombocytopenia and the abnormal vital signs.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Untreated subdural hematoma is a common killer of alcoholic patients due to falls or other injuries, such as an MVC. Its common to miss such injuries in drunk patients because altered mental status or gait disturbance is thought to be related to alcohol not injury.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I am a Clinical Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and hold board certification in Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine and Emergency Medical Services. I teach paramedics and residents about the dangers of ignoring injuries in patients who abuse alcohol.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
Such cases are routine in practice in a level 1 trauma center similar to the one that I practice in.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
This report addresses whether the standard of care required CT imaging of the head, and cervical spine imaging, based on the clinical presentation described. The analysis relies on widely accepted emergency medicine decision rules, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, New Orleans Criteria, NEXUS criteria, and Canadian C-Spine Rule, as well as prevailing emergency medicine practice standards. Motor vehicle collisions are recognized as potentially high-energy mechanisms of injury, associated with both intracranial injury and cervical spine trauma, even in the absence of overt symptoms. The patient’s presentation includes several critical modifiers: documented alcohol intoxication (markedly elevated blood alcohol level), denial of symptoms (head pain or trauma), hypertension (nonspecific but may reflect physiologic stress) The central medico-legal issue is the reliability of the clinical examination in the context of intoxication. The Canadian CT Head Rule and New Orleans Criteria guide imaging decisions in minor head injury. The New Orleans Criteria explicitly include intoxication as a risk factor warranting CT imaging. The Canadian CT Head Rule, while not listing intoxication directly, assumes a reliable neurologic assessment, which intoxication undermines. Alcohol intoxication is widely recognized in emergency medicine literature as a confounder of neurologic examination, a masking factor for symptoms such as headache, vomiting, confusion, and amnesia, a condition that reduces the reliability of patient history. Accordingly, intoxicated patients are often treated as higher risk, even when they deny symptoms. Motor vehicle collisions—particularly if involving speed, deceleration, or uncertain details—are considered “dangerous mechanisms” under established clinical rules. In cases of unreliable history due to intoxication, potentially dangerous mechanism, and inability to confidently exclude head injury clinically, the standard of care supports obtaining a noncontrast CT scan of the head. The NEXUS criteria and Canadian C-Spine Rule are the accepted standards for determining when cervical spine imaging may be safely omitted. The NEXUS criteria require all of the following for clinical clearance: No intoxication Normal alertness No midline tenderness No focal neurologic deficit No distracting injury This patient fails NEXUS due to intoxication alone, rendering clinical clearance invalid. The Canadian C-Spine Rule: Requires a reliable and cooperative patient, and identifies dangerous mechanisms (including certain MVCs) as high-risk features mandating imaging. Again, intoxication compromises rule applicability and exam reliability. Modern trauma standards favor CT of the cervical spine over plain radiographs due to higher sensitivity for clinically significant injuries and improved visualization in high-risk patients. Given intoxication precluding clinical clearance and a mechanism consistent with potential cervical injury, cervical spine imaging—preferably CT—is required to meet the standard of care. Failure to image under these conditions would be considered a deviation from accepted emergency medicine practice. Based on the clinical scenario described, head CT and cervical spine imaging (CT) were indicated. The determining factor is not the patient’s denial of symptoms, but rather: Unreliable clinical assessment due to intoxication, and potentially dangerous mechanism of injury. In such cases, emergency medicine standards require a low threshold for imaging to exclude occult but clinically significant injury. When clinical decision rules cannot be safely applied as intended, the physician must err on the side of objective imaging rather than subjective reassurance. A reasonably prudent emergency physician, under similar circumstances, would obtain both a head CT and cervical spine imaging. Failure to do so risks missed intracranial or cervical spine injury, which may constitute a breach of the standard of care.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Had imaging of the head been performed, it is more likely than not that the subdural hematoma would have been identified, the patient would have been admitted to the hospital, and an emergency neurosurgical consultation would have been obtained. He would have been carefully monitored and would likely have undergone a surgical drainage procedure. Statistically, he would more likely than not have survived.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I am board certified in Emergency Medicine by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. I am board certified in Internal Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine. I am board certified in Critical Care Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine. I have been an attending physician in the Emergency Department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, a level 1 trauma center, from 1987 until 2022. I am currently an Emeritus staff attending physician at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. I am a Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians (FACEP), a Fellow of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (FAAEM), a Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians (FCCP), and a Fellow of the American College of Physicians (FACP). I have over 40 years of experience performing medical -legal consultations. I have testified in more than 200 depositions and in more than 100 trials.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
Over the course of my 40+ year career, I have evaluated major trauma cases such as the present case on a daily basis.
Want to open a case or submit response?
Comments are accepted only from Emergency Medicine - includes all subspecialties experts.