Federal Court Finds Government Negligent in Wrongful Death
A man with a spinal cord injury from a previous accident died after a nurse improperly inserted a catheter. The plaintiffs alleged this caused a bloodstream infection. The court found the government negligent.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- Undisclosed
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2021
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
A medical negligence case was filed against the United States Government following the death of a 59-year-old tetraplegic patient. On September 19, 2017, a government employee, a nurse, improperly inserted a Foley catheter, inflating its balloon in the patient's urethra rather than the bladder. The patient died the next day from sepsis with septic shock.
The patient's surviving spouse, children, and mother, as plaintiffs, alleged this improper catheterization caused urethral trauma, bleeding, and bacterial introduction, leading to the fatal sepsis. They contended the nurse failed to follow the standard of care, which required visualizing urine flow before balloon inflation. Plaintiffs sought damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, funeral costs, and wrongful death losses including companionship and pecuniary support.
On April 22, 2021, the court addressed multiple motions. It granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding the United States Government negligent in the patient's death. The court denied the government's motion for partial summary judgment on damages and the plaintiffs' motion to strike evidence. The case concluded with a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want results like this for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was traveling in Beaumont when their vehicle struck the rear end of a pickup truck. The occupants of the car claimed they suffered injuries. The driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and was never identified. The occupants sued their own insurer for underinsured-motorist benefits. The case proceeded to trial regarding one occupant's claim, with the defense arguing inconsistencies in her account of the accident.
One driver was stopped in traffic when their vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed serious injuries to their neck and back, including paralysis in one arm, requiring surgery. The other driver argued that a third vehicle caused the accident or that the injured driver's own actions contributed. The jury found the second driver fully at fault.
A passenger in a sport utility vehicle was injured when the vehicle she was in was rear-ended by another car. The passenger claimed injuries to her back and neck, including bulging discs. The driver of the other vehicle claimed his brakes failed. The jury found that the driver's negligence did not cause the accident.
One driver was stopped at a light when the vehicle behind them struck their pickup truck. The driver of the second vehicle claimed the pickup truck driver swerved in front of them and braked suddenly, causing the collision. The driver of the second vehicle alleged injuries to their knee and spine. The defense questioned the credibility of the driver's account and pointed to inconsistencies in their statements.