Doctor cleared in case over drug interactions

Print Story

Email to Friend

Discuss this story

The doctor explained the medication's side effects, a defense lawyer said.

YOUNGSTOWN — A jury returned a verdict in favor of a physician who was sued in January 2002 by a Boardman couple who sought $750,000 in damages, alleging the doctor negligently caused a drug interaction.

After a four-day trial, the jury returned the verdict last week in favor of Dr. James Botsko, then a Boardman family practitioner, who has since retired from practicing medicine and moved to Nashville, Tenn. The trial was before Judge Maureen A. Sweeney of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.

Atty. Richard A. Abrams filed the suit on behalf of John Garchar and his wife, Carol, who alleged that Dr. Botsko negligently prescribed Lotrel for Garchar to treat his hypertension, knowing that a psychiatrist had prescribed lithium for Garchar on a long-term basis. Lithium is used to treat manic-depressive disorders.

The suit said Garchar experienced toxic levels of lithium in his blood, difficulty walking, kidney function injury, heart trouble, and severe neurological symptoms, including insomnia and altered mental state, because of the combination of Lotrel and lithium.

Presentations

Dr. Botsko's lawyer, Thomas A. Prislipsky, said in a court document that Dr. Botsko had spoken to Garchar about Lotrel and its side effects when he prescribed it for him Feb. 22, 2001. Prislipsky also said Garchar's blood pressure was reduced after he began taking Lotrel, and that Garchar reported to Dr. Botsko on March 1 that he was doing better on the Lotrel than on a previous blood-pressure control medication.

When Garchar complained to his psychiatrist five days later about anxiety, insomnia and emotional difficulties, he failed to tell the psychiatrist he was taking Lotrel, and Garchar was hospitalized for lithium toxicity March 16, 2001, Prislipsky said.

Between March 1 and 16, 2001, Garchar had no contact with Dr. Botsko, Prislipsky said.

Judge Sweeney ordered that court costs be assessed against the Garchars.

Sunday, August 6, 2006