Hypertension and cerebral hemorrhage: a malpractice controversy. Efficacy of drug therapy, epidemiology, neurological aspects and pathology.

The plaintiff alleged that failure of the attending physician to manage her husband's hypertension properly resulted in his death from intracerebral hemorrhage. Four lines of evidence supported the defendant: (1) In 1970 to 1971 there was uncertainty in the medical community whether mild hypertension should be treated with drugs; this uncertainty still existed at the time of the trial. (2) Severe hypertension and advanced age are the two most important predisposing factors leading to intracerebral hemorrhage; the deceased patient had neither. (3) Hemorrhage into the cerebral cortex and underlying white matter is not typical of hypertensive intracerebral bleeding; more likely, rupture of an arteriovenous malformation occurred. (4) A diagnosis of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage is not one of exclusion but requires objective evidence of vascular change in the brain, heart and kidney; these changes were not found in the deceased patient. In conclusion, an expert witness should testify objectively rather than be the advocate of a lawyer's theory of liability.