$50 million for cardiology protocol failure: Where did the decision-making break down?
A $50 million wrongful death verdict is forcing a closer look at a familiar—but high-stakes—inflection point in cardiology: what to do with a symptomatic patient once a significant coronary lesion is identified on catheterization.
While standard protocol points to a clear next step, it was skipped (or overlooked?) by one established cardiologist in Alabama. So, what went wrong?
A closer look at the case
An Alabama man, Dan Haas, was discharged on December 30, 2020, following heart catheterization after his cardiologist revealed a significant blockage.[]
Allegedly, the cardiologist did not initiate immediate treatment for the blockage, but instead cleared Haas for an elective eye surgery, scheduled for later that week, and sent the patient home. He died in his sleep later that night (December 30).
The patient’s family sought accountability against the clinic, cardiologist, and Cardiology Associates of Mobile, and ultimately won a wrongful death settlement totaling $50 million for damages. The attorneys argued that the care provided failed to meet accepted medical standards.
“Cardiology experts hired by Cunningham Bounds [a law firm] testified that if Galla had kept Haas in the hospital and given him routine blood thinners, his chance of survival would have exceeded 99 percent,” according to WALA Alabama.[]
So, what went wrong?
What went wrong
On December 24, 2020, Dan Haas returned home from a hunting trip with severe pain between his shoulder blades and shortness of breath.[]
On Christmas Day, Haas called his cardiologist, John Galla, MD, to report his symptoms. Dr. Galla told him to come to his office the following Monday.[]
On December 28, Haas presented to Cardiology Associates with ongoing chest pain, and testing revealed abnormal cardiac stress results.[] Two days later, a heart catheterization revealed a significant blockage.
Related: Doctor accused of faking records to block patients' liver transplantsWhile Dr. Galla allegedly instructed Haas to start blood thinners after the upcoming eye surgery, it’s hard to figure out why the cardiologist thought it was safe to wait, given standard protocol and his years of experience managing fairly routine conditions.[]
Dr. Galla’s defense required contradicting Cardiology Associates’ own medical records, including entries he made himself.
“We relied on the contemporaneous medical records—they were accurate,” Skip Finkbohner, the plaintiff’s attorney, said in a press statement. “The defense and their experts took the position these records were wrong. The jury spoke loudly about this, and the lack of care Dan received and the attempts to cover up the mistakes that were made.”[]
What does this mean for the clinic?
This case highlights how breakdowns in clinical judgment and urgency—particularly when managing clearly high-risk cardiac findings—can lead to preventable, fatal outcomes.
It also raises questions about whether competing priorities—such as deferring to planned elective procedures, underestimating symptom severity, or overreliance on outpatient follow-up—may have influenced decision-making at a critical moment.
In brief:
If you identify a high-risk coronary lesion on catheterization—especially in a symptomatic patient—sending them home instead of admitting and treating urgently can represent a serious deviation from standard care.
Don’t let plans for elective or nonurgent procedures override acute cardiac findings. Delaying treatment in this setting is difficult to justify clinically or legally.
In this case, experts noted that the patient had over a 99% chance of survival with appropriate inpatient care, underscoring how missed or delayed intervention can directly lead to preventable mortality.