Reece Devlin first complained of chest pain during an October 2022 appointment at an M Health Fairview clinic. His family alleged that although a physician assistant ordered an electrocardiogram, the clinician failed to sufficiently investigate the complaint or review relevant prior medical records. Devlin raised the issue again in connection with a virtual follow-up three months later.
Less than a week after that appointment, Devlin died while exercising in his basement.
The resulting medical malpractice trial focused less on what the standard of care required than on a more fact-intensive question: whether the clinician actually provided the care he later said he had.
What Happened?
Devlin visited M Health Fairview's Uptown clinic in October 2022 after experiencing chest pain. The clinician ordered an EKG, but Devlin's family alleged that the cardiac evaluation stopped short of what his symptoms required.
According to the family's case, the physician assistant also maintained that he had reviewed records from Devlin's previous executive physicals at Mayo Clinic. Electronic records introduced in the litigation, however, allegedly called that recollection into question.
Devlin returned for a virtual appointment in January 2023. Although the visit was primarily intended as a medication follow-up, the family contended that his earlier chest pain should have been revisited. Computer records again became important to the dispute over what occurred during the appointment.
Devlin died on January 29, 2023, while working out at home.
An autopsy subsequently revealed blockages in three coronary blood vessels, including one that was approximately 95% obstructed. The family maintained that further evaluation of his earlier chest pain could have resulted in restrictions on physical activity, additional cardiac testing, treatment, or other intervention before his death.
The allegations reflect issues that frequently arise in medical malpractice litigation, particularly when a claim involves whether symptoms should have prompted additional testing, referral, or specialist evaluation.
The Trial
The weeklong trial centered heavily on documentation.
Unlike many malpractice cases, the parties reportedly had relatively little disagreement about what a clinician should do when confronted with potentially significant chest pain. The dispute instead concerned whether those steps had actually occurred.
The clinician maintained that he reviewed Devlin's previous Mayo Clinic records during the October appointment. Devlin's attorneys argued that electronic activity records did not support that account. During the relevant period, the clinician allegedly accessed another patient's chart and records belonging to 11 other patients instead.
Electronic records also became relevant to the January virtual visit. The clinician recalled discussing Devlin's earlier chest pain, while the family's evidence allegedly indicated otherwise.
That distinction was critical because documentation can become significant evidence when a malpractice case turns on competing recollections. Electronic medical record audit trails may show when a chart was accessed, which information was reviewed, and how clinicians interacted with a patient's file.
Devlin's family was represented by Brandon Thompson of Ciresi Conlin LLP, whose practice includes medical malpractice litigation.
The family's case also raised a broader issue concerning patient volume. Evidence presented at trial indicated that the clinician could see as many as 20 patients per day, placing greater emphasis on whether important symptoms received appropriate follow-up during busy clinical schedules and virtual appointments.
The Verdict
The jury ultimately found in favor of Devlin's surviving wife and two children and returned an $84 million verdict against Fairview Health Services.
The size of the award partly reflected Devlin's anticipated future earnings. He had worked as an executive with Ernst & Young, making lost income and earning capacity significant components of the family's damages case.
The verdict ranks among the largest medical malpractice awards reported in Minnesota. It also follows other substantial verdicts involving allegations of missed or inadequately treated cardiac conditions.
Expert Institute previously covered a $50 million cardiac malpractice verdict involving allegations that a patient with a serious coronary blockage should have received additional treatment and hospitalization.
Cardiac malpractice cases can depend heavily on expert testimony concerning symptom presentation, diagnostic testing, causation, and whether earlier intervention would likely have changed the patient's outcome. When a patient dies, economic experts may also play an important role in calculating lost earnings, employment benefits, and financial support.
Here, Devlin's professional earnings history appears to have been particularly significant to the damages analysis because his death occurred at age 53 while he remained active in his career.
What's Next?
Fairview has indicated that the litigation may not be over.
Following the verdict, the health system expressed sympathy to Devlin's family but maintained that the care he received was evidence-based and appropriate. Fairview is reportedly evaluating its legal options following the jury's decision.
Post-trial proceedings could include motions challenging aspects of the verdict or damages award, followed by appellate review.
For medical malpractice attorneys, the case is notable not only because of the size of the award but because of the evidence that appears to have driven the liability determination. Where the parties largely agree on the applicable clinical standard, electronic records can become decisive in determining whether that standard was actually followed.
The case also illustrates how several categories of expert testimony may converge in a wrongful death action. Cardiology experts can address whether a patient's chest pain warranted additional testing and whether earlier intervention could have prevented death. Medical informatics or healthcare documentation experts may help interpret electronic records and audit trails. Forensic pathologists can address the mechanism and cause of death, while economists can calculate the financial consequences associated with lost earning capacity.
For Devlin's family, the jury ultimately concluded that the alleged failure to adequately investigate and follow up on his cardiac symptoms warranted an $84 million award.
