A common surgery left a woman a widow in 2002. Mrs. Thornburg’s husband underwent surgery to install an automatic implantable cardiovascular defibrillator when the anesthesia team failed to notice his deteriorating vital signs. After a considerable amount of time his lack of breathing led to the deprivation of oxygen to Thomas L. Thornburg’s brain causing severe brain damage. The defibrillator temporarily helped Thornburg’s heart condition, but the 62-year-old man eventually died. When doctors were faced with repairing another cardiac episode they decided not to render medical treatment even though the final episode was treatable. Doctors said Thornburg’s mental state and living conditions influenced their decision. Thornburg’s widow file suit against the hospital where the surgery was performed. In a pre-trial settlement the hospital agreed to pay $115,000 for the wrongful death allegations. A jury’s verdict ruled $1.54 million was to be given. The $1.54 million verdict includes $1.1 million for non-economic losses which exceeds West Virginia's non-economic cap by $850,000, but the case pre-dated medical malpractice reform that decreased the cap from $1 million to $250,000.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A lawsuit calling into question the constitutionality of Illinois’ limit of personal injury awards in medical malpractice cases is expected to come before the state’s Supreme Court this fall. The Supreme Court at least twice before have ruled the limits to be unconstitutional on the grounds they violate the separation of judicial and legislative powers. The most recent was in 1997 when the Supreme Court struck down a 1995 law that included a $500,000 limit on awards for non-economic damages. The medical institution claimed that doctors were leaving the state because of the amount of malpractice suits filed. Philip Corboy Jr., president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, believes it was an insurance crisis rather than a litigation crisis. Corboy said filings of medical malpractice lawsuits had been declining for several years before the new law. This latest case stems from a filing by Frances LeBron whose daughter was seriously injured at birth in October 2005. She suffers mental impairments and cerebral palsy and requires 24-hour care the rest of her life. In November, Cook County Circuit Judge Diane Larsen sided with plaintiffs and declared the law unconstitutional and invalid in its entirety. She said the statutory limits on awards interfered with juries' authority to award appropriate compensation for injuries.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 08:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A woman went to three separate hospitals trying to get care for her symptoms of nausea, vomiting, headaches, numbness in her arms, legs and face that she had experienced for three days. A simple CT scan would have revealed the culprit, a brain tumor. Her lawyer contends that each of the hospitals refused to adequately diagnose her because they knew they would only be reimbursed $135 dollars by Medicaid for a procedure that cost $3,000. A Philadelphia jury agreed and found each of the hospitals negligent in their care of the 20 year-old mother who is now blind, paralyzed and brain-damaged. They awarded her $11.2 million, including $5.9 million for future medical expenses. The woman currently lives near Boston with her mother, uncle, sister, four brothers, and a 4-year-old daughter born just four months before the brain tumor was discovered. She needs the help of her family to take care of herself and her daughter.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 09:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an unusual move against a hospital who allegedly failed to treat a patient, the plaintiff has filed a 10-count lawsuit alleging the lack of treatment put him in danger. The lawsuit is not a medical malpractice lawsuit, but brings in a federal statute called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Robert Olszewski is at the center of the federal suit and claims that he went to the Mayo Regional Hospital emergency room in Maine twice within 17 hours for chest pain, headache and fever and was not given an appropriate medical screening. After the second visit and decline of a proper medical screening he went to another hospital where they found he had suffered from a mild heart attack. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was initially passed as an anti-dumping statute since hospitals at the time were turning people away who didn’t have insurance or money. Since the act was passed, when someone goes to the emergency room, the hospital must do an appropriate medical screening to determine whether the person is in an emergency condition and if so, the patient cannot be transferred until stabilized. Attorney Michael J. Waxman of Portland, who is representing Olszewski said, “We can fit this into the contours of that statute because he really wasn’t given an appropriate medical screening, certainly not the second time, maybe not even the first time he visited Mayo. He wasn’t given any screening, as a matter of fact,” Waxman said. When experiencing chest pain, the first reaction should be a medical screening to determine whether a heart attack is responsible.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 02:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In January 2006, a bypass surgery was performed on Michael Derrick's left leg at the Regional Hospital of Jackson, Tennessee. In March 2006, Derrick said he went back to the doctor to report that he was experiencing fevers and chills. His doctor told him he had the flu. About a week later, Derrick went to another hospital in Nashville in severe pain. There they informed him he had to have emergency surgery on his left foot. Doctors told him a bacterial infection had spread into his left leg and that it would have to be amputated. “When I got to Baptist Hospital, they told me I was nearly dead from the infection,” said Derrick. He said doctors told him it was either his "life or limb." The ensuing medical malpractice lawsuit filed alleged that Michael Derrick’s doctor was negligent in his post-operation care. During eight post-surgery visits his doctor did not properly diagnose Derrick as having a bacterial infection until it had spread to the point that amputation was a medical necessity. The jury found in Michael Derrick’s favor and awarded him $1.5 million. “While we're disappointed they (jury) did not find in our favor, we did receive a fair trial in front of 12 fine citizens of Madison County,” said the attorney for the defense.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An Orlando, Florida family is reeling from a decision to fine a hospital pharmacist a meager $1,000 dollars in the death of their 3-year old son. The parents of Sebastian Ferrero brought him to Shands Hospital at the University of Florida in Gainesville to see why he wasn't growing as fast as he should. The doctors prescribed a growth drug and the Shands pharmacist filled it 10 times the amount needed. The parents said the decision to fine the pharmacist responsible such a low amount was just a slap on her wrist and a slap in their face. The Ferrero’s called on Governor Charlie Crist to step in. They said they'll send a letter to the governor, asking him to launch an investigation. The pharmacist who filled the prescription in error has been ordered to attend further training on how to fill prescriptions. The hospital will pay $850,000. The family said it plans to use the money to help build a new Children's Hospital, in hopes that this kind of medical mistake never happens again.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A bill signed into law by New York Governor David A. Paterson gives broader powers to the State Department of Health to investigate medical wrongdoing as well as publicly identifying physician who are charged with misconduct or malpractice. The law was prompted by the Dix Hills doctor, Harvery Finkelstein who is accused of exposing thousands of patients to blood borne diseases such as Hepatitis C, HIV and AIDS because of unsafe and unsanitary practices of syringes and single dosage bottles being used multiple times among patients. Finkelstein most recently settled a malpractice lawsuit with a man who claimed he contracted hepatitis C in Finkelstein’s office. Unbelievably, Finkelstein has settled an unprecedented 11 malpractice lawsuits inside of a decade, one of the highest in the state. The Finkelstein case and its many challenges in recognizing and disciplining errant doctors provided a basis for what the health department needed to conduct better disciplinary and infectious disease investigations, said state Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines. In addition, the new law expands the state’s ability to investigate private medical offices and permits health officials more freedom to communicate with the public and discipline physicians. Most significantly, legislators said that the bill allows the state Office of Professional Medical Conduct to use medical malpractice histories to initiate misconduct probes. The health department was strongly criticized by patient advocates after it was revealed it negotiated with Finkelstein for his office records, a process that helped delay public notification to over 10,000 of Finkelstein’s patients for an incredible three years.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an effort to prove malpractice, sometimes the victim is unable to testify on their behalf because of the incapacity the malpractice caused. For example, a 50 year-old woman was operated on to remove an enlarged goiter, a thyroid gland found in the neck. The known post-operative treatment is to be given calcium because if levels of calcium fall too low a patient’s swallowing and breathing become difficult. In this case the operating surgeon ordered calcium to be given, but she never received it. The next morning the patient was very agitated and had difficulty swallowing. Later, she complained of shortness of breath and increased swelling in the operated area of her neck. After continuing to struggle to breathe she went into respiratory failure; eventually sustaining brain anoxic encephalopathy (brain damage caused by lack of oxygen) and fell into a coma. The family of the woman understandably decided to bring a malpractice lawsuit to the hospital. During trial, she was unable to testify because she was in an incapacitated state and because of this the case had to rely on experts’ testimony and the analysis of hospital records and pretrial depositions by the hospital employees. During the deposition proceedings it was found that a second year resident, who had been at the hospital for three weeks, checked on the patient the night of the surgery but failed to administer the appropriate tests and instead told the nurse she was fine. The implications are intuitive, thankfully her family had the resources of a plaintiff’s attorney.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A jury of peers awarded a woman $4.5 million for pain and suffering earlier this year in a malpractice case involving a gynecologist who left a 40 x 40 centimeter gauze sponge in her stomach after surgery. The woman then reported chronic pain to her doctor for months, but he failed to respond to her complaints. Another judge last month reduced the award to $1.3 million, citing a Maryland state cap on non-monetary losses such as pain and suffering is limited to $650,000. Attorneys for the woman are troubled by the unconstitutionality of the decision. The woman’s attorney Robert J. Goldman said, “For various reasons, it kind of takes the decisions out of the jury’s hands.” Goldman maintained that juries should be relied upon to decide appropriate awards for damages, not state-imposed caps. “This cap the legislature has put on has unfairly affected people who have been injured through medical malpractice,” Goldman said. The constitutionality of statutory caps for non-economic damages has not been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Draper, Utah teen was prescribed oxycodone hydrochloride to help him sleep and to relieve the pain he was experiencing from strep throat. The prescription bottle told him to take one teaspoon every four hours which he did. Jessie Scott, 18, now lays in a coma since April 30 because the Walmart pharmacy where he had it filled allegedly failed to dilute the liquid medication prior to handing it to his parents. Scott’s dosage ended up being 20 times more potent than what the doctor prescribed. Scott’s organs started to fail soon after he fell into the coma so he was put on a ventilator. He spent 16 days in the intensive care unit, then four days in intermediate care, but now resides in a rehabilitation center. Therapists are trying to stimulate his senses. Doctors are unsure how much damage has been done to Scott’s brain. “His brain is still very plastic, still very elastic and we’re hoping and praying that it can find ways around those areas to connect back up,” said Scott’s father, Wayne. “That’s our hope.” The Wal-mart pharmacies response so far is, “This is a very sad situation. Our thoughts are with this young man and his family.”

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the largest malpractice settlements has been awarded for the negligent Lasik surgery of a New Jersey man. James Dell’Ermo underwent Lasik surgery which rendered him legally blind (vision worse than 20/400 without corrective lenses). The $2.1 million settlement reached is part of a group of 16 malpractice lawsuits filed against the Lasik surgeon. The claims against the surgeon relates to his failure to recognize that Mr. Dell’Ermo was not a candidate for Lasik and that he had steep corneas. By performing Lasik the surgeon caused a condition known as ectasia which is a progressive condition which will ultimately require Dell’Ermo to undergo corneal transplants in both eyes. Dell’Ermo’s case and its companion lawsuits are evidence of the questionable safety of Lasik procedures. In fact, in April 2008, the FDA conducted hearings and questioned the safety and effectiveness of the surgery.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an effort to eliminate adverse medical reactions caused by prescription errors, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz-D recently sponsored a bill that has been approved by Congress. The bill will require physicians to file prescriptions for Medicare patients electronically. The measure requiring e-prescriptions “will reduce the number of errors, dramatically save lives and save money,” Schwartz said in a phone interview. The E-MEDS bill, which had bipartisan support, requires physicians to electronically file prescriptions for Medicare patients, rather than by paper script, by Jan. 1, 2011. A recent study found only 4 percent of doctors in the United States has a “fully functional” electronic medical records system. In addition, the United States has the third highest rate of deaths from medical errors among the world's 30 most developed countries, including more than 1.5 million preventable adverse drug reactions annually, resulting in 7,000 deaths per year. Submitting prescriptions electronically would preclude misreading a script and pharmacies would have a list of other medications the patient is taking, Schwartz said.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though hospitals are increasingly relying on robotics to reduce medication errors, in the case of the Corpus Christi death of twin infants, the systems available would not have prevented the pharmacy error. That's because many of the systems are confined to dispensing pills and cannot dispense liquids such as the blood thinner heparin, according to industry authorities. How effective can technology be in preventing the same tragedy from happening? Studies of rates of human error in hospital pharmacies vary anywhere from 3 errors in a thousand to 55 per thousand. Machine rates have about one in 10,000. About 51 percent of insured Americans are taking prescription drugs to treat at least one chronic condition according to a study by Medco Health Solutions. In crunching the numbers that amounts to hundreds of millions of prescriptions filled each year so the chances of a pharmacy error are inevitable. Some say that while technology may reduce prescription errors, the systems remain susceptible to human error, such as inputting the wrong patient information into a computer. Human diligence, quality control and responsibility need to be increased to limit future injuries ascribed to pharmacy errors, technology can’t be the only answer.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Corpus Christi hospital admitted recently that a mixing error in its pharmacy led to the overdosing of 17 individuals and may have caused the death of a twin brother and sister. The error involved the blood thinner heparin, but was unrelated to product labeling or packaging according the chief medical officer of Christus Spohn Health System, Dr. Richard Davis. The mixing error is believed to have occurred July 3, and that heparin batch was first administered in the neonatal intensive care unit July 4. Nurses noticed the overdoses during routine blood work and stopped using the heparin immediately giving patients medications to counter the effects. Twelve other patients received the overdoses and three infants may have just before they were released from the hospital. The hospital reported no ill effects in those three babies. The twins who died, Keith and Kaylynn Garcia, were born one month premature July 1 at Christus Spohn Hospital in Alice and transferred for higher-level care to Christus Spohn Hospital South in Corpus Christi, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times reported. The babies' parents received a judge's order preventing the hospital from destroying any records related to the babies' hospital stay or the heparin overdose. The Texas Department of State Health Services is conducting a review.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The myth that medical malpractice lawsuits are responsible for increasing malpractice premiums and health care costs needs to be addressed. Claims of a nationwide crisis are exaggerated. Malpractice insurance premiums represent less that 2 percent of health care costs. Putting malpractice caps on awards threatens patient’s rights to seek compensation when injury occurred from a preventable medical error. Further, punishment of the negligent doctor or institution is a way of preventing future errors. Tort Reform caps puts patients in danger because legal recourse is severely limited. A suggested solution to the rising costs was presented that consists of more emphasis on evidence-based medicine, independent screening, immediate disclosure of errors, and a no-fault system of compensation.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A New York jury, that included two nurses, awarded $9 million in a malpractice suit for the family of a woman whose doctor failed to diagnose her breast cancer. Suzanne E. Crane died in 2004 after her breast cancer spread. The 33-year-old mother of two began seeing the doctor in 2002 and after three visits the doctor failed to diagnose her cancer. Even after a lump was found in Crane’s breast the doctor never performed a biopsy. It took a different doctor in 2003 to recognize the cancer. Sadly, Crane was seven months pregnant with her youngest son when the diagnosis was made, and she could not immediately receive treatment. The verdict of $9 million includes more than $6 million based on future monetary losses.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an environment of Medical Malpractice Tort Reform saber rattling, abominable patient care and medical negligence is still occurring. Take for instance the recent suspension of a doctor’s license by Washington state health officials for allegedly failing to properly treat four patients. Now the question is how badly can a doctor really behave before being disciplined? In Dr. George Mathew’s case he is accused of negligence, incompetence and malpractice. His immediate suspension is remarkable because health officials reserve it for cases in which they believe a doctor’s conduct puts patients in imminent danger. According to the charges Mathew allegedly failed to treat a 69-year-old man who was suffering a heart attack. The man spent about seven hours in the ER while Mathew was asleep in the doctor's lounge. Allegedly he failed to stitch up the severely lacerated leg of a 27-year-old woman planning to discharge her. Another doctor was called in to treat her. With the third patient he allegedly ignored the severely lacerated lip of a 49-year-old woman. Another doctor had to intervene and sent her to a plastic surgeon at another hospital. The fourth patient was a 60-year-old man who had arrived at the hospital complaining of blood in his vomit and stool, Mathew allegedly ignored him for six hours until another doctor came on shift. Understandably, after being informed of the suspension the hospital quickly suspended Mathew’s privileges to work there. Furthermore, in 2005 under a different name Mathew’s was sanctioned for providing prescriptions over the Internet to patients he never saw as well as failing to keep medical records on three men he prescribed narcotics to. If the allegations against him prove true Mathew could face the revocation of his medical license. These are the type of doctors medical malpractice litigation try to protect the public from.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Regarding the Hepatitis C outbreak at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada a judge has ruled that patients can claim damages for emotional distress in the class action lawsuit. Attorney for the clinic David MacDonald said, “In this case I don’t believe a physical injury was suffered.” District Judge Allan Earl disagreed and denied the clinic’s motion to dismiss saying the mental anguish of potential exposure could lead to physical symptoms. Lawyer Robert Cottle, representative for the patients, also suggested that the majority owner of the Endoscopy Center, Dr. Dipak Desai, might have used his influence as a former Nevada Mutual Insurance board member to avoid oversight by the insurance company putting the patients in danger. Judge Earl ruled otherwise after the insurance company’s lawyer said they had no duty to the clinic’s patients or to tell its doctors what to do. Judge Earl dismissed the insurance company from the lawsuit saying they had a responsibility to its shareholders not its patients.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Until the day medical malpractice and other such information is widely available to consumers of healthcare, it is best to do everything possible to do research on a potential healthcare professional. It is important to find out when the doctor started practicing, where they went to school and how many surgeries they have performed (if that is the treatment sought). Ask for referrals from friends and call a local Medical Board. Ask the hospital or medical center where the doctor practices if any complaints or medical malpractice has been previously committed. In today’s atmosphere of distrust and potential tort reform it is imperative to cover all bases before undergoing the care of a medical professional because the healthcare consumer’s choices are being limited

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Before the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, otherwise known as ERISA, was enacted, patients had recourse in the medical malpractice arena. ERISA doesn’t sound as if it should have anything to do with medical care, but it does. This law is best known for governing pension plans, but it also covers most health plans offered as an employee benefit. ERISA was meant to protect us from corporate abuse, but includes a special provision that health organizations have used to protect themselves from lawsuits. The employee-benefit plans are exempt from state law. Which means that under state law, lawsuits can seek damages such as lost income, suffering and medical expenses, but under federal law a lawsuit can only be filed for the cost of the medical benefit denied. As an example, if you or a loved one dies of leukemia because the HMO wouldn't authorize an early blood test, you can recover no more than the cost of the test. Before managed care obvious negligence could result in a medical malpractice suit that could compensate at least a portion of what went wrong during a procedure. Post ERISA, most Americans don’t realize this exemption in federal law that makes it much more difficult to win a malpractice suit against an HMO. So if there is no financial penalty when the doctors HMOs hire are negligent, where is the check a balance to keep the profit-driven healthcare from withholding adequate medical care? Another case of Law of Unintended Consequences.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A New York state Supreme Court jury in Queens awarded $19.6 million to a couple after their baby was brain-damaged and the mother was severely injured during delivery of their child with forceps. In October 1998 at St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Manhattan, during delivery a hospital resident yanked at the baby’s head with forceps for 23 minutes. The baby was born lifeless and severely oxygen-deprived requiring emergency resuscitation. The anesthesiologist then negligently inserted a breathing tube into the baby's esophagus, which carries food or liquid to the stomach, rather than into his windpipe and pumped oxygen into his stomach instead of his lungs. The boy, now 9, suffers from cerebral palsy. Furthermore, during the delivery the mother suffered a tear all the way to her rectum requiring two physicians to repair, of which one of the physicians left the room. Unassisted, the botched repair left the woman with a severe birth canal laceration. Five surgeries later to try and repair the area have left the woman with scar tissue and excruciating pain. “It was a violent, traumatic delivery that should never have happened,” said the couple’s lawyer. The jury of three men and three women found St. Vincent's and its physicians responsible for the injuries and awarded $12 million to the mother and $7.6 million to the child.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dale Otto died of cancer in 2003 after two physicians failed to diagnose his condition. In a 4 to 3 decision the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the physician insurance company to pay damages. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin will pay $1 million in medical malpractice damages to the estate of Dale Otto. They provided insurance to the doctors at the clinic that employed them. The clinic denied the medical malpractice claims in court, but in an oversight the Physician’s Insurance never responded to the suit.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2005 Raymond Bookstayer filed a complaint against Dr. Harvey Finkelstein with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) after contracting Hepatitis C in his office. Almost three years later he still had yet to be told any results of his probe and investigators had yet to interview him. It turns out his complaint was closed last September and the OPMC neglected to inform him. Finkelstein is the Dix Hills doctor who the state Department of Health says put thousands of patients at risk to blood-borne pathogen infections such as hepatitis B and C and HIV/AIDS by reusing syringes. Recently, Finkelstein settled a medical malpractice lawsuit who claimed he contracted Hepatitis C as well. Finkelstein has so far settled an unprecedented 11 malpractice suits in eight years and is still practicing. Bookstaver received epidural spinal injections for back pain from Finkelstein in July 2004. His Hepatitis C diagnosis came in October 2004 and he made his complaint after receiving the May 2005 Health Department letter reporting that Finkelstein patients were at risk. New York is among only a few states that do not name physicians if they are not found guilty of misconduct. New York also does not hold public disciplinary hearings. “New York’s system is designed to protect the doctor,” said a former member of the State Legislature medical conduct task force. “It is overly bureaucratic and overly secretive, and everything takes too long.” Now the State Legislature is considering a bill proposed by Governor David A. Paterson to overhaul the state’s physician-discipline system. The bill was, in part, inspired by the New York’s delay in waiting three years before publicizing the Finkelstein’s case.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In regards to medical malpractice and litigation it has been shown for years that a simple apology can preclude lawsuits being filed, yet the apology laws in place have shown they have little influence on the increase of malpractice disclosure by doctors and hospitals. The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority and the Department of Health have examples of the disparity in reporting serious medical malpractice events. Pennsylvania is one of the states requiring serious events to be reported. While many “incidents” are reported, very few events are reported where the patient has actually been harmed, which are designated “serious events.” The board members of the Patient Safety Authority believe the lack of reporting is because of the “ego” of the doctors, the difficulty in defining a serious event and fear of litigation. In Pennsylvania there are approximately one-third of a million serious events and incidents reported each year and approximately half of 1 percent ever result in litigation. Numerous academic studies have shown that disclosure of medical errors result in less litigation. In fact most of the studies demonstrate that the majority of patients sue because of the lack of honesty and misleading behavior. Nationwide, state Department of Health boards need to do more to educate doctors and hospitals on the positive effects of honest disclosure to patients and their families as well as fair compensation when obvious malpractice injury has occurred.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Pennsylvania family lost their mother to a prescription mistake in 2003 after being prescribed the wrong heart medication for someone in her condition. Sandra D. Koch was on dialysis at the time and was prescribed 80 mg of Sotalol. For someone on dialysis it was the wrong medication as well as four times the appropriate dosage. The family’s attorney said, “The drug is excreted from the body by the kidneys and if the kidneys don't work and you are only getting dialysis every third day, the drug can build up in the body and cause a fatal heart arrhythmia, which is what she had kill her six days after she started the drug.” Further citing, “There was overwhelming evidence that you don't use this drug in this particular patient when there are other alternatives that were available that would have done the same thing.” A Superior Court jury agreed and awarded $1.6 million to her husband and children.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to the Hepatitis C outbreak in southern Nevada, regulators decided to post more information about the malpractice history of its doctor’s on the state Board of Medical Examiners website giving consumers a better tool to research their doctor. The unanimous decision was spurred by the outbreak and criticism of the way the board distributes information about it licensed doctors. The current website lists the names of doctors who've been disciplined and the nature of the infraction, but the public must contact the board for additional information. The board plans to add to that a searchable database of all doctors named in malpractice cases that ended in a settlement, award or judgment. The hepatitis C outbreak led to the biggest public health notification operation in U.S. history. Officials have linked 84 cases of the potentially deadly liver disease to the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada. More than 50,000 patients were notified they may be at risk. Federal and local health officials blamed the outbreak on unsafe injections procedures regularly performed at the center. Officials believe doctors ordered the staff to reuse syringes and misusing single-dose medication vials. The board is still investigating the doctors involved and a disciplinary hearing is scheduled for the clinic's owner, Dr. Dipak Desai.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A brain damaged boy and his family will be able to pay medical bills, acquire 24 hour care and buy a handicap accessible van with a wheelchair lift after the favorable outcome of a medical malpractice case in Florida. Darian, 8 years old now, is profoundly mentally handicapped after doctors botched his delivery in 2000. At that time Denise Brown was admitted to Broward General for delivery and was noted on her medical records to be at risk for pre-term labor. Brown experienced pre-term labor issues for the next three days, but the baby's heart rate and Brown's contractions were stabilized. Then a day later in the middle of the night the baby's condition worsened. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until more than two hours later that nurses called Brown’s doctor. Because of additional delays in the delivery room Darian now cannot feed himself, walk and will require a lifetime of care. The lawsuit blamed the doctors for failing to deliver the baby in a timely manner, and the nurses for negligence for failing to inform the doctors of significant chances in fetal monitoring. The jury agreed and the Brown family was awarded $35 million to care for their son.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

California has done a great disservice to their residents by limiting the amount of damages allowed in a lawsuit and not raising the limit in the last 30 years. Nancy Geyer's experience is an example. Her daughter woke up with an extremely high fever. Geyer took her daughter to the family physician and he thought she might have had a bacterial infection in her blood and told her to rush her to the hospital. The ER doctor who examined her sent them home saying it was symptoms of the flu. That night Geyer saw a horrifying sight when she answered her daughter's summons; her body was cold and was changing into different colors. She again rushed her to the
hospital, but her daughter was never to return home. When trying to get answers to her daughter's death she ran against the usual wall. They provided no explanation to the sudden death so Nancy sought help from an attorney. Unfortunately, the law MICRA the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, limits non-economic damages to $250,000. That precludes any legal help to be possible because of the costs involved. MICRA limits the contingency fees for attorneys in medical malpractice cases thus prohibiting attorneys to try some of the most deserving cases. In effect, Nancy Geyer was told her daughter's life is worth less than $250,000. This is just one
of many heart-wrenching stories caused by medical malpractice with no recourse.

Continue reading "California Tort Reform Prohibits Justice " »

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What kind of world do we live in where a man who seeks help for psychological reasons is solicited by his psychiatrist to help him find a handgun to kill 6 people? Fortunately, the troubled man had the foresight to call police telling them of his psychiatrist’s intentions. The psychiatrist was later arrested after purchasing a pistol with a silencer from an undercover officer. He pleaded guilty to illegal weapon possession and was sentenced to jail. The psychiatrist was understandably ordered to pay $365,000 to his patient for mental malpractice.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. David Healow, a Billings, Montana physician who treated patients with chronic pain, recently settled three medical malpractice lawsuits against him. The lawsuits alleged that the doctor negligently prescribed potentially lethal doses of pain medication to at least two of his patients. In addition, he stands accused of failing to properly treat a patient who developed an infection from the surgically implanted medication pump in his abdomen. Healow operated the pain control clinic until it closed in 2006. The settlement amounts were undisclosed as a result of confidentiality agreements in effect.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an editorial from The Roanoke Times in Virginia expresses the reprehensible way medical malpractice caps are causing suffering of their own kind. As of July 1st Virginia’s cap on malpractice damages will top at $2 million. That amount includes all damages, medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering and other non-economic damages. This cap will result in some patients being unable to recover their actual losses including medical expenses and the inability to work. With rising medical expenses nationwide the impact will victimize patients even more. One woman for instance won a $3.5 million verdict, but it will likely be halved. Her lawyers said her medical bills and lost wages have totaled $2.25 million. Malpractice is a fact of life and the victims of it may face costs exceeding the cap. The doctor and the insurance company covering him or her have a responsibility to the injured patient. It seems to be intuitively obvious that arbitrary caps like these will further victimize the victims and place a heavier burden on the already stressed medical system.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When an Ohio University freshman student woke with horrible pain in her right arm suffering from dizziness and fever, the Hudson Health Center doctor who examined her diagnosed her with a sore throat and muscle strain and sent her home with a vomit-inhibiting drug. She returned an hour and a half later and had trouble reaching the top of the steps at the center. She tearfully and anxiously told her doctor she felt as if she might pass out. The doctor changed her diagnosis to anxiety and offered her Aleve and animal crackers. Later, her father drove her to a hospital and their doctors noticed the telltale signs of necrotizing fasciitis and officially diagnosed her with the rare and life-threatening infection. She was her airlifted to Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus. That night, OSU doctors amputated her right arm, removing portions of her shoulder and collarbone. Arguing Hudson misdiagnosed his daughter, wasting precious time and exacerbating her trauma, her father said that he plans to sue Hudson for malpractice. Apparently, doctors recognize this life-threatening infection when a patient complains of disproportional pain, which was the case with the OU freshman. In a statement her father said, “They simply could have sent her to the emergency room. She even asked, and they didn’t do it.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A former nuclear pharmacist was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1988. In February of 2006, Larry Schultz, went to St. Luke’s Medical Center for a drug injection to be administered via his spine that was to relieve spasticity resulting from his disease. A medical resident at the hospital administered the drug Baclofen and Reno-60 into the spine. Unfortunately, Reno-60 was labeled that it was not to be used in spinal injections. The mistake resulted in severe spasticity, seizures and neurological damage, including fractures to three vertebrae and his hips. Schultz required further surgery and was condemned to a wheelchair. A jury awarded him more than $10 million in damages for the catastrophic injuries he suffered as a result of the mistake.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a malpractice decision a jury agreed that a C-section delivery damaged the organs of Brenda Schenk resulting in the removal of her transplanted pancreas that she had received to treat her diabetes. The hospital where this occurred was Strong Memorial Hospital and they were ordered to award $17 million in the medical malpractice decision. Her attorneys contend that because of poor planning the doctors cut the connection between her pancreas and bladder causing pancreatic fluid and urine to leak into her abdominal cavity. The fluid burned her organs, penetrated her abdominal wall ultimately requiring doctors to remove the transplanted pancreas.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit contending the parent company of medical centers across the country, Hospital Corporation of America, deliberately understaffed registered nurses to increase profits. HCA is the nation's largest hospital chain, operating 169 hospitals and 115 outpatient centers in 20 states and England. The suit alleges that low staffing levels resulted in inadequate care for patients, and led to injuries and deaths. The lead plaintiff in the suit claims that the lack of an adequate number of nurses during and post surgery resulted in his death. Her husband’s death in the post surgical critical care unit was not discovered for an hour. The lawsuit does not question the skills or care of nurses at the medical center where he died and other HCA hospitals. Instead it maintains that there aren't enough of them to properly care for patients.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)