According to reports, a Miami VA hospital has announced that 2,400 veterans may have been exposed to HIV and/or hepatitis during their colonoscopies. The hospital also acknowledged that it failed to notify as many 79 of those patients of their potential exposure to infection. The use of unsterile or improperly cleaned medical equipment, are leading causes of medical malpractice lawsuits. Earlier this year, a VA hospital in St. Louis reported that as many as 2,000 patients may also have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis due to improperly cleaned dental equipment. In 2009, three VA hospitals in Florida, Tennessee and Georgia, admitted potentially exposing more than eleven thousand veterans to HIV and hepatitis. Of that number, three veterans subsequently tested positive for HIV, while eight others tested positive for hepatitis.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has proposed new working standards to reduce instances of medical errors caused by fatigue and poor supervision of medical residents. Research has prompted the ACGME, an accrediting body for more than 8,800 medical residency programs, to recommend that the medical residents work a maximum 80-hour week averaged over four weeks. In addition the ACGME recommends significant changes to resident training and increased levels of supervision for first year residents. The ACGME proposes a reduction in duty periods of first year residents to no more than 16 hours per day and stricter requirements for duty hour exceptions. Hospitals and medical facilities are also urged to put in place more stringent processes regarding the handover of patient care and alertness management and fatigue mitigation strategies. If approved, these new working standards will be adopted by July 2011.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Physicians Insurers Association of America, Emergency Department doctors are among the most likely groups of medical professionals to be sued for medical negligence. Other “at risk” groups include obstetricians, surgeons and internists. Given the high-pressure surroundings of an emergency room, it is unsurprising that doctors make mistakes, but when they do the results can be devastating. Earlier the month, a jury in South Carolina awarded $3 million to the family of a patient who died after receiving treatment at Grand Strand Regional Medical Center in 2002. The woman, who had been diagnosed with kidney stones, went into septic shock and died after physicians underestimated the seriousness of her condition.

Posted by Seth A. Katz at 04:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to a survey conducted by the medical journal Pediatrics, more than 50% of physicians admitted making a diagnostic error at least once or twice per month. More than thirteen hundred professionals participated in the confidential survey, with more than 45% also admitting that their errors had actually harmed patients. The frequency of error for trainees was 77 percent. The most common errors were, failure to evaluate a patient’s history, failure to conduct a physical exam, and failure to chart a review of treatment. The survey also identified a lack of patient care coordination and teamwork as a cause of medical system failure.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Research from the University of California, has revealed a possible link between a rise in medication errors, and the arrival of new resident doctors in hospitals. Analysis of more than 240,000 death certificates issued between 1979 and 2006, focusing on mediation errors as the cause of death, found that fatal medication errors spiked in July when compared to other months of the year. The study raises some important issues, including the possible need to reevaluate the responsibilities assigned to new resident doctors and the levels of supervision required.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a verdict of medical malpractice and awarded more than $9.5 Million to a child who cerebral palsy as result of an induced birth. A jury found Ortonville Area Health Services and others responsible for the child’s injuries. The jury also found a doctor negligent in failing to disclose to the parents of the child the extent of the risks involved in the child's treatment - a treatment which, under the circumstances, any parent would have reasonably been expected to refuse. The jury attributed 70% negligence to the doctor and 30% to Ortonville Area Health Services.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to The National Quality Forum (NQF), medical-related harm has risen from the eighth leading cause of death in United States, to the third leading cause since 1999. In a recently published report, The Safe Practices for Better Healthcare – 2010 Update, the NQF acknowledges that while medical-harm is never intentional, instances of harm can almost always be avoided. The Safe Practices for Better Healthcare – 2010 Update, identifies 34 practices effective in reducing the occurrence of medical-related harm. Included within the list are actions relating to medication management and the prevention of healthcare infections. More information is available from the NQF’s website.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, it is advisable to talk to an experienced attorney as soon as possible. It is also important to understand the time restrictions involved in bring a claim, as deadlines vary by State and by the type of case involved. Earlier this week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to reinstate a Hillsdale County woman's medical malpractice lawsuit against her eye doctor, after official documents informing her of an impending deadline were mailed to a wrong address. A lower court had previously rejected DeCosta's complaint, despite the fact that she had been unable to respond due to the notice having been mailed to an old address. On appeal, The Supreme Court reversed the decision.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Georgia is the latest state to rule that limits on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein agreed that imposing statutory limits on non-economic damages were unconditional and raised serious concerns regarding governmental separation powers. The ruling is good news for the people of Georgia, and a victory for supporters of an individual's right to trial by jury. In February 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, also ruling a statute limiting damages in medical malpractice suits unconstitutional.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to some “experts” medical malpractice lawsuits are responsible for pushing up the cost of health care, forcing doctors in to adopting “defensive medicine” – a practice of ordering unnecessary tests and procedures for fear of being sued. Some politicians and commentators have advocated capping the amount a plaintiff can receive for pain suffering and other jury awards. However on closer inspection, the theory just does not “add-up”. According to a 2009 Congressional Budget Office report, medical malpractice insurance premiums and court verdicts account for less than two percent of overall health care expenditures. Medical malpractice lawsuits are not the root cause of the problem. Unfairly limiting jury awards and reducing malpractice liability will have serious consequences for public safety and restrict the ability of individuals to hold negligent healthcare professionals to account. Is that really what we want?

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ten patients who underwent surgery at Rose Medical Center in Denver have learned they were infected with hepatitis C following their operations. The scrub tech responsible for the blood-borne disease exposure tested positive for Hepatitis C. Kristen Parson is facing charges of tampering with a consumer product and a $250,000 fine. She has admitted to the personal use of the Fentanyl filled syringes and filling the used ones with saline and swapping them. The arrest affidavit claims 5,000 patients may be at risk for exposure to the disease. Another 1,000 patients at the Audubon Surgery Center in Colorado Springs may also be at risk. Parsons was fired by Rose in April for failing a drug test, after she tested positive for Fetanyl. She went to work at Audubon where she worked from May 4 until July 6 where she was eventually fired.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rose Medical Center in Denver is the latest site of a possible Hepatitis C outbreak. There are now 10 cases confirmed and It is thought as many as 5,700 patients were exposed by dirty needles. What makes this case unique is that irresponsible needle practices by trained technicians are not the cause of the outbreak. Instead a scrub tech stole syringes filled with Fentanyl, a narcotic, and then switched them with dirty saline-filled syringes. The scrub tech, Kristen Parker worked at Rose from October 21, 2008 until April. She was suspended April 13, and then fired after she failed a drug test by testing positive for Fentanyl. Kristen Parker is in federal custody and the U.S. Attorney's Office said she has admitted to stealing the Fentanyl filled syringes and replacing them with dirty used ones. If convicted of tampering with a consumer product and other charges, she faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine on the most serious charge of tampering. Hepatitis C is a blood-borne disease that can cause serious liver problems, including cirrhosis or liver cancer. The illness is treatable, but there is no cure. Symptoms can include nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, pain and jaundice.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rose Medical Center is offering free testing for hepatitis C for patients who underwent surgery at the main hospital or the Wolf Building between October 21, 2008 and April 13, 2009 where a former technician may have exposed thousands. The technician, Kristen Parsons, is charged with switching her used dirty syringes, refilled them with saline solution, for ones containting the powerful painkiller and narcotic Fentanyl. Hospital officials said they were aware of Parsons Hepatitis C when she was hired. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 8,000 people a year die from hepatitis C-related liver disease. The CDC also states that for every 100 people who contract the disease, 75 to 85 will develop a chronic infection. About 60 to 70 will develop chronic liver disease. About five to 20 will develop cirrhosis over a period of 20 to 30 years. Between one and five will die of liver cancer or cirrhosis.

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

In an unusual, and perhaps unique, development, an aggrieved party to a case has filed a lawsuit against the judge who presided over the case. The case involves the estate of a deceased individual who seemingly had no heirs and no will, where the Judge (with assistance from an attorney representing a friend of the deceased) awarded fees to both the attorney and the personal representative in the amount of $450,000 each.

Continue reading "Former Alabama Judge Charged with Legal Malpractice" »

Posted by David P. Hersh at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The widow of a 36-year-old traumatic brain injury victim secured a landmark verdict of $11 million when he died after ingesting foreign objects while under the care of an assisted living facility. As a result of a car accident, Earl Scherrer suffered a severe TBI. He remained in a coma for 16 months. After emerging from his coma his wife worked with him day after day helping him to slowly start to speak. After many hours of devotion to his care and recovery she was forced to return to work and had to rely on assisted living and residential facilities to provide his 24-hour care. After placing him, a month later she received a call saying her husband had been vomiting. He died in her arms. Autopsy results showed a number of items including plastic bags, unopened catsup packets, candy wrappers and paper towels were found in his stomach and small intestines. During the subsequent negligent death trial it came to light that the facility entered many false notations in his chart claiming care was given on the days that Mrs. Scherrer had him at home. The verdict included $2 million for the decedent, $5 million for the wife and $4 million in punitive damages. It was the largest verdict ever awarded against an assisted living facility in the United States.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The hepatitis C scare in Southern Nevada has played a crucial role in the introduction of an Assembly bill that would remove the medical malpractice caps limiting pain and suffering damages to $350,000 that was instituted in 2004. The bill aims to increase filing time limits as well that will allow victims' attorneys to bring a case to trial in five years rather than two. Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno said that the hepatitis C crisis serves as a reminder that there must be "more effective recourse for lives that have been ... negatively affected by a doctor." The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is at the center of the hepatitis C scare because of its dangerous injection practices that led to nine people being infected with the disease. An additional 50,000 patients were told to get tested for further infectious diseases according to the Southern Nevada Health District. Health officials say that more than 100 others may have contracted hepatitis at the clinics.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a gross example of medical malpractice Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Carmelo Rodriguez died of cancer in a case where doctors diagnosed, but elected not to treat or inform him of his melanoma. Instead doctors told him that he had a wart. Unfortunately, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, the Feres Doctrine, prevents military personnel and their families from suing the federal government for injuries linked to their service. Unlike every other U.S. citizen, people in the military cannot sue the government for medical malpractice leaving victims and their families no recourse in seeking justice. On a fact finding mission, CBS News obtained Rodriquez's medical report from 10 years before his death and found that a military doctor noted that his skin was "abnormal" describing it in further detail as "melanoma" on his medical report. Doctors elected not to inform Rodriquez of their findings nor did they recommend any treatment. The Rodriquez family traveled to Washington in an effort to change the law and participated in a hearing questioning the Supreme Court decision.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Kansas City attorney is suing the Mayo Clinic in the misdiagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Elliot M. Kaplan underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer only to find out that he didn't have cancer at all. Attorney for Kaplan claims his client is "a broken man in unremitting pain, punctuated by increasingly frequent episodes of disabling pain." The suit alleges that the Mayo Clinic negligently analyzed the pathology slides of his pancreatic tissue, thus misdiagnosing him, leading to unnecessary and painful surgery causing subsequent complications. The once active Kaplan used to develop new motor vehicle products for car companies, raced cars and flew airplanes before the surgery. Kaplan's attorney is seeking $7 million in actual and prospective economic losses.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a new twist on an already horrendous medical malpractice case, two medical device and surgical material companies are facing possible financial penalties because of their relationship with John A. King, an osteopathic surgeon with 124 medical malpractice lawsuits filed against him. Wright Medical Technology Inc. and EBI Inc. are two of several medical device companies under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Wright Medical Technology Inc. is mentioned in 33 lawsuits for their bone-fusion material that failed to work during two experimental studies performed on rats and rabbits, but was used on King’s patients. Five of Wright Medical’s competitors have reached settlements with the DOJ about using “sham contracts and other kickbacks to persuade surgeons to choose their goods.” EBI Inc. is mentioned in 38 lawsuits involving spine-stimulating devices King used during surgeries. EBI allegedly paid King a bonus each time he inserted one of their Ionic Spacers into a patient’s spine. The spacers have never been successfully used in animals or humans to replace diseased or damaged vertebral disks. According to a released complaint, payments and kickbacks, in the guise of cash payments, travel benefits, entertainment and other benefits, given to physicians such as King are “frequently disguised as consultancies.” Wright Medical, in its 10K report filed on Feb. 23, stated, "We are subject to various federal and state laws concerning health care fraud and abuse, including false claims laws and anti-kickback laws." An SEC report added that,

“allegedly our products had not been properly cleared by the FDA and that we failed to warn that our products were not safe for their intended use and that we knew that Dr. King was not properly trained or was performing the surgeries inappropriately.”

“We, like other companies in the orthopedic industry, are involved in ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the results of which may adversely impact our business and results of operations," EBI added. It is

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During pregnancy Kimberly Monson developed preeclampsia in her 35th week. The condition is typically treatable, but her obstetrician failed to treat her properly. Her condition worsened becoming severe enough to cause a brain bleed leading to brain damage. The baby was delivered safely. In the ensuing medical malpractice case she secured a $6.4 million award.

"She's really a brave and courageous woman. It's a great family and, hopefully, this can allow her to move on a little, I guess," said her attorney.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A family lost the life of their unborn child to a faulty decision made by their healthcare provider. Instead of electing to perform an immediate Cesarean section delivery to save the infant, the provider chose to transfer the mother and unborn child to another hospital. During the transfer, the ambulance medics attempted to perform an emergency Cesarean section delivery, but it was too little too late. They were unable to resuscitate the infant following the delivery. The parents filed a malpractice lawsuit and a jury agreed with the plaintiffs, awarding them $1.7 million for the death of their infant son.

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

Annual pap smears for women are touted as the best and possibly only way to prevent cervical cancer. Once an abnormal pap smear is detected there are a number of very quick treatment choices for women that virtually eliminate any further danger of progressing to cervical cancer. Many women religiously schedule visits with their doctors to detect any troublesome areas. One woman did just that, but in the end it was the pathology lab that failed to detect signs of cervical cancer. Once her cancer was finally detected it had spread and required surgery and radiation treatment, according to the ensuing malpractice court documents. A jury agreed with the plaintiff and awarded her and her husband $5.5 million in damages.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Currently in Colorado, plaintiffs can be ordered by a judge to buy “cost bonds” to cover all court costs should the plaintiff lose their case. This week, a bill is being heard in the Colorado state assembly which is an effort to do away with most of the “cost bonds.” As an example, a Denver man had to choose to either drop his medical malpractice case in the death of his wife or use his children’s college fund. He could not afford the cost bonds precisely because of his wife’s hospital bills. His case was certified as having merit by medical experts.

“He had to make the really difficult decision that he could not do that, so the case was dismissed, and he never got his day in court,” said his attorney.

“If every person who's going to bring a lawsuit has to come up with 10, 25, or 50 thousand dollars, what kind of court system is that? That's a court system for the wealthy, that's what it is,” the Denver attorney continued.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Kentucky jury awarded $2.5 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed on behalf of a married couple affected by a sponge left behind after surgery for a hysterectomy. In 2001, Sophia Savage had a hysterectomy. During surgery the sponge was left in her abdomen. In 2005, Sophia went to her doctor complaining of pain and during an X-ray the sponge was found. While in another surgery to remove the sponge, surgeons discovered that it was attached to her lower intestines thus forcing them to remove 49 centimeters of her small intestine. Sophia Savage was awarded $1.9 million for past and future pain and suffering and $65,968 for past medical expenses while her husband was awarded $500,000 for loss of consortium.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Former osteopath John A. King who generated 124 medical malpractice lawsuits during his seven months at Putnam General Hospital had filed for bankruptcy in late 2007 claiming the only asset to his name was a $500 Volvo, thus trying to prevent litigation against him. Fortunately, a federal bankruptcy judge learned that King has been hiding at least $670,000 in assets under the Bone Maker Trust, one of several accounts King created. As a result, the judge ruled that King can no longer use his federal bankruptcy filing to eliminate debts or protect himself from financial claims and lawsuits. Perhaps justice can finally be realized for the countless victims of his negligence.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Francis Keller, 21, died after oral surgery to remove his wisdom teeth. His family filed a dental medical malpractice lawsuit alleging their son’s death was the result of Dr. George Flugrad’s failing to receive clearance from the young man’s primary physician. Francis Keller suffered from a hereditary immune disorder where trauma to his face and hands could cause his immune system to react, resulting in swelling of the hands, face and airway. Following the wisdom teeth extraction, Keller began having trouble breathing as a result of his throat swelling, causing him to suffocate to death. The dental malpractice lawsuit resulted in a $10.2 million award to Keller’s family.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Medical Justice is a company that advises doctors to have their patients sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to being seen to prevent any possible negative treatment being reported on medical consumer websites. Websites such as Yelp, RageMDs and Angie’s List have been created for just such a venue. If a patient refuses to sign the what is essentially a gag order, the doctor can turn them away. What is alarming about this trend is that if a patient is poorly treated they have no way to warn other potential consumers. In other venues if consumers are unhappy with a product or treatment they can file a complaint with such companies as Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau. The non-disclosure forms prevent this recourse for medical consumers. John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, said that in recent months, six doctors have asked him to remove negative online comments based on patients’ signed waivers. He has refused. “They’re basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive,” Swapceinski said. He said he’s planning to post a “Wall of Shame” listing names of doctors who use patient waivers

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A South Carolina family lost their 4-year-old girl when she succumbed to her brain injury incurred at birth. The girl at birth was oxygen deprived and eventually died of complications from cerebral palsy. Three days prior to her scheduled induction the mother arrived at the hospital complaining of nausea and vomiting. Lawyers argued the nurse trainee assigned to the mother misread fetal heart monitoring information showing the baby was in dire distress. According to the lawsuit the fetal monitor showed the baby needed emergency intervention. Once born, the girl’s life was full of challenges. She took medication for seizures, underwent therapy several times a week and relied on a feeding tube to keep her nourished. A jury agreed with the family and awarded them $4.4 million in damages.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In recent years, MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infections have become more common in hospitals throughout the country. Other MRSA infections are beginning to occur in community settings outside the hospital ward as well. A Texas man went into septic shock following an ulcer surgery. By the time the infection was diagnosed and treated, gangrene had set in, requiring the removal of both arms below his elbows and both legs below his knees. In the man’s medical malpractice trial a Dallas county civil jury awarded $17.5 million, but because of the malpractice caps in that state he will collect only $7.5 million of it.

The man’s attorney, Linda Turley, said the malpractice caps were a "tragic unfairness" to her client, who has relied on family members for daily living over the last six years. He now lives with his brother in East Texas. “He can't bathe by himself, can't get out of the house by himself and will need assistance for the rest of his life,” Turley said.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A 7 year-old boy who allegedly suffered a brain injury at birth was given $6.5 million in a settlement reached on his behalf. In an effort to induce the child’s delivery the mother was given the drug Pitocin. According to attorney’s for the boy, the attending obstetrician and the labor and delivery nurse failed to respond to the baby’s low heart rate and reduced oxygen flow. The child was born with metabolic acidosis and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. The settlement will help pay for his continued healthcare.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a result of a botched neurosurgery the parents of Michael Skolnik lobbied to pass a bill to insure transparency of doctors’ backgrounds. Thanks to their efforts Colorado House Bill 1331, the Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act, was passed for 2009. What that means for medical consumers is they can go to a website to research their potential doctor. The site is located at www.dora.state.co.us. From the home page find "Popular Pages," then click on the first item, "Physician Profile Web Outlook." The profiles will contain any disciplinary action taken, medical license restriction or suspension, suspended hospital rights, right to practice medicine in Colorado, convictions of any felonies, malpractice insurance and finally, whether they were ordered to pay a claim in a malpractice lawsuit. “We have a great deal of confidence in the system,” said Chris Lines, spokesman for DORA. “We see it as a consumer protection that anyone in the state can use.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a Santa Rosa, California Court a jury has awarded a Ukiah man in a case of medical malpractice $850,000 after just 6 hours of deliberation. While anesthesized and intubated to undergo arthroscopic right shoulder surgery, a “shoulder chair” became detached from the operating table causing the man’s body to fall and hit his head on the concrete floor resulting in sustaining traumatic injuries to his head, neck and lower back. “This was a tragic case where the hospital failed to take full responsibility for its employees' failures,” said one of the man’s attorney’s. “We are gratified the jury saw through the expensive experts' testimony hired by the hospital to excuse its negligence. We were pleased that the jury would return a significant verdict against the small community's only hospital.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an investigation into the D.C. city hospitals and clinics to determine transparency in “adverse event” reporting a number of medical errors were found that killed, injured or sickened patients. The report was a collection of adverse events required under D.C. law to track medical malpractice. Of 529 reported incidents in the 12 months leading up to June 2008 at least 14 people were killed and many other maimed or injured. Among the errors found were a cancer patient who had the wrong breast operated on because of a clerical error, a patient who died when his ventilator failed and numerous instances where sponges, catheters and needles were left inside of patients post surgery. While the resultant data is troublesome on its own, the report also found that many hospitals and nursing homes had not turned over information regarding doctor errors and adverse events.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A tragic prescription error leads to the death of a 66 year-old man in March 2007. George Smith became ill eight days after receiving prescriptions from his Wal-Mart pharmacy intended for another. His two adult children subsequently sued Wal-Mart for $3 million and the discount store giant settled according to the family’s attorney. Attorney for the family say it is “a favorable settlement,” but adds the details of it have been sealed as part of the settlement. As more baby boomer Americans age, unfortunately this tragedy will probably begin to occur exponentially.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tabitha Mullings was discharged from the hospital and given painkillers for a kidney stone when 24 hours later a sepsis infection raged through her system. Two weeks later gangrene had choked off blood and oxygen supply to her limbs destroying them and leaving her blind in her right eye and severely impaired vision in her left. The 32-year-old mother of three is now a quadruple amputee losing her arms below the elbows and legs below the knees. Sadly, the day after being released from the ER she dialed 911 twice within the next 24 hours, but medics did not take her back to the hospital. A lawsuit has been filed on her behalf alleging negligence of the hospital and doctors in treating her properly seeking funds to provide for her and her family.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After a seemingly normal pregnancy a mother’s baby was suddenly in dire straights. Part way through the induced delivery the baby’s monitor showed a drop in heart rate and the mother began to feel sick. It was quickly determined that the mother and infant were suffering from a rare and unexpected placental abruption that threatened both their lives. An emergency Caesarean section was performed, but the infant was not breathing. The hospital staff rushed to save the mother’s life while a nurse and respiratory therapist performed CPR on the infant with no success. The tragedy is the infant was born blind, brain damaged, unable to suck or swallow, suffered from constant pneumonia and diarrhea, but worst of all had an aversion to being held or cuddled. Some records indicate from the time of the C-section the infant was not breathing for 12 minutes, but the hospital said it could have been as little as one minute. However long the delay was, the infant was severely injured by the lack of oxygen and died a year later due to the injuries. An ensuing lawsuit against the hospital alleged that the infant was without oxygen for too long due to an understaffed hospital with disorganized emergency procedures. The Court agreed with the family and their insurance company and a jury awarded them more than $920,000 for hospital bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. The award has not been received because an appeal by the hospital is likely.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Pennsylvania jury has awarded over $5 million in a medical malpractice case involving a medical error causing permanent brain damage. The plaintiff went to an emergency room with symptoms of confusion and difficulty walking due to an electrolyte deficiency with dangerously low sodium. The hospital physicians proceeded to attempt to bring her low sodium up at a rate of 125 cc per hour, but instead she received 1000 cc in one hour. The result of the rapid infusion of IV sodium is a known and preventable complication known as central pontine myelinolysis, which is permanent brain damage. Since the brain injury, the woman has been unable to return to work, has impaired thinking slurred speech and a difficulty walking. She requires in-home care, which is being provided by her daughter.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The joy of Zoe Sofia Rojas’ entrance into this world was shadowed by the death of her mother who carried her to term, but would never meet her little baby girl. Zoe’s mother Stacy complained of vomiting and excruciating headaches just a month before Zoe’s birth and her death. Stacy’s doctor sent her home informing her to take Tylenol and use heating pads. Soon after, she suffered a brain aneurysm rendering her brain-dead. “I can just remember sitting with the neonatal intensive care doctors and they're trying to talk you out of going through the life support with Stacy to bring her to term,” Marcus Rojas, Stacy’s husband said. “I'm glad we did it because they were all wrong.” In the ensuing lawsuit Mr. Rojas received a paltry $200,000 due to the medical malpractice caps in place in Texas and the doctors’ lack of malpractice insurance coverage. What is little known of the malpractice tort reform in Texas is there is no legal requirement for doctors to carry medical malpractice insurance! Understandably, Mr. Rojas is angry and according to his attorney Les Weisbrod, “This is a case that should have been worth $1.6 million.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A newborn infant lost its mother to a medication error. The doctor who prescribed the medication recommended the 32 year-old mother is given the blood pressure medication labetalol following a Caesarean section for an apparent dangerous drop in blood pressure. She went into cardiac arrest and died. The subsequent lawsuit for wrongful death resulted in the jury awarding $2 million to her family. The doctor found negligent is expected to appeal.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Illinois resident Marlene Bruhmuller, 61, went to the emergency department complaining of severe pain in her left leg. Two years prior, she had undergone a femoral-popliteal bypass on the same leg for vascular insufficiency. At that time her surgeon told her that she needed to go to the emergency room immediately if she ever developed severe pain in the leg. She followed her surgeon’s advice, but was not seen for four hours. The ER she went to triaged her as “urgent” rather than “emergent”. Once she was finally seen she was immediately diagnosed with a blockage of her bypass graft and taken directly to surgery. The next surgeon was unable to restore adequate blood flow, but did not send her to another medical center for treatment until the next day. As a result, Mrs. Bruhmuller suffered a through-the-knee amputation.

“Mrs. Bruhmuller did exactly what she had been instructed to do when she went to the Emergency Department with her leg pain,” said her attorney “This is a time-sensitive problem and there is every reason to believe she would have been fine with proper and timely care.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A 75 year-old married father of three died as a result of human error and defects in hospital procedures after being given a lethal dose of the wrong chemotherapy drug. It may be argued that Alexander Cusker was late in years and did not have as much of a financial impact on society as a senior, thus his death was not as much of a loss as someone who was gainfully employed and supporting a family, but that would be woefully disingenuous to his family. The fact remains that because of a pharmacy technician’s error a family has lost a loved one who doctors believed could have lived at least two years longer. An awful lot could have been accomplished in two years. The sheriff investigating the case concluded, “The undisputed evidence led at this inquiry has highlighted defects in the standard operating procedure, which did not prevent the release from the unit of not only the wrong chemotherape utic drug for Mr Cusker but also did not prevent him receiving about five times the appropriate dosage of that wrong drug." He further added, “I sincerely hope that this inquiry has served to give him and his family a clear picture as to how it came to be that a dearly loved husband and father received an overdose of the wrong chemotherapeutic drug”

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A 75 year-old married father of three died as a result of human error and defects in hospital procedures after being given a lethal dose of the wrong chemotherapy drug. It may be argued that Alexander Cusker was late in years and did not have as much of a financial impact on society as a senior, thus his death was not as much of a loss as someone who was gainfully employed and supporting a family, but that would be woefully disingenuous to his family. The fact remains that because of a pharmacy technician’s error a family has lost a loved one who doctors believed could have lived at least two years longer. An awful lot could have been accomplished in two years. The sheriff investigating the case concluded, “The undisputed evidence led at this inquiry has highlighted defects in the standard operating procedure, which did not prevent the release from the unit of not only the wrong chemotherape utic drug for Mr Cusker but also did not prevent him receiving about five times the appropriate dosage of that wrong drug." He further added, “I sincerely hope that this inquiry has served to give him and his family a clear picture as to how it came to be that a dearly loved husband and father received an overdose of the wrong chemotherapeutic drug”

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ohio lawmakers have given final approval for a law that would require pharmacy technicians to meet minimum safety standards in an effort to minimize pharmacy errors. Prompting the legislation was a 2-year-old girl who was undergoing treatment for a tumor who died as a result of a pharmacy mix up at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland. At the time of her death the pharmacy technician responsible for filling her prescription mixed a chemotherapy drug with a saline solution that contained 26 times more salt than normal.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the National Institute of Medicine medication errors kill about 7,000 people a year. Even though most errors are attributed to the patients’ mistake about 13 percent, approximately 900 people, die every year from prescription errors where the wrong medicine is dispensed or in the wrong dose. Dr. Deborah Nazdam, the chairwoman for the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention said children are especially vulnerable to medication errors. “It's not just because they can't always tell you what's wrong,” she said. “They have a much more severe response to overdoses. Their kidneys aren't as developed and they can't metabolize medications as easily as adults can.” The Cox family avoided the proverbial “bullet” when they noticed that a prescription filled for their 2-year-old son Andrew for seizures looked wrong and that was only because the mother Jennifer, also takes the drug. "I noticed that the pills were extremely large," Cox said. "Then I looked at the bottle and saw that the dosage was 100 times more than it was supposed to be." Their pediatrician wrote a prescription for a 2 mg dose of Lamictal, but it was filled with 200 mg tablets. According to the drug's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, an overdose of Lamictal can lead to a coma, decreased level of consciousness, delayed heartbeat, increased seizures or death.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A doctor’s mantra is “First, do no harm,” but when it comes to those who fail to honor this promise the medical establishment comes back with, “Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow physician.” Doctor’s feel, “There but for the grace of God go I. Do I want to take away this guy’s livelihood?” according to Arthur Levin of the Center for Medical Consumers. A recent survey of 1,600 physicians by Columbia University’s Institute on Medicine as a Profession revealed that 46 percent of the doctors surveyed had witnessed “serious” medical errors performed by their colleagues and did not report them. A whopping 93 percent knew they should have. Compounding the issue is that only 16 states make available malpractice payouts made by doctors on public websites for consumer use. Dr.
Sidney Wolfe of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said, “There isn't an adequate system to catch these doctors after they've done one or two things, as opposed to just letting them go on and on. ” Even after sanctions made against an errant doctor are made, they usually keep practicing. In an effort to limit bad doctors from continuing to practice steps have been suggested. One step provided would be for doctors to admit fault and
apologize because recent research showed remorse could fend off a medical malpractice suit. Research also shows that doctors who had been disciplined by their state medical boards had a threefold increase in unprofessional behavior as medical students. “The tradition of professionalism must begin in medical school,” says study author Dr. Maxine Papadakis, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Susan Dorr Goold believes that a doctor’s ethics education needs to continue even after medical school. These steps may curtail some bad doctors from surfacing and seeking to practice medicine, but remember the joke, what do you call a medical student who graduated last in his class? . . .Doctor.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In September 2001, Michael Skolnik passed out. His mother Patty Skolnik, took him to a Denver doctor who said the 22 year-old had a tiny brain cyst and that it could be removed in a three-hour surgery. Six hours later, no cyst was found and Michael was left paralyzed, partially blind and psychotic. After three years in the hospital he died at the age of 25. State authorities found the surgeon faultless, but his mother wasn’t satisfied, “The doctor basically killed Michael that day.” Later she learned that the physician had a malpractice case pending against him in Georgia. In response she, lobbied the state legislature, met with lawmakers and testified for a proposed statute requiring physicians seeking or renewing a Colorado medical license to report all malpractice settlements or disciplinary actions against them. Last May she joined Governor Bill Ritter as he signed House Bill 1331, known as the Michael Skolnick Medical Transparency Act.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Nevada Medical Examiners Board met and listened to a proposal that would streamline the licensing rules for that state as well as decreasing the amount of time it takes to investigate and discipline errant doctors. Louis Ling, a lawyer as well as the medical board chief, brought his concern that the disciplinary process seemed more concerned about doctors than their patients. He felt the process was “cloaked in confidentiality,” and that “a lack of transparency inevitably leads to accusations of favoritism and unaccountability. The current process is more than 30 years old and was created when there were only 820 active physicians. Today the Board licenses 4,400 doctors, plus physician assistants and respiratory therapists. Ling suggested that an investigative committee including lawyers outside of the Board be created to take over the investigation and adjudication of complaints. The team would review complaints, assign investigators, manage the investigation and mak e decisions regarding how to proceed with the complaints. The new proposal would also allow patients to tell the board how they were affected by an errant treatment. “What gets lost is the really human harm that’s been done in these matters,” Ling said in his critique of the current system. “We want to get patients back involved in your process so they’re part of your considerations.” Although the Board members agreed with most of the proposal they tweaked a few of the suggestions. It looks as if the Nevada Medical Examiners Board is taking definitive and positive steps in an effort to protect the public.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Nevada Medical Examiners Board met and listened to a proposal that would streamline the licensing rules for that state as well as decreasing the amount of time it takes to investigate and discipline errant doctors. Louis Ling, a lawyer as well as the medical board chief, brought his concern that the disciplinary process seemed more concerned about doctors than their patients. He felt the process was “cloaked in confidentiality,” and that “a lack of transparency inevitably leads to accusations of favoritism and unaccountability. The current process is more than 30 years old and was created when there were only 820 active physicians. Today the Board licenses 4,400 doctors, plus physician assistants and respiratory therapists. Ling suggested that an investigative committee including lawyers outside of the Board be created to take over the investigation and adjudication of complaints. The team would review complaints, assign investigators, manage the investigation and mak e decisions regarding how to proceed with the complaints. The new proposal would also allow patients to tell the board how they were affected by an errant treatment. “What gets lost is the really human harm that’s been done in these matters,” Ling said in his critique of the current system. “We want to get patients back involved in your process so they’re part of your considerations.” Although the Board members agreed with most of the proposal they tweaked a few of the suggestions. It looks as if the Nevada Medical Examiners Board is taking definitive and positive steps in an effort to protect the public.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An Omaha, NE woman lost her husband of 57 years to a medical error on March 12, 2007. Earlier the previous day Jim Karaus and his wife Mary were watching TV when he started talking in nonsense words. Mary called the paramedics and they rushed him to Bergan Mercy Hospital. Jim had suffered a minor stroke. Doctors
approached Mary and asked her about giving him a dose of T.P.A. a drug that can minimize the effects of stroke. She agreed. “Next thing I knew, the nurse came in and she was crying and the doctor come right in and they said they'd given Jim the wrong medicine,” said Mary. The doctor prescribed T.P.A., but a nurse wrote T.N.K. in another box. T.N.K. is a drug for heart attack patients not strokes. The emergency room record stated, “Nurse inquired 'do you want T.N.K. given? Both M.D.'s stated yes.” Mary said she stayed at the hospital while the staff monitored her husband in case there were complications. When it looked like Jim was in the clear, Mary went home. Later Jim
’s lungs started to bleed and he died shortly after. The family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital in hopes of preventing the same outcome in future stroke patients.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.burgsimpson.com/malpractice.htmlThe U.S Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act was ordered to pay $8.6 million to a woman whose arm was ravaged by necrotizing fasciitis, a flesh eating bacteria that eat away at the deeper layers of skin. Jean Phillips went to see a military doctor at Scott Air Force Base in 2002 seeking treatment for pain and swelling in her right arm. According to the lawsuit, the doctor failed to properly diagnose and treat her telling her to take some Motrin. The disease progressed and she was left with a ravaged arm and debilitating pain.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New Hampshire law that went into effect three years ago in an effort to screen medical malpractice cases before trial has come into question. Lawyers for doctors feel the system is saving time and money by encouraging settlements, but attorneys representing injured plaintiffs believe otherwise because they are spending just as much time and money preparing for the panel hearings. The question of whether cases are being resolved quicker is ard to categorize because after three years more than half of the malpractice lawsuits remain unresolved. The superior court is concerned, “To the extent that one of the ideas (behind this law) was that we'll get a quick and dirty resolution, that's just not happening,” said Chief Justice Robert Lynn.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since a Hepatitis C outbreak was discovered, two Endoscopy centers have been at the center of the crisis. Health officials say as many as 105 hepatitis cases are “possibly associated” with the facilities where another 35 have been classified as “indeterminate.” The Nevada Board of Health has already suspended the licenses of two owner/doctors of the centers pending an investigation. The Board has announced a third physician who has been assigned a medical malpractice complaint by officials. Dr. Clifford Carrol, a Las Vegas gastroenterologist, faces four allegations relating to the care he provided to patients, one of whom has been identified as the source or "index" patient whose disease officials say was transmitted to seven others on Sept. 21, 2007. “The allegation is that he (Carrol) was the physician treating the sourc e pati ent that led to other patients acquiring hepatitis C later that day,” said Louis Ling, the medical board's executive director and special counsel. “This was Dr. Carrol's first patient of the day and he (the patient) was a known carrier of hepatitis C.” It is believed the reuse of syringes contaminated multiple vials of anesthesia. As of now, the Southern Nevada Health District has linked eight hepatitis C transmissions to one of the facilities and one case to a sister facility. Carrol, who has been licensed in Nevada since April 1997, is one of more than a dozen physicians who had practiced medicine under the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada. The center was the umbrella company for several Desai-owned endoscopy centers throughout Las Vegas, all of which have closed. Since the outbreak was discovered, health officials have urged more than 53,000 f ormer patients to get tested for hepatitis B and C, and HIV.

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

On May 9, 2007 Edith Rodriguez, 43, was brought to the Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Medical Center by her boyfriend in excruciating pain. She lay on the hospital floor writhing in pain and was ignored. The negligence she underwent was reprehensible. The boyfriend was forced to find a nearby pay phone and dial 911 after no one would help her. When the hospital declined to treat Rodriquez, county police officers arrested her on an outstanding warrant for a parole violation. She died from a perfo rated bowel shortly after she was arrested. A federal report issued last year concluded that six staff members, including a nurse and two nursing assistants, saw or walked past Rodriguez but did nothing. A video showed a janitor mopping the floor around her. A Los Angeles County official acknowledged for the first time in more than a year that Rodriquez could have been saved if she were properly treated. A lawsuit has been filed against the county by her adult children. The boyfriend was recently offered a paltry $250,000 settlement by county supervisors. The county will attempt to settle the children’s case for $250,000, but the children are asking for $1 million for each minute she was denied treatment resulting in $45 million total.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“Missed or delayed diagnosis of breast cancer remains the leading cause of medical malpractice litigation in the nation today, while at the same time reimbursement for mammographic examinations remains embarrassingly low,” Dr. Leonard Berlin, chairman of the department of radiology at Rush North Shore Medical Center in Skokie, Ill., and Rush Medical College in Chicago. All over the country it can take from four months to a year to get a mammogram. Most radiologists shy away from mammography because of its repetition, narrow focus and the fear of missing a diagnosis. Many no longer offer the services. The number of facilities offering mammograms has dropped from 9,114 in 2004 to 8,832 in 2006, according to the FDA. “There is no public or private agency measuring or ensuring that women have reliable access to mammograms,” says Robert Smith, Ph.D., director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society. “Junior staff get assigned to read mammograms, and most of them just don't want to do it. Most will try to cycle out and pursue other subspecialties like MR (magnetic resonance) and CT (computerized tomography),” says Dr. Barbara Sharp, an advocate for improved access and a breast-imaging specialist at Mori, Bean & Brooks Radiology. Many radiologists consider it bad business to offer routine breast screenings. The leading reason women choose to sue is when a late-stage diagnosis has been made because the breast cancer was not detected in an earlier mammogram. What we can conclude from this is that with lack of financial gain and quite simply boredom, radiologists put women’s health at risk.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An Illinois mother of nine died in a hospital three years ago after bleeding during her pregnancy. The 27-year-old woman was 31 weeks pregnant. The infant survived. According to the suit medical personnel at the county hospital failed to administer the woman blood-clotting products in time after she began bleeding and collapsed. The mother’s family filed a lawsuit and the Cook County Board authorized a $9.8 million medical malpractice settlement.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, 65 of 70 boards in the United States put physician profiles online, but what information is included in those profiles varies. In the past, patients across the nation have been able to access physician profiles by calling or writing to their boards, but now the web is empowering their research. Some but not all websites include a physician’s hospital affiliation, hospital and medical board disciplinary actions, medical malpractice payments and other pertinent information. The more detailed sites include medical malpractice information and criminal convictions. The trend toward transparency is expected to grow. “People expect transparency,” said David Swankin, president and CEO of the Citizen Advocacy Center based in Wash. D.C. which offers training and research for members of health care regulatory, credentialing and governing boards. “It's a good thing to see. For too long we drew the balance the wrong way.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Pennsylvania jury ruled in favor of a family in a lawsuit triggered by the medical malpractice experienced at the birth of their son. Jurors found the doctor and the Community Medical Center negligent in their care for Laura White while giving birth to her son Cody causing lifelong injuries. Cody now suffers from cerebral palsy, is almost blind and has no use of his hands. The Whites will receive $2 million for heath care expenses and related costs and when Cody reaches the age of 18 will receive $18.5 million for his lost earning potential, pain a nd suffering and future medical expenses. The judge in the case said this was the largest award he has seen in a medical malpractice trial in his 10 years on the bench.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For families and patients who undergo hospitalization or medical treatment it is often difficult for them to receive their medical records once requested of the institution. In many cases the failure of the medical institution to produce the requested records delays the ability of the family to file any negligence lawsuit because of an imposed statute of limitations. It can be difficult to obtain medical records from hospitals and other treatment facilities after something goes wrong. Under federal law, every patient or a designated representative has the right to see and copy the patient's medical records. However, missing or disputed records are the most common source of complaints on USA TODAY's Patient Safety website (patient safety.usatoday.com), which was created in 2006 to give readers a venue to express concerns about inadequate medical care. Sidney Wolfe, a physician who leads the health research group at the non-profit consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen says, “there is essentially a double standard” when it comes to accessing medical records. When doctors or hospitals request medical records of their patients they usually get them however, “If it's just the patient who wants the records or the patient's family if the patient died, it's a whole different story,” Wolfe said. Harry Rhodes, a spokesman for the American Health Information Management Association, says most cases of missing records are honest omissions. The federal law that gives patients and family members access to medical records is the privacy section of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act. HIPAA allows health care providers to withhold records in some circumstances, as long as they explain why they are doing so. Examples of records that may be withheld are psychiatric documents and documents generated in preparation for a legal action.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Paul Martin, 38, takes a drug called Sinemet to help with his Parkinson’s disease. After he picked up his prescription at a supermarket pharmacy he began to suffer symptoms. Within days of receiving his medication he began to have difficulty walking and had involuntary muscles contractions. When his condition significantly deteriorated he checked his prescription and found he was given the wrong tablets with an incorrect dose. He was understandably upset and said, "I could have ended up in hospital and was absolutely fuming when I found out they had given me the wrong tablets. They were in the correct box so I didn't realize until I'd been taking them for four days. This should not have happened and I am considering legal action." Pharmacy errors happen more often than many realize and although the pharmacies have strict processes in place and constant monitoring, mistakes still happen.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has dismissed a piece of a 2003 lawsuit reform calling in unconstitutional. The original measure required plaintiffs to give the defendants notice within 180 days of the alleged medical malpractice or have their case dismissed. In other types of lawsuits plaintiffs who fail to notify the defendant within 180 days still can have their case heard before it is dismissed. Whereas, this particular measure singled out medical negligence plaintiffs. In the ruling filed the Supreme Court states the law “denies such plaintiffs prior notice of dismissal proceedings while the ordinary plaintiff receives notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to any dismissal.” The court said the requirement violated the Oklahoma Constitution's ban on special laws because it puts medical negligence cases in a separate class from all other negligence claims.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the life of one little boy and his mother things may be looking up. During delivery James Monroe, born in 1995, head was lacerated by a scalpel. Medical professionals attempted to staunch the bleeding for over an hour; he was transferred to another Hospital and was left with a brain injury. More than four years later his mother decided to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. The lower court dismissed the mother’s birth injury suit because of a statute of limitations. However, the statute also allows for malpractice lawsuits involving “brain damage or birth defect, the period of limitations is extended until the child attains 10 years of age.” The Nevada Supreme Court overruled the lower court’s dismissal of the case, indicating that the injury does qualify as brain damage or a birth defect under Nevada law and the case will be allowed to continue.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Utah woman underwent a C-section during birth of her second child and became infected with a flesh eating illness. In an effort to save her life, Lisa Speckmen underwent surgery and lost both legs, her right arm, one of her fingers, several organs, including a hysterectomy, her ovaries and nearly all of her large intestine and gall bladder. She and her husband filed a medical malpractice lawsuit for $16 million against those they felt were responsible. The lawsuit also claimed that Speckmen’s injuries were catastrophic and left her in permanent pain, produced emotional trauma, caused financial distress and “devastatingly” influenced her relationship with her husband and children. The suit further states that the medical staff failed to diagnose and treat obvious indications of infection prior to her delivery. The parties denied any wrongdoing and settled for an undisclosed sum of money bound by a confidentiality agreement.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2004 Nevada under pressure from physicians, surgeons, hospitals and insurance company’s passed an amendment advertised as “Keep Our Doctors in Nevada.” This may have confused voters making them feel if they did not pass the amendment that doctors and surgeons would leave the state and place an already burdened medical system under more stress. The malpractice caps and time limitations imposed by the amendment has in fact bound voters in their right to seek legal recourse. One such person is 59-year-old Richard Krikalo who is almost blind because of a botched retina reattachment operation by an eye surgeon. Medical malpractice attorneys informed him that the cost of litigating a medical malpractice suit exceeds the amount limited by the malpractice caps. Even though Mr. Krikalo does not agree with frivolous lawsuits he concedes that compensation should be made for the medical negligence. Krikalo further states what personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death litigators across America already know, “There’s hardly any protection for the consumer any more. Now everything is in favor of doctors.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ersel Allen was diagnosed in 2001 with pancreatic cancer at the University of Mississippi. Doctors there sent her to Hospice Ministries. A month later she died. Now this case doesn’t seem to be much different from other terminal cancer cases that have been handed over to hospice care to help them die comfortably. In Ersel’s case, however, the autopsy showed she never had pancreatic cancer. Instead, she died of a lethal dose of painkillers. Her family predictably sued Hospice Ministries and Dr. William Causey who was the medical director of the hospice at the time of Ersel’s admission and was responsible for patient care. The hospice settled for the maximum $1 million in insurance coverage it carried. In an appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the $4 million award to Ersel Allen’s family. However, the court threw out the $500,000 award for punitive damages.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An alarming 1.5 million harmful medication errors occur annually. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) released data from a new analysis of federal data by the Institute for Safe Medications that a record number of serious adverse drug reactions and more than 4,800 deaths have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration this year. The Institute of Medicine feels that if physicians use e-prescribing technology a number of the medication errors will decrease. “This new analysis reinforces the Institute of Medicine's (IoM) recommendation that all physicians begin prescribing electronically by 2010 to help prevent the 1.5 million harmful medication errors that occur annually. Securing full physician adoption of e-prescribing as soon as possible is critical to improve safety and quality in our health care system.” PCMA is the national association representing America's pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which administer prescription drug plans for more than 210 million Americans with health coverage provided through Fortune 500 employers, health insurance plans, labor unions, and Medicare Part D.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this year the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and the Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center were under investigation for unsafe practices of reusing syringes and medicine vials. A total of 63,000 former patients of the clinics were possibly exposed to the potentially deadly hepatitis C virus. The Nevada Health Department has notified the former patients to get tested for hepatitis B, C and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. No cases of hepatitis B or HIV have been linked to the outbreak. However a number of hepatitis C cases have arisen. District officials have concluded that nine cases of hepatitis C have been linked to the unsafe practices at the two clinics. According to Brian Labus, the Southern Nevada Health District’s senior epidemiologist, “In putting everything together, we've identified 114 cases in total linked to the two clinics.” The other 105 people were diagnosed with the disease since becoming patients at the clinics, but could have contracted the disease in other ways, Labus said. Health officials say those diagnosed with the disease are receiving treatment. Hepatitis C can cause swelling of the liver, stomach pain, fatigue and jaundice. Even when no symptoms occur, the virus can slowly damage the liver. A widow of one of the clinic’s former patients has filed a lawsuit alleging her 60-year-old husband’s hepatitis C diagnosis and death in 2006 was the responsibility of the unsafe practices at the clinics. As a result of the investigation and the outbreak the two clinics have been shut down and the Doctors associated with them have surrendered their license to practice medicine pending the results of health district and police investigations. The former clinic owners are facing more than 120 lawsuits alleging medical negligence and a class-action by patients who claim emotional distress.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Nevada a family doctor is under investigation by state authorities for his questionable prescription drug practices. Regardless of several complaints filed against him with the Nevada State Medical Examiners Board, he is still in possession of his medical license and his practice has not been restricted. Dr. Kevin Buckwalter has been accused of writing excessive doses of pain killers, many leading to death and addiction. After a review of patient provided medical records, expert Dr. Andrea Trescot, a nationally known pain management specialist told the Las Vegas Sun, ““He (Buckwalter) needs to have an emergency revocation of his license.” Among Buckwalters’ patients was a man that was prescribed more than 20,000 pills to treat pain from a neck injury. The number of pills led him to enter an addiction recovery program. A 26-year old woman died after overdosing on painkillers. She had more than 150 painkillers prescribed to her a month and up to 300 extra-strength Xanax pills at a time. Another woman died from complications of a side effect she experienced. Another woman killed herself after being prescribed 310 pills of oxycodone to kick an OxyContin addiction. Medical experts working with the Las Vegas Sun felt Buckwalter’s care was so poor it may constitute medical malpractice. It’s unconscionable that considering his poor level of care that Buckwalter can still practice medicine.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Wisconsin family has been awarded more that $11.4 million in damages for their son who suffered brain injuries during his birth in 2005. The jury agreed unanimously in the decision. The doctor in the malpractice trial was cleared of wrongdoing, instead the nurse midwife and nurse were charged with the negligence. In their suit, the family claimed hospital staff “failed to act appropriately and to deliver Laine (the infant) in a timely fashion” and argued that the nurse midwife misread fetal monitoring strips showing the baby in distress. The boy now suffers from the debilitating and life-altering condition cerebral palsy. The family’s award will cover $310,369 for past medical and health care expenses, $5 million for future care, $387,000 for loss of earning capacity, $3.25 million for past and future pain, suffering and disability and $2.5 million for the parents’ loss of society and companionship. The family’s attorney summed up in a statement, “This is not an award. This is barely compensation. But it will change Laine’s life and make the family’s life reasonable.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An Irish teenager suffered permanent brain damage when he received excessive doses of an experimental drug used to treat leukemia. A high dose of Methotrexate, a toxic drug used for cancer treatment, was administered intravenously as well as 14 additional injections into the boy’s spine over a nine-week period that allegedly led to neurological injuries. According to the protocol of treatment the correct dosage in the same period of time should have been six and not 14 injections. The excessive amount caused neurological brain injury and the boy now has the intellectual capacity of a 7-8 year old. He will require round the clock care the rest of his life. The 14 year-olds parents brought a claim of negligence against the hospital and the oncologists who treated him. The claim was settled for 2.7 million Euros, plus costs. The judge, who approved the settlement, was told the case was settled after "protracted negotiations". The settlement will help his parents care for him the rest of his life.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2004, William Meyer was undergoing chemotherapy for the treatment of leukemia. After his last treatment the 45 year-old three days later was suffering from abdominal pain and diarrhea. His wife phoned the oncologist and was told to buy an over-the-counter medicine for gas. He died shortly thereafter of a severe abdominal infection that could have been treated with antibiotics. Mr. Meyer had an extremely low white blood cell count which is a known side effect of chemotherapy. The standard of care practiced by doctors and nurses is to administer antibiotics. The Salt Lake City V.A. failed in that standard of care. In a medical malpractice claim filed by his family the U.S. Government of Veterans Affairs agreed to pay $950,000 to Mr. Meyer’s family to cover general damages and future loss of income, but maintains it is not at fault.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Kentucky woman was awarded a total of $9.89 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed on her behalf. Latricia Satterwhite underwent surgery on her mitral valve in her heart in April 2006. In preparation for her surgery the surgeon misplaced the hose connecting to a machine that pumps blood during the procedure called a cannula. The misplaced cannula caused too much blood and oxygen to be pumped into her right hand and too little to her brain and thoracic spinal cord. Satterwhite is now a paraplegic and suffers from brain damage. Medical experts testified on Satterwhite’s behalf and convinced the jury that the surgeon was 31 percent at fault in the operation charging him with a little over $3 million in damages. Satterwhite was awarded $455,229.06 in past medical expenses and $4.4 million for future medical bills, $482,538 in lost wages and $4.5 million for pain and suffering. The surgeon was found at fault by a 10-2 vote of the jury, the anesthesiologist 23 percent and the perfusionist, the person who operates the heart-lung machine, was responsible for 41 percent of fault.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A medical malpractice complaint filed in Sioux Falls, South Dakota seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the state’s cap on non-economic damages. Non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, as well as disability and disfigurement are limited to $500,000. There is no limit to the amount of economic damages including loss of wages and medical bills. However, that will not help a baby girl who suffered severe brain damage because of the negligence by a Sioux Falls hospital. “The goal basically is to make sure my family is OK and my daughter is OK,” said Louis Martin, the father of the brain damaged one-year-old Aspen Martin. Scott Hoy, the Sioux Falls lawyer representing the Martins, said the cap is unconstitutional in part because it protects health care providers as a special class of people. For instance, there is no limit to the civil damages that a victim can seek in a car accident, for example. “The Legislature is not to make laws that are for a specific association or for specific individuals,” Hoy said. Aspen Martin’s brain damage was caused by a feeding device that was incorrectly placed in her abdominal cavity instead of her stomach. When Aspen underwent a procedure requiring barium, she was poisoned leading to severe brain damage because of the incorrect placement. Michael Myers, a University of South Dakota law professor and former hospital executive, said the Martin complaint could present a valid challenge to the law. “The Martin case puts forth circumstances of such profound injury as to challenge the fairness of a cap,” he said.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A potentially deadly crash could have been avoided had a pharmacy filled a prescription correctly. On March 20 Nesta DeRoy drove into an eight-by-ten foot plate-glass window. She had lost consciousness for 15 minutes. Two weeks prior to her accident she was complaining to friends, family and her doctor about feeling unwell and groggy. In early March, DeRoy went to a pharmacy to refill her prescription for blood-pressure medication. What was filled was two weeks worth of a sedative. Not only was the medication wrong, but it was filled with four times the strength commonly prescribed to people suffering anxiety and seizure disorders of which DeRoy did not suffer. She had unknowingly been given Clonazepam in place of her blood-pressure medication hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Clonazepam works by slowing the activity of the central nervous system. Those prescribed the drug are advised not to engage in activities requiring mental alertness, judgment and physical coordination, such as driving. When she finally complained to the pharmacy about the error they offered her an insulting deal to pay her expenses as well as $2,000. The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia says it gets an average of 86 complaints a year over medication errors.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Oregon Health & Science University has settled six medical malpractice cases for $38.5 million said U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan. The settlements will average more than $6 million per claimant which is well above the $2 million Oregon statewide liability cap on medical malpractice suits. The settlements were made after the Oregon Supreme Court lifted the cap on liability claims. The settlement included $9.3 million to be awarded the family of Jordaan Clarke who suffered permanent brain damage because of a medical mistake at OHSU. It was the Clarke lawsuit that challenged the $200,000 liability cap that protected the hospital from paying large malpractice claims. The insurance company, Washington Casualty that covered OHSU will cover $21.35 million of the settlement costs. Scott Gallant, of the Oregon Medical Association is concerned. He said that since these suits were settled far above the statewide liability cap, the future of the $2 million cap looks unstable as the decision of the cap comes before the next state legislature for ratification. A gag-order was put in place by Judge Michael Hogan on all parties in the suits so it may be sometime before the details of the settlement will be forthwith.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2002, hospitals in the University of Michigan health system started encouraging doctors to apologize for their mistakes. Malpractice lawsuits subsequently dropped from 262 filed in 2001 to an average of 130 a year. British Columbia passed an Apology Act in 2006 as well. The Act allows an individual or organization to express sympathy, regret or remorse by saying “I’m sorry,” and even to admit culpability, but the apology cannot be used against them when deciding fault or liability in a lawsuit. The Act further states that saying “sorry” cannot void or cancel out an insurance policy (some policies stipulate that an apology will make the policy void). In a report by Susan Alter for the Law Commission of Canada it was concluded that, “for a victim, an apology is often considered to be the key that will unlock the door to healing.” According to the American Bar Association Journal, 30% of all plaintiffs would not have sued if an apology had been made. Studies have shown that an apology can have a powerful effect and can help to resolve disputes. For patients, apologizing reduces the risk of medical malpractice lawsuits being filed against doctors. B.C.’s attorney general voiced concern saying that:

Continue reading "In British Columbia Apology Act Promising" »

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a surprising move the Texas Hospital Association and the Texas Medical Association are asking the Texas Supreme Court to decide whether the law capping damages to victims of medical malpractice is constitutional. Questions have arisen about whether the cap violates people’s rights to equal protection, due process and jury trials, among other constitutional provisions. “We have to be certain that the cap is constitutional, and the only body that can tell us that in Texas is the Supreme Court,” said Austin attorney Mike Hull, who launched the call. Critics argue that the consequence could limit future challenges in state courts and feel that the tactic is intended to prevent a future case that would make a stronger challenge as well as the concern that making a direct appeal to the Supreme Court with this case violates Texas rules. “This is another way to put more nails in the coffins of people who are dying because of medical malpractice,” said Mark Werbner, a Dallas plaintiffs’ attorney. Critics further say the cap has limited patients’ with little income rights to seek compensation after suffering life-threatening injuries at the hands of a doctor and establishment. “If you have economic damages, a corporate CEO, a doctor or a lawyer probably can still get to court,” said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a consumer advocacy group in Austin. “Stay-at-home moms, retirees, a child, elderly people, chances are you won’t.” The poor, he said, are disproportionately affected because they depend more on non-economic damages. With the awards capped, patients cannot recover enough to pay for the cost of such lawsuits. As an example, single mom Vicki Rohall had a hysterectomy and a surgical instrument was left inside her body. She later went into septic shock and a coma. Although she had insurance, it didn’t cover all the costs, and she said she was left with $100,000 or more of hospital bills to correct the surgical errors. Rohall has an attorney, but the cost of filing a lawsuit on her behalf is cost prohibitive because of the cap. On the surface the move by the Texas Hospital Association and the Texas Medical Association sounds good, but what do they have to gain by the Supreme Court’s decision and will the Supreme Court even hear their arguments?

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Northlake, Illinois woman agreed to a $5.5 million settlement with doctors and the hospital where her child was delivered. In March 2002 she was admitted to Westlake Hospital and given a drug to induce her contractions. Her infant’s heart rate started to drop. The first doctor attempted to deliver the baby, but failed. A second doctor elected to perform a Caesarean section, but by the time the baby boy was delivered he had been deprived of oxygen long enough to cause severe brain damage. The $5.5 million settlement will go toward the lifetime of medical care the mother faces in raising her child.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Northlake, Illinois woman agreed to a $5.5 million settlement with doctors and the hospital where her child was delivered. In March 2002 she was admitted to Westlake Hospital and given a drug to induce her contractions. Her infant’s heart rate started to drop. The first doctor attempted to deliver the baby, but failed. A second doctor elected to perform a Caesarean section, but by the time the baby boy was delivered he had been deprived of oxygen long enough to cause severe brain damage. The $5.5 million settlement will go toward the lifetime of medical care the mother faces in raising her child.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A lawsuit has been filed with the San Diego Supreme Court seeking unspecified damages on behalf of high school football player Scott Eveland, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury allegedly by the delay of an emergency response team. The family hopes the litigation process will bring to light why a second ambulance had to be called to transport Eveland even though one was currently on site. “To have the ambulance there and refuse to transport certainly was not in Scott's best interest,” attorney David Casey Jr. said. “Our main focus right now is to understand this policy.” Casey said Eveland, who collapsed during the second quarter of a game on Sept. 14, 2007, has permanent brain damage and will require constant care for the rest of his life. “When you have bleeding in the brain, you know, every second counts,” Casey said.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 05:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Institute of Medicine’s focus is to develop a strategy to improve the quality of American health care. They have compiled and analyzed a massive collection of data and reports by researchers in their endeavor. One such endeavor is to recommend measures in an effort to decrease the amount of preventable medication errors in hospitals. A report cited remarkable progress in using system approaches to enhance safety, reduce errors and maximize quality in industry, but that health care “is decades behind in terms of creating safer systems.” Another report stated that “most adverse events are preventable, particularly those due to error or negligence.” A study focused on the pharmacy’s order entry process since most errors were known to occur there. Order entry errors among pharmacy employees ranged from 0 to 112 over 2 months. Errors were often the result of misunderstandings, distractions and interruptions and the illegibility of handwritten scripts. As a result it was recommended to institute computerized physician order management and the education and supervision of pharmacy technicians among other steps. The simple step of discussing each medication prescribed with a patient informing them of potential side effects and drug interactions eliminated the instance of many medication errors. The Institute of Medicine's recommendation for quality improvement is based on many years of data observation, collection, and analysis. This work was performed by practitioner-researchers and efficiency consultants from many disciplines. The resulting recommendations are striking in their straightforward practicality and in their insistence that process factors determine output

Posted by David P. Hersh at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The latest fatal Metolink crash that killed 25 and injured 135 people may exceed the federal liability cap put in place in 1997. That year the federal cap of $200 million was put in place during the reauthorization of Amtrak and imposed by congress for any one accident. Wrongful death and catastrophic injury awards in the Metrolink crash could exceed the cap and lawyers and legal scholars differ in their predictions of whether the cap will be deemed constitutional or not. Lawyers believe they will prevail in proving the cap unconstitutional while legal scholars using caps in medical malpractice, airline crashes, workers’ compensation and defective drugs argue otherwise. The debate over Metrolink's potential vulnerability is academic at this point, because there hasn't been a case in which juries have awarded damages anywhere near the $200-million limit. According to the Public Citizen, a national nonprofit group committed to protecting health, safety and democracy, what may undoubtedly benefit in the litigation is the availability of information provided to the public, thus resulting in possible new regulations.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In June 2003 a Clayton, Michigan man underwent hernia surgery and got more than he bargained for. During the surgery the doctor nicked the man’s small bowel and failed to repair it causing him to have a septic reaction and increasing his stay at the hospital. The extended stay incurred several hundred thousand dollars in medical bills. A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against the doctor who performed the surgery. After a two-day trial the jury found the doctor negligent and awarded the man and his wife $1.2 million. The $1,115,210.68 awarded to the man included money for bills not covered by insurance. His wife was awarded $50,544 for being “deprived the comfort, companionship, society, and services of her husband.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When medical mistakes happen to children it is especially upsetting since they have little voice in their treatment options. In the case of medical treatment in children we rely on the medical establishment to know what the best course of action is and accurately execute the treatment. For instance, a 6-year-old boy went into surgery for a wandering eye. When he came out he was crying hysterically, vomiting and screaming “I wish I was dead,” according to his mother. When she tried to get more pain and anti-nausea medication for her son the nurse insisted that she calm him down before he disturbed anyone. The nurse thought he was simply throwing a tantrum. After a certainly agonizing 20 minutes another nurse walked by and the mother asked her for help. The second nurse checked the intravenous line in the boy’s ankle and saw that it was inserted incorrectly and was not dispensing any medication. She immediately fixed it and brought the boy pain and nausea relief quickly. Medical mistakes can have more serious consequences in children, doctors say. A study in the journal Pediatrics in April found that problems due to medications occurred in 11 percent of hospitalized children and that 22 percent of them were preventable. Children are also the victims of diagnostic errors, incorrect procedures or tests, infections and injuries.

Continue reading "Medical Errors in Children " »

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oregon Health & Science University and the Oregon State Trial Lawyers have agreed to new limits on how much a government agency can pay in medical malpractice trials. Their recommendation to the legislature and the Governor’s office would raise the current liability cap of $200,000 to $1.5 million and would eliminate the $100,000 cap on pain and suffering. Legislators won’t consider changing the law until next year and if passed, it won’t go into effect until July 1, 2009. The new "per-claim" limit of $1.5 million would then start, and increase by $100,000 a year for five years to $2 million. The cap on incidents involving multiple claimants would start at $3 million and increase by $200,000 a year for five years to $4 million. After the five-year period, both limits would increase annually by 4 percent. The proposal would apply only to injuries that occurred after the Supreme Court decision. In a statement, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said the proposal will “ease the tough decision-making” and “seek the appropriate balance between protecting taxpayers' money and compensating victims of negligence.” OHSU is one many state agencies covered by Oregon's tort cap, but it has the most at stake given the frequency and size of its medical malpractice claims.

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

An Alabama man’s lawsuit has been reinstated by the state’s Supreme Court in a malpractice case against a local hospital and one of its emergency room physicians. The court said the original Madison County Circuit Court erroneously dismissed the case previously. Francis Price Crosslin went to the hospital’s emergency room in February 2002 complaining of nausea, dizziness and weakness. A battery of tests, including a CT scan, revealed that Crosslin had a tumor on his pituitary gland, but the hospital and doctor failed to inform Crosslin of it that day. Crosslin returned to the hospital in September 2005 complaining of loss of vision in his left eye and decreased vision in his right eye. It was only then that he learned of the tumor and it was removed two days later. Crosslin claims that because of the hospital and doctor’s negligence he has been left with severely limited vision in both eyes. Attorneys for the hospital and doctor had argued that any injury done to Crosslin occurred on Feb. 23, 2002, and he failed to file a malpractice complaint within two years as required under the Alabama Medical Liability Act. The original trial judge agreed and dismissed the case. Thankfully, Crosslin’s attorney argued in their appeal that the alleged malpractice may have occurred some time after Feb. 23, 2002, and within the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed and had this to say about the case, “Crosslin's complaint does not foreclose his ability to prove that the injury caused by Huntsville Hospital's and Dr. Calvert's alleged malpractice did not occur until some time after the actual act of malpractice (Feb. 23, 2002) and therefore within the applicable time period.” The case will return to the Madison County Circuit Court.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A man seeking psychiatric care for depression and anxiety is suing his psychiatrist for the off-label use of the anti-psychotic drug Geodon alleging the drug is responsible for his diagnosis of extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia. Extrapyrmidal symptoms are movement disorders such as the inability to initiate movement or the inability to cease movement. Tardive Dyskinesia is a neurological disorder caused by the long-term use of neuroleptic drugs generally prescribed for psychiatric disorders. The geodon.com web site state that the Pfizer drug Geodon is approved “to treat acute mania and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder” and approved to treat schizophrenia. The suit states that plaintiff Donald Moss continued the regimen of Geodon for two years, “even after plaintiff had a transient ischemic episode or minor stroke.” After Moss discontinued his use of the drug he began to experience dry eyes and later drooping of his eyelids that got so bad that he would have to pull them open to be able to see. The complaint states “More specifically, the prescribing of the anti-psychotic drug Geodon for depression was inappropriate medical care, the failure to first try the use of less dangerous drugs before use of an anti-psychotic such as Geodon was inappropriate, the prescribing of Geodon to a patient with plaintiff's 20 year history of diabetes mellitus was inappropriate, the failure to warn of the serious potential side effect was inappropriate, and prescribing the drug for the length of time and strength of dose prescribed was inappropriate for the plaintiff.” The plaintiff is seeking damages for loss of earning capacity, disfigurement, medical expenses and the loss of enjoyment of life.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a Maryland woman highlighted the disorder Complex Regional Pain Disorder or CRPS. Donna McNeal underwent surgery to mend the pain she was feeling in her neck, hand and elbow as well as the “tingling” in her hands. Post surgery she experienced pain in her upper extremities particularly her arm as “cold, sharp, pins and needles, with throbbing and burning in her armpit described as “thousands of bees stinging.” According to the Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association, CRPS is a neurological condition that causes the nerves to “send constant pain signals to the brain” and is characterized by a severe, burning pain and tissue swelling with up to 1.2 million people affected by the condition. The condition is brought on by any type of traumatic injury. It is often seen following surgery to treat carpal tunnel syndrome. In the end her doctor prescribed formal physical therapy and painkillers and recommended McNeal to see pain specialists who ultimately diagnosed her CRPS. She has been unable to return to her job and suffers from pain in all of the joints of her right arm. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after an orthopedic surgeon serving as a defense expert witness said he found no medical literature showing a patient developing CRPS following the common procedure McNeal underwent.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A coroner’s report last year claimed that shoddy infection control and hospital cutbacks in maintenance and room cleanliness is responsible for a Clostridium difficile outbreak that ultimately killed 16 people and sickened 70 others in a Montreal hospital. Relatives of patients who were either infected with the illness or died from it have filed a class-action lawsuit against the local health authority seeking up to $10 Canadian million in damages. The outbreak at the Hopital Honore-Mercier in St. Hyacinthe is considered one of the worst. “We want to send a strong message that infection control must be maintained as a priority by hospitals, administrators and staff,” medical malpractice lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard told a news conference. “It's not enough for public-health officials to say that it was a virulent strain.” What is especially upsetting is that Quebec had already dealt with a C. difficile epidemic in 2004-2005, yet no one seems to have learned any lessons from the earlier outbreaks added Ménard. The class-action is seeking compensation on three levels. For those who got infected, those whose infections were severe enough to require surgery and for relatives who lost loved ones. C. difficile is a spore-forming bacterium that can last up to 70 days on hospital surfaces. The bug is a major problem in hospitals across Canada, the United States and Europe.

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

When making a decision whether to contact a medical malpractice attorney there are a number of things to keep in mind. Even if you feel as though you have good reason to you might also feel it will be a waste of time. The truth is if you’re armed with just a little bit of knowledge of what malpractice attorneys do for their clients, the decision would not be so tough. Many medical malpractice attorneys offer free consultations. It is important to find an attorney with experience in the malpractice trial arena. Such attorneys will help you define whether your claim is legitimate. Legitimate complaints include birth injuries especially those resulting in brain damage, a misdiagnosis or lack of diagnosis for such illnesses as cancer, death due to medical negligence, nursing home abuse, prescription medication errors and defective drugs or products that have caused injury. It is important to find the right attorney for you. When searching for a medical malpractice attorney, make sure that you are comfortable working with him. This can be a very traumatic time in your life and feeling that you have someone on your side is important.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A constitutional amendment was approved in Texas in 2003 limiting the amount of non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000. The cap was done because Texas physicians had seen a 150% increase in medical malpractice insurance. Since then, medical board disciplinary actions have risen and are continuing to rise, creating patient safety concerns. The board statistics show disciplinary actions have increased 12% between 2003 and 2007. Additionally, Texas physicians have only seen a 24% drop in their medical liability insurance since 2003. Now, opponents of the cap are claiming the caps are unconstitutional and are taking their case to federal court. They argue that caps are preventing patients’ their legal rights. More specifically they are arguing that the Texas law violates patients’ right to a jury trial and due process by setting an arbitrary recovery limit. The case is now pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 06:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a rare and unusual move the Supreme Court of Texas upheld a medical malpractice award for the family of a man who died of a heart attack after waiting12 hours for treatment following his admission to a hospital emergency room for chest pains in 1998. Tort reform limiting non-economic damages to $250,000 were enacted in 2003. The original malpractice trial heard in 2001 jurors awarded the family $9.2 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in actual damages after attorneys for the family successfully argued that Mr. Hogue’s treatment was delayed because of poor hospital policies and lack of staffing. Son and attorney Christopher Hogue now works at the same law firm who helped his family secure the win. In 2004 the total was reduced to approximately $5.4 million based on existing laws limiting damage awards in medical malpractice claims. “We are extremely pleased to finally have this case resolved through this just, but infrequent affirmance of punitive damages,” says the family’s attorney. “This opinion is especially gratifying because the Hogues have had to wait so long for the court to rule. The Supreme Court of Texas is known far and wide for reversing court judgments favoring plaintiffs, particularly in medical malpractice cases, and it is important that this decision is perhaps putting a halt to that trend.” After the ruling, the defendant must pay the family approximately $10 million because of interest on the $5.4 million award.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an effort to protect American consumers the American Association for Justice, formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association, spent more than $1.7 million on lawsuit reform in the second quarter. The Association lobbied on proposals related to medical malpractice reform, the safety of toys and other consumer products, auto and rail safety and the pre-emption of lawsuits in state courts by federal law. This latest information demonstrates the dedication attorneys have for their clients and establishes their willingness to stand up for the protection of people against faulty products and procedures.

Posted by Michael S. Burg at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Often not heard in the press, a woman has been awarded $14.8 million after a dental surgery left her disabled and disfigured with her jaw fused shut. The Spokane County Superior Court jury ruled in the case that Dr. Patrick C. Collins, an oral surgeon, was negligent in performing several operations that left Kimberly Kallestad, 29, injured. The ruling includes $10 million in non-economic damages for pain, suffering and disfigurement in “past and future loss of enjoyment of life.” Kallestad is experiencing chronic pain, cannot work and is being cared for by her parents. She went to Collins after injuring her jaw while sledding and says he claimed that he had a near-perfect success rate with a surgery technique that he had developed and would become her "hero" by fixing her jaw. She cannot work and is being cared for by her parents. Other patients of Collins who had trouble testified that he said similar things to them. John Versnel III of Seattle, a lawyer who represents many of the state's dentists in litigation, said the award is the largest dental malpractice verdict in his 21 years of practice.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to a University of Connecticut team of researchers there may be a link between the prevalence of cesarean section birth and the cost of medical malpractice premiums, claims Dr. Jeffrey Spencer a fellow in maternal fetal medicine. After a review of deliveries at the Harford Hospital between 1991 and 2005 the number of c-sections raised in line with the state’s increase in medical malpractice premiums. During that time, there were 64,767 deliveries, of which 15,021 (23 percent) were cesarean deliveries. Of the 15,021 cesarean deliveries, 8,045 (59.5 percent) were primary or first-time cesarean deliveries, while 6,076 (40.5 percent) were repeat cesarean deliveries. Over the same expanse of time the malpractice rates increased substantially. Normal vaginal delivery is considered safer than a c-section for both mother and baby. C-sections are only recommended when complications such as slow or long labor of fetal distress indications. “Most of the large malpractice cases result from a poor fetal outcome, that is, an expected ‘normal’ baby is born with health problems or has a bad outcome for whatever reason,” says Spencer. “The MDs get sued because they didn’t do all that was possible for the baby – meaning perform a cesarean.” Nationwide, cesarean deliveries accounted for 30.2 percent of all deliveries in 2005, compared to 20.7 percent of deliveries in 1996. The rising rate of cesarean deliveries has triggered a debate over whether the increase can be attributed to medical necessity.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 05:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The “loss of chance” doctrine came into play in a wrongful death lawsuit against a physician who failed to order the appropriate tests for his patient for several years after the patient complained of debilitating stomach pain. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that physicians can be held liable when their negligence decreases a patient’s chance of survival. The plaintiff in the case died of gastric cancer in 1999 after complaining for several years to his physician about stomach pains, but his doctor did not order diagnostic tests until May 1999. The delayed tests supported the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but the plaintiff’s time had run out and he died five months later. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote, “Where a physician's negligence reduces or eliminates the patient's prospects for achieving a more favorable medical outcome, the physician has harmed the patient and is liable for damages.” The jury awarded $160,000 to his estate for pain and suffering caused by the physician's negligence. It also awarded $328,125 to the plaintiff’s widow and son for the decedent's loss of chance.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this year the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada exposed thousands of patients to Hepatitis C. In a ruling by Clark County District Court Judge Allan Earl a class-action lawsuit can go ahead against the clinic. The clinic lawyers attempted to prevent patients who didn’t suffer actual physical injury the ability to recover damages. The judge rejected their arguments. Judge Allan Earl ruled patients who weren’t made ill can claim emotional distress after being exposed to Hepatitis C by the clinic’s reuse of syringes and vials of medication. A court spokesman says the clinic is currently facing 121 lawsuits. The judge did dismiss claims that the clinic should be held liable under product liability and warranty laws because the clinic didn't sell vials of anesthesia and supplies to patients.

Posted by Kerry N. Jardine at 01:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The recent report of Dennis Quaid’s newborn twins medication error has been a catalyst for the spat of media reported pharmacy errors. A number of cases have been brought to light including the death of a young child after a pharmacy filled a prescription with many times the dosage prescribed by his pediatrician. The latest Digitek recall of the heart drug medication whose pills were twice the size they should have been, making them twice at potent caused the death of a man who took the prescribed dose but died of an overdose. A more recent announcement came from the U. S. Food and Drug Administration involving the recall of a large portion of two pharmacies’ medications due to expiration or possible counterfeits of a number of drugs in their stores. The two pharmacies involved were in Baltimore at The Medicine Shoppe. It may never be known how many lives have been put at risk because of pharmacy errors. It is imperative to protect yourself by doing as much as possible to determine the accuracy of your prescription order. If ever any side effects are experienced, contact your physician immediately for consult.

Posted by David P. Hersh at 06:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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)

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)

In cases of malpractice, lawyers say it's not so much the medical error that turns reasonable patients into indignant plaintiffs, but the concealment and concern that the same mistake could happen again. In an effort to prove that saying “I’m sorry”, the prestigious University of Michigan Health Systems is one of the first of several to openly disclose physician and hospital errors. The numbers show it may be working. In August of 2007 U.M claims and lawsuits dropped to 83 from 262 in August of 2001. The U.M chief risk officer concedes it's not clear if the decline is due to disclosure, better medicine, or both. In another example, at the University of Illinois the number of malpractice filings dropped by half since it started a policy of promptly disclosing medical errors, offering sincere apologies, and fair compensation for their error. Acknowledging medical mistakes might also make it easier to learn from them and make corrections to prevent future ones. Medical disclosures, as difficult as they may be are really about ensuring patient safety, figuring out what went wrong, and making improvements.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The North Carolina Medical Board currently posts charges and allegations against doctors, as well as any disciplinary action the medical board has taken against them. It now wants to include physicians’ medical malpractice judgments over a seven-year period. Board President Dr. Janelle Rhyne said the goal is not to hurt doctors but to better serve the public. “The medical board has been criticized in the past for being too soft on physicians and not revealing full histories of physicians,” she said. “We do realize that we do need to take a stand and provide more information to the public.” In addition to medical malpractice and settlements, the web site would include discipline by medical boards in other states, felony convictions, certain misdemeanors convictions and actions taken by Medicare, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and other government regulators. The medical board has assured the doctors who oppose the changes that the web site would have a disclaimer informing the public that lawsuits do not necessarily mean substandard care and that doctors would be able to post their own responses about claims made against them.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More than 30 states have enacted laws enabling physicians to apologize for preventable medical errors and not having the apology held against them in court. A New York Times editorial stated, this is a “sensible step that should be adopted by other states or become federal law who have been harmed by negligent doctors can still sue for malpractice, using other evidence to make their case.” It also stated that a “new policy of promptly disclosing errors, offering earnest apologies and providing fair compensation adopted by a handful of prominent academic medical centers indicates that the policy appears to satisfy many patients,” and that “patients seem far less angry when they receive an honest explanation, an apology and prompt, fair compensation for the harm they have suffered.” Additionally, “admitting errors is only the first step toward reforming the health care system so that fewer mistakes are made.” The editorial seems to indicate that tort reform and placing caps on malpractice awards is not the only solution.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Wisconsin man injured his leg while working in a factory. He went to a doctor in 2003 more than four times seeking medical care and relief. He eventually sought the care of a specialist because of muscle and nerve damage and reduced blood flow. The same day the specialist sent him in for surgery. Unfortunately, because of the delay in care, he never regained feeling in his lower leg and it was amputated in 2004. A jury sided with the man and awarded him $3.2 million. The 35-year-old father said no amount of money will make his leg grow back.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The decisions a physician and her doctor’s group caused a baby girl, Cassie Grow, severe brain damage and spastic quadriplegia in 1997, ruled a jury in Ohio. Experiencing her first pregnancy, it was found that Cassie’s mother had a narrow pelvis arch 2 weeks before delivery. Doctors realized that the newborn was going to be too big to fit through her mother’s birth canal. The mother labored for more that 13 hours, during which she was given drugs to make her uterus contract. The child became lodged in the pelvis and the drugs administered to make her uterus contract squeezed the infant’s head causing brain damage. The infant girl Cassie, now 11, has limited used of her limbs, vision problems and difficulty using her hands. After five weeks of testimony and deliberations lasting 3½ days, the jury ruled against the physician and Group Health Associates requiring them to pay $22,646,023 in damages. The vast majority of that was $7,959,747 for Cassie's future medical bills and $7.5 million for her future loss of ability to perform usual activities. She also was awarded $3 million for pain and suffering.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2001 a 35-year-old Tennessee woman went in for a mammogram. The Doctor found the X-rays to be normal. The woman’s baseline mammogram showed the suspicion of a malignancy, but it was diagnosed as a non-malignant calcification. Now 7 years later she has a year to three years to live. Three years later the non-malignant calcification turned out to be state IV breast cancer with zero cure rate. If the medical personnel responsible for her diagnosis had correctly diagnosed her the cure rate was at least 90 percent. A jury agreed an awarded the woman $3.25 million and her husband $225,000. After the verdict the woman issued this statement, “I hope that this decision will send a message insisting on proper medical care and the importance of women taking an active role in their health care. Mammograms are very important and early detection is key.”'

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Researchers at Suffolk University’s Law school released a study indicating the purported malpractice premium rates chasing doctors away from Massachusetts make be contrary. In fact, Physicians in Massachusetts pay lower premium rates for malpractice coverage than they did in 1990. The researchers, led by health policy scholar Mark Rodwin, examined data on the state’s physicians from 1975 to 2005 and found that Massachusetts ranked fourth in the U.S. for the amount paid out for malpractice related settlements. Rodwin concluded, “If you don't find a crisis here, you're probably not going to find one nationally,” adding, “Clearly there are some increases in premiums and high premiums for a small percentage of doctors in three specialty groups (obsetrics/gynecology, neurological surgery and spinal surgery), but that's entirely different for the rest of doctors.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The brave men and women of the United States military may finally be making headway in their legal rights to malpractice recourse. Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York announced legislation he authored intended to reverse the block to armed service members and their families from holding the military accountable for negligent health care. The bill called the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2008 is named after the late Sgt. Rodriquez who died of skin cancer after a series of extraordinary mistakes made by military medical personnel. “The death of Carmelo Rodriguez is an extraordinary tragedy that has left his family with nowhere to turn,” Hinchey said. “As the result of a misguided law and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Rodriguez family and many other military families in similar situations have no way of holding the military responsible for the negligence of military medical personnel. Joining the military should not mean that one has to give up his or her right to hold medical providers accountable. The Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2008 will finally bring accountability into the military medical system and afford our service members and their families the same rights that the rest of us have when it comes to medical malpractice.”

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

Roger Vuckovich’s, 45, life was cut short when a doctor failed to diagnose him correctly. An Indiana jury agreed and awarded $4.45 million to the after finding the St. Catherine's Hospital emergency doctor responsible for medical malpractice, plaintiff's attorney Holly Wojcik said. The family sued Dr. Rajeev Sareen after the Dec. 22, 2001 death. Twelve hours after Dr. Sareen discharged Vuckovich from the hospital he died of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. In court it was disclosed that his death could have been prevented if Sareen had ordered a CT scan for an accurate diagnosis. Instead Vuckovich was misdiagnosed as having a kidney stone. Vuckovich's wife, Cynthia, and three daughters were the plaintiffs. Under the state’s cap on damages, she and her daughters award will be reduced to $1.25 million instead.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to the irresponsible inaction by the New York State Health Department regarding unsafe and unsanitary practices of Dr. Harvey Finkelstein, Gov. David Paterson is proposing a measure that would empower the state Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which monitors and disciplines physicians. The change is part of a broad safety measure where the OPMC would continuously review malpractice claims and investigate misconduct rather than relying on outside referrals as it does now. The measure includes allowing the OPMC to act more aggressively in halting infectious disease risks. In Dr. Finkelstein’s case it took over a year for the state Health Department to inform thousands of patients of their risk of possibly contracting Hepatitis A and B, HIV and AIDS when it was discovered he reused syringes and pre-filled doses of medication among different patients.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The common practice among malpractice lawyers and insurers in counseling doctors and hospitals is to “deny and defend.” There is still an environment of fear in expressing regret based on the belief that to do so will cause litigation and damage careers. Remaining mum is proving otherwise. Academic medical centers such as Johns Hopkins and Stanford are trying a different approach. They are promptly disclosing medical errors and apologizing. What often triggers lawsuits is concealment of mistakes and the victim’s concern it could happen again. Hospitals practicing apologies have reported a decrease in litigation filed against them. At the University of Michigan Health System, one of the first to experiment with full disclosure, existing claims and lawsuits dropped to 83 in August 2007 from 262 in August 2001, said Richard C. Boothman, the medical center’s chief risk officer. “Improving patient safety and patient communication is more likely to cure the malpractice crisis than defensiveness and denial,” Mr. Boothman said. The number of malpractice lawsuits filed against the University of Illinois has dropped by half since it started just over two years ago disclosing and apologizing , said Dr. Timothy B. McDonald, the hospital’s chief safety and risk officer. In the 37 cases where the hospital acknowledged a preventable error and apologized, only one patient has filed suit. It is believed by some that new disclosure policies may reduce legal claims as well as offering reasonable compensation to every injured patient. Recent studies have found that one of every 100 hospital patients suffers negligent treatment, and that as many as 98,000 die each year as a result. Studies also show that as few as 30 percent of medical errors are disclosed to patients. Only a small fraction of injured patients, about 2 percent, press for litigation. “There is no reason the patient should have to pay the economic consequences for our mistakes,” said Dr. Lucian L. Leape, an authority on patient safety at Harvard, which recently adopted disclosure principles at its hospitals. “But we’re pushing uphill on this. Most doctors don’t really believe that if they’re open and honest with patients they won’t be sued.”

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Federal guidelines recently issued to doctors who treat smokers could trigger a number of wrongful death medical malpractice lawsuits, Action of Smoking and Health (ASH) suggested. The number of potential plaintiffs could be over 40,000 yearly. The new federal guidelines require physicians to thoroughly warn their patients who smoke about the dangers, but also mandate that they provide at least one of the treatments proven effective in helping people quit. If a doctor violates these guidelines and a patient dies or becomes permanently disabled as a result of their smoking, the family or the estate could sue the physician for medical malpractice claiming the appropriate standard of care was withheld. A recent study found that similar guidelines have been effective for many years and several educational efforts have been undertaken to inform the healthcare industry, yet most physicians still fail to follow them and patients are denied their entitled assistance to quit. The antismoking community is concerned that since all other measures have failed the only recourse available are medical malpractice lawsuits. As an example, the New York City Health Department has warned doctors that, “failure to provide optimal counseling and treatment (for smoking) is a failure to meet the standard of care and could be considered malpractice.” A recent medical journal agrees. “Since physician malpractice kills over 40,000 smokers annually - more than motor vehicle or product liability accidents - it should not be surprising if antismoking lawyers, as well as those in private practice working on contingency fees, find physicians who deliberately flout federal guidelines to be a new major target of litigation,” suggests John Banzhaf, ASH's Executive Director and public interest lawyer.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A USA Today recently had an article informing it’s readers of the difficulties faced when seeking medical records after an adverse event happens. In one case, a woman was seeking further information on the death of her son just hours after she had been told he was stable. The key record showing possible malpractice did not surface until it was too late under a California state law to file a civil lawsuit. Another California woman tried getting her medical records to help her understand why her full-term baby died before being born. When she finally did, a key piece of evidence was missing, the strip-paper readout from a fetal monitoring device. Both cases reflect a common complaint nationwide, the difficulty in obtaining medical records from hospitals and other treatment facilities after something goes wrong. Under federal law, every patient has the right to see a copy of their medical records, but according to the USA TODAY Patient Safety website, missing or disputed records are the most common source of complaints. Although there are no statistics on the amount of alleged withholding of medical information, disputes over medical records are often the impetus of malpractice lawsuits. Such claims often center on records that patients or their families believe were purposely withheld by hospitals. The best way to avoid a problem is to routinely ask for copies of all documents pertaining to medical care. When records appear to be incomplete, the patient and their family or other advocates can turn to the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services and their state medical board.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Georgia Superior Court Judge, Marvin Arrington, released an order saying the legislative cap of $350,000 for non-economic damages for pain and suffering was unconstitutional because it gave special protections to the medical profession. This is a significant approach because it means that in Georgia people injured by doctors have less protection than those injured by a manufacturer’s product. If the appeal is upheld on appeal it could undercut a major component of Georgia’s tort reform laws. Judge Arrington struck down the cap on monetary awards in the medical malpractice trial of a 60 year-old retired restaurant owner who fell from a ladder in 2006 while trimming trees. After being taken to the hospital two doctors failed to diagnose injuries to his neck and spine that resulted in his becoming a quadriplegic. “It is absurd to say that if you get injured by a product that the jury can decide your non-economic damages, but if you get injured by medical malpractice, it can't,” said Trent Speckhals, one of the lawyers for the plaintiff in the case. The case has not yet gone to trial and the Judge’s decision does not apply to other cases. However, if the defendants appeal, it will give the Georgia Supreme Court a chance to overturn the caps in malpractice cases. Arrington’s decision is based on his opinion that limiting the caps meant that in many cases, large jury awards would be issued only to the people who could show large economic losses because of their wealth.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

North Carolina is the latest state considering internet based profiles to be posted regarding any physicians who have settled any malpractice lawsuits in the last seven years. The North Carolina Medical board wants the settlement listings to be part of detailed physician profiles that could be accessed on their website beginning in 2009. The online information would be limited to the physician’s name, when the case was settled and an optional box where the doctor could explain the reasons for the settlement. The monetary awards given in the settlement would not be published. This new trend could ultimately allow consumers more control over their health care decisions.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The family of a boy born with cerebral palsy is expected to spend $9 million dollars to care for him over the course of his life. In the ensuing medical malpractice trial they were only awarded $1.35 million because of malpractice caps in Virginia. In 2001 David and Elisabeth Morris went to the University of Virginia Medical Center to deliver their baby boy, Hunter. In the court papers the Morrises alleged the doctors failed to respond to their son’s deteriorating condition in the hours before his birth. At the time of Hunter’s birth he was asphyxiated, suffering brain damage and ultimately cerebral palsy. The foundation employing the doctors argued that it and the doctors were immune from suit by any patients because of the charity care they provide to indigent patients. The state Supreme Court decided against the charitable immunity defense because the Morrises were not indigents and paid part of their medical costs. The Supreme Court Further ruled the U.Va. Foundation “follows the model of a profitable commercial business, not a charitable institution,” finding that charitable losses represented only 0.66 percent of the more than $225 million in revenue generated in 2005. “This is the best that can be made of a bad situation,” one of the Morrises’ lawyers told the court. “The cap [on malpractice awards] imposes a burden on the most severely injured,” he said, noting that costs of care far exceed possible awards in Virginia. Hunter’s family hopes to use the money to buy a handicap accessible van and perhaps a house better suited to his disability.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The first of several lawsuits filed after the New York Department of Health found Dr. Harvey Finkelstein had put thousands of patients at risk by reusing syringes has been settled with a man who claimed he got Hepatitis C in the doctor’s office. A Department of Health investigation found that Peter Mattmuller, 66, was infected at Finkelstein’s office. The doctor used a syringe multiple times on the patient seen before Mattmuller, contaminating multidose medicine vials that were then the source of injections for Mattmuller. Authorities last November notified more than 10,000 patients that they were at risk for disease. Finkelstein did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement and continues to practice. The Department of Health said that Finkelstein has settled 11 unrelated malpractice lawsuits in the past eight years. Fewer than 200 of the state's 80,000 doctors have settled that many cases, according to Washington-based consumer group Public Citizen.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The largest medical malpractice settlement in recent memory was made in San Francisco according to the City Attorney’s office. San Francisco supervisors approved the $5.1 million settlement stemming from the 2005 mishandling of a case involving John Weatherspoon III. Weatherspoon was complaining of fever and cough symptoms that had persisted for nearly a week. The medical staff at San Francisco General Hospital determined he was instead suffering from acute renal failure and gave him sedatives. The staff failed to monitor Weatherspoon following further doses resulting in cardiorespitory failure for 9 minutes. As a result, he suffered anoxic brain injury and now requires round the clock care. The settlement will be used to pay for home care the rest of his life. The settlement must still be approved by the mayor.

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

The Vice President of Medical Affairs for Medtronic Spine and Biologics' division in Memphis, TN lost a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against him by Dr. Eric M. Garver. A Virginia judge found spinal surgeon Dr. Hallett H. Mathews liable for malpractice in his use of an artificial disc device and awarded damages of $650,000 after a botched spinal surgery. The artificial disc device is manufactured by his current employer, Medtronic. The device consists of two metal plates that fit into the patient's disc space with a ball and socket between them, which is intended to maintain the natural mobility of the disc as an alternative to traditional spinal fusion. The judge issued a written decision finding Dr. Mathews violated “the standard of care in preparing the disc space for insertion of the artificial disc.” The standard, written in part by Dr. Mathews, requires the disc space be “meticulously cleared of materials that might be driven into nerves behind the disc space after insertion” During Dr. Garver’s spine surgery a fragment of bone was driven into his S-1 nerve root on his right side causing permanent injury to the nerve causing pain and leg immobilization. Two weeks later Dr. Garver underwent another surgery by a different neurosurgeon who testified at the trial that he found the fragment and a disk the size of an olive pressing against the nerve root. Removal caused some relief, but Dr. Garver now suffers chronic pain that is difficult to dull even while taking multiple drugs daily. The Maverick ™ artificial disk is still considered experimental while the Medtronic application to the FDA is pending. According to testimony at trial, Dr. Mathews received consulting fees from Medtronic of around $700,000 in 2004 and 2005.

Posted by Scott J. Eldredge at 08:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Under limits stemming from an obscure Supreme Court ruling nearly 60 years ago, military hospitals and their staffs are immune from medical malpractice claims if the victim is an enlisted man or woman on active duty. In October 2003, Staff Sergeant Dean Witt, 25, was being moved to a recovery room after routine surgery for acute appendicitis when he stopped breathing. Inexplicably, Witt was wheeled into a pediatric area where predictably the lifesaving devices sized for children were ineffective. The cause of the sergeant’s death was attributed to a double dose of a powerful stimulant mistakenly