Cerebral Palsy Lawyer & Attorney : Burke & Eisner Law Firm : Medical Malpractice Lawyers & Attorneys

The Oregon Supreme Court has upheld a five-year statute of limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits involving minors. Kelly Christiansen had filed suit against the Providence Health System because it was alleged that their doctor did not recognize fetal distress and perform an emergency c-section.

Her son had been diagnosed with various developmental disorders and partial epilepsy that other doctors blamed on fetal distress causing "an anoxic event," or lack of oxygen that required resuscitation after birth.

Her son was born eight years ago but the Oregon statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases for minors is five years. Her attorneys argued that the original Oregon Territory had a provision for filing suit up to eighteen years of age and that the Oregon constitution prohibited changing that original provision.

But in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, the court rejected her argument.

It said it agreed with Christiansen that the five-year limitation "can lead to harsh consequences in some cases," but there is nothing in the state constitution to prevent the Legislature from setting the limit as it did.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A judge in Fulton County, Georgia, has struck down the cap on monetary awards in a medical malpractice case.

Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington wrote that the cap was unconstitutional because it allowed protection to the medical profession that was not allowed to other defendants such as manufacturers of defective products.

"It is absurd to say that if you get injured by a product that the jury can decide your noneconomic damages, but if you get injured by medical malpractice, it can't," said Trent Speckhals, one of the lawyers for Cheon Park, the plaintiff in the case.

Judge Arrington's decision only affects this case but, if appealed, will open the door for the Georgia Supreme Court to overturn the caps for malpractice cases.  If not overturned it would effectively mean that only the wealthy could get large settlements because they have large incomes that could be lost because of malpractice.

"The statute effectively puts substantial limitations on the rights of the poor and middle class to recovery while leaving the right to virtually unlimited recoveries unimpeded for the wealthy," Arrington said. "The disabled manager of a hedge fund, a corporate CEO, an entertainer or such other person whose income is in the tens of millions of dollars has a claim under Georgia law that would dwarf the amount awarded in any case for pain and suffering."

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From an awareness point of view I would want to know this before I got treatment.

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- A woman who says she had to forgo cancer treatment because of botched surgery by a California doctor says she was never made aware the doctor was being treated for alcoholism and had been convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Becky Anderson received a breast reconstruction from Dr. Brian West, a California plastic surgeon, in September 2000. Becky, who was suffering from breast cancer, says she had to forgo cancer treatment while battling complications from West's surgery.

Now she is dying of cancer. She had no idea when she let West treat her that he had been convicted for driving under the influence in 1987 and had been arrested for a second DUI, for which he was later convicted, while on the way to treat her.

She claims he lied about the DUI, blaming a missed appointment with her on a car accident. She sued the doctor for negligence and malpractice. He never admitted fault, but settled with her for $250,000.

Source:  CNN.com:  Doctor's and Addictions

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

People over Profits.  That is how it should be.  It isn't.

So now pharmaceutical companies and any company regulated by the federal government want to be able to keep you out of state court.  Why?  They say that because the federal government has approved a drug or medical device or consumer product, that it therefore is "safe".  We all know that is not necessarily true.  (It is also not a logical conclusion).

But by making this argument cases may only be able to be filed in Federal Court.  This is a BIG bonus for corporations, because it reduces where they have to defend lawsuits.  It also robs State's rights in my opinion.

The worst part of this is that it is not even always a federal law that makes this changes.  If an agency approves the product that may be enough to get the cases out of state court.

Kiss Your State's rights goodbye.

NEW ORLEANS (AP)— If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can't sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

Plaintiffs' attorneys call it "silent tort reform." But it's part of the tension that's existed since the nation's founding: conflict between state and federal law.

If they clash, state laws give way. That's in Article 6 of the Constitution. But in areas where there is no federal law, federal courts must defer to laws of the state where a lawsuit is heard. That includes product liability.

A developing body of judicial opinion could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products, consumer advocates say. It also could mean the savings of billions of dollars by companies insulated from lawsuits.

What's riling plaintiffs' lawyers, consumer groups and some regulators is agencies' assertions their rules override state product-liability laws. Most such claims are rooted in statements in the introductions to their rules, not the rules themselves.

"These pre-emption preambles may be only the beginning," New York University law professor Catherine Sharkey wrote in the DePaul Law Review.

Source:  WashingtonTimes.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent medical malpractice verdict in Indiana a jury awarded $3.7 Million to a young person with cerebral palsy.  Indiana state law reduces that amount to $2 Million under a law that caps verdicts.

Hmmm.  So what that means is that the insurance company gets to fight tooth and nail to keep from paying out and when they lose big then they are still protected.  Their maximum risk is $2 Million.  So who then bears the cost of the medical mistake... The victim.

Here's the Article:

A child was born in 2001 via c-section and is now suffering from cerebral palsy. Her family believes it was a lack of oxygen during birth and that doctors were too slow in her delivery. A jury in Indiana agreed and awarded them $3.7 Million in the medical malpractice case.

Source:  Injuryboard.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another pretty large verdict.  Often these verdicts make the news because of their size.  Please notice that there is usually an offer to settle for the insurance policy limits or some other number.  In many states if there is an offer to settle and the defendant and the insurance company refuse that offer, then if the verdict is larger than then offer or the policy limits then the insurance company may have to pay the higher number (the verdict).  This is designed to encourage settlements.

A Philadelphia jury on Wednesday awarded $12 million to a woman with terminal breast cancer in her suit against two doctors for allegedly failing to diagnose the disease before it had progressed to an incurable stage.

Specifically here is what the lawsuit alleges. "Lawsuit Alleges"  What that basically means is "Here is what the plaintiff claims happened to her."

The suit alleged that, due to Sutherlin's history of breast problems, including a bloody discharge from her nipple that required a prior biopsy, she was not a proper candidate for a "screening" test in the mobile unit and instead should have undergone a "diagnostic" test.

Magilner testified in his deposition that Sutherlin's questionnaire, which was completed by Fox Chase technicians, made no mention of Sutherlin's surgical history, nor the fact that she had undergone breast reduction surgery in 2000. The suit alleged that Magilner's report erroneously described a "dilated duct" that was "unchanged" and suggested a follow-up test in one year.

But Jones argued in court papers that a comparison of Sutherlin's 2001 and 2003 mammograms showed that the report from the first test made no mention of a dilated duct.

"In short, Dr. Magilner missed a clear opportunity to note the change in the left ductal prominence, which is where Angela Sutherlin ultimately developed a palpable lump and breast cancer was found," Jones wrote in her pretrial memo.

The suit alleged that when Sutherlin had another mammogram in March 2004 at the Albert Einstein Medical Center, another doctor, Susan Summerton, interpreted the films and noted "several small nodular densities," but found that they "remain stable compared to prior studies."

But the suit alleged that no nodular densities had been noted in the prior report, and that Summerton therefore should not have labeled the finding as benign.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One big verdict and you start seeing stories like this.  You have to dig deep into this article to see the reality: 

Insurance Companies control trial tactics and settlement negotiations.  The insurance company in this case could have settled this case for $2 million.  That is less than 10% of the verdict.  Instead, they chose to go to verdict and they lost.  I bet the doctor wanted to settle.

The second point is that even though the insurance company lost, it will likely settle for an amount significantly less than the trial verdict, so the $38.5 million dollar verdict is a little misleading.

Here's the article:

A Stamford jury's decision to award a record $38.5 million to the parents of a boy born with cerebral palsy has reignited debates over medical malpractice rates, insurance company tactics and the cause of cerebral palsy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Malpractice Cap Law in Texas is just SO arbitrary.  Now, I don't believe that malpractice caps actually drive down insurance rates.  (That position is probably no surprise to anyone reading this as I am a plaintiff's lawyer)

Here's the thing:   If you set caps at a hard number then all you do is cap the amount that insurance companies pay.  Look at California.  They set malpractice caps years ago and they have never changed them for inflation.  So rates go up because of inflation, but the payout to victims can never go up.  What that does it puts the burden of medical mistakes on the injured, the victims of medical malpractice.

Here's part of the article in Texas:

Former Dallas Cowboy Ron Springs, who has been in a coma since the fall after surgery to remove a cyst, is one of 11 plaintiffs challenging Texas' medical malpractice cap in a lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, challenges the 2003 Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act, which limits awards in Texas. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the cap unconstitutional.

The law caps awards for pain and suffering at $250,000 for doctors, $250,000 for hospitals and $250,000 for nursing homes and other institutions for a maximum of $750,000 per claimant.

Source:  Houston Chronicle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This from the Daily Pennsylvanian.  This lawsuit alleges that the hospital and doctors misrepresented the identity of the donor.

Two years ago, Tony Grier received a pair of diseased lungs during a lung transplant at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Now, HUP must respond to questions raised in a lawsuit filed by Grier's estate.

Grier, 43, had pulmonary sarcoidosis - a rare disease that in its chronic form thickens lung tissue to the point at which it can no longer transmit oxygen into the bloodstream - and believed he was exchanging his own lungs for those of a healthy 18-year-old.

Instead, Grier received the cancerous lungs of a 31-year-old smoker. He died six months after the operation.

Last October, his mother, Emma Grier, filed a lawsuit against HUP, four of its physicians and Gift of Life - the organ-donor program through which the lungs were allocated to Tony Grier. She is suing each defendant for $750,000 on seven counts, including medical malpractice, wrongful death and common law fraud.

Source:  DailyPennsylvanian

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday in La Salle County Circuit Court, a jury decided Adam Porter should receive nearly $24 million from a doctor and nurse practitioner in a malpractice case.

The 34-year-old Streator man filed a lawsuit in May 2003 against Ephraim W. Batambuze, M.D., John E. Podzamsky, D.O., registered nurse anesthetist Linda Blair of A.T. Associates and nurse practitioner Patricia Duffield, as well as against Batambuze's practice, Prairie Cardiovascular Consultants.

Porter said he entered St. Mary's Hospital in Streator in November 2001 for surgery involving a kidneystone in his ureter. During surgery, he underwent cardiac arrest and the flow of oxygen to his brain was interrupted.

Source:  MyWebTimes.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Month's earlier the pharmacist had asked for more staff.  Why?  To "decrease the pharmacist's stress"

When Tabitha Jones picked up her stepson's medicine at a Walgreens store near Nashville in 2004, she had no way to know the pharmacy was so busy that its manager had asked for more staffing months earlier to "decrease the pharmacist's stress."

...

A USA TODAY investigation found evidence that corporate policies — such as allowing or encouraging pharmacists to fill hundreds of prescriptions daily and rewarding fast work — can contribute to errors like the one that befell Trey Jones.

Source:  USA Today:  Pharmacy Errors

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The theme for this case seems to be "Delay".  That is a common theme in cerebral palsy medical malpractice cases.  Often this is because it is the delay that causes the oxygen deprivation to the brain.

This article states that this may be the largest verdict in Conn. history.

A Superior Court jury in Stamford has ordered a city obstetrician to pay $38.5 million to the family of a boy born with cerebral palsy in 2003.

The verdict is believed to be among the largest medical malpractice awards in the state, surpassing a $36.5 million award in 2005 against Hartford Hospital and an obstetrician.

The Stamford jury ruled Friday that Dr. Corinne De Cholnoky should have performed a Caesarean section more quickly during the 2003 delivery of Spencer Oram, whose umbilical cord was impeding blood flow to his brain.

Source:  Newsday.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You just can't let this happen.  The hospital should have systems in place to protect against this.  The emotional trauma is extreme and heartwrenching.

Here's the story.

BY BRYON OKADA

FORT WORTH -- A Johnson County couple filed a lawsuit Tuesday afternoon alleging negligence and gross negligence against Huguley Memorial Medical Center of Fort Worth following a July incident where hospital staff sent their newborn’s corpse to the cleaners with the dirty laundry.

According to the lawsuit, it took the hospital staff 19 hours to locate the missing body. By then the unpreserved body had been crushed and disfigured.

Background

On July 8, Kourtney McGee of Cleburne was in her second trimester when she went to Huguley because she was bleeding. She gave birth prematurely to Jacob Dwayne Robinson, who did not survive.

Staff told McGee and Milburn "Pete" Robinson of Alvarado, the baby's father, that the body would be taken to the morgue. However, when the funeral director arrived at the hospital, he was told the body could not be found. The baby's body was not refrigerated when it got to the morgue. Instead it was sent to a commercial cleaner with the laundry.

The lawsuit contends that Huguley Memorial Medical Center had a duty to care for, handle, maintain and/or prepare for burial the body of Jacob Robinson. It breached its duty by "mishandling, misplacing, and disfiguring the body..."

Damages

According to the lawsuit, the family has sustained "severe emotional distress and mental anguish" and are seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

How did the baby end up in the laundry?

Unclear.

"That’s one of the things we want to know," said Fort Worth attorney John David Hart, who is representing the couple. "How could this happen, that these parents lost their child, lost their son, then the hospital doesn't have a procedure or policy in place for dealing with it."

What is Huguley’s response?

"Our sympathies go to a family obviously who had a stillborn situation -- everyone feels bad about that," said Dallas attorney Michael Stewart, who is representing Huguley. "As for the allegations, we deny those and we deny that the hospital has done anything inappropriate."

With pending litigation, Stewart declined to release more information on the case.

What is the difference between negligence and gross negligence?

Negligence is the failure to extend ordinary care. Gross negligence is negligence that shows either reckless conduct or conscious disregard for the rights of the family.

Source:  Star-Telegram.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was looking at an article on John Ritter's death today.  There was a lawsuit that followed alleging medical negligence.  As part of my research I came across this blog entry from another lawyer and went off on another tangent.

There is a great point counterpoint that goes on in the comment section of this post.  If you are at all interested in this subject, then I recommend reading the post and then all the way through the comments.  Interesting.

http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negligence-john-ritters-family-settles-med-mal-lawsuit.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.  Does it seem like it takes forever when you go to an emergency room?  You may actually be on to something there.  A study released recently shows that emergency room wait times are increasing.

Emergency room wait times across the country increased 36 percent between 1997 and 2004, according to a Harvard study published today.
...

The study, the first providing detailed analysis of national trends in emergency room waits, showed wait times increased to a median of 30 minutes in 2004 from 22 minutes in 1997. Such an increase likely has a negative impact on patient care and may result in more people leaving the hospital without seeing a physician, the study's authors said.

"Patients who present to the emergency room with time-sensitive conditions may be harmed because they're not receiving the care they need in a timely way," said the lead author, Dr. Andrew Wilper, a fellow in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School. "There's prolonged pain and suffering."

Source:  Chron.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Virginia supreme court recently heard arguments about whether physician foundations could get immunity from medical malpractice lawsuits because of their charity work.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday that pitted the rights of patients injured by negligence against the medical community's need to preserve its financial well-being in the face of growing indigent-care demands.

Lawyers on both sides of the issue have described it as the most significant matter taken up by the court regarding medical malpractice since 1990, when the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the state's limit on malpractice awards.

If successful, tax-exempt physician foundations in Virginia employing about 1,200 doctors and supporting the state's three medical schools could win immunity from malpractice suits because of the charitable care they provide the poor.

Medical schools claim they are covered because of the charity work they perform while plaintiff lawyers are objecting and say that granting this immunity will shield corporations whose real motive is profit not charity.

Source:  InRich.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pharmacy errors are very dangerous.  That seems like an obvious statement, I know.  But here is a story I found that reveals what can happen when you are given the wrong drug.

A liver transplant patient has sued New York University Medical Center for $2 million, claiming the hospital's pharmacy gave him medicine for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, when he tried to fill a prescription for hepatitis C medicine.

Gregory Rossini, 56, says in court papers that taking the wrong medication caused his hepatitis condition to worsen. Besides chills, dizziness, fever and loss of appetite and weight, his eyes and skin turned yellow, the lawsuit says.

Source:  NewsDay.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is a verdict I just read about.  This medical malpractice case was in West Virginia.  It is a large verdict ($4 million).  The victim presented with "serious abdominal symptoms and complaints".  According to the testimony in the case "surgery would have been needed to correct a life-threatening ischemic bowel condition"  That surgery did not happen and the patient died.

It only took the jury 45 minutes to decide the case.  That is very fast.  Often it takes just that long for the jury to sort out the personalities in the jury room, never mind coming to a decision on negligence AND a value on the damages.

Source:  Charleston Daily Mail

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

What a scathing report.  9 deaths caused by treatment at a VA hospital in Illinois.  What makes VA hospital malpractice claims interesting is that they are often governed by a federal statute (The Federal Tort Claims Act).  To pursue a medical malpractice case under that act involves a different procedure and the claim is filed in Federal Court.

Substandard care at the Marion VA Medical Center left nine patients dead and 34 others seriously injured during a two-year period ending last September, investigators reported Monday.

Ten of the 34 injured patients later died, but investigators were unable to determine if the substandard care they received at the Downstate medical facility was the cause.

A report by the medical inspector of the Veterans Health Administration, released Monday, detailed a long list of serious problems at the hospital, including a surgical program "in disarray" and "fragmented and inconsistent" administrative oversight.

Source:  Chicago Tribune.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A jury in Cook County handed down a record verdict recently.  $22 million.

A Cook County jury has awarded a record $22 million to the family of a 34-year-old woman who died in 2003 from complications during delivery at an Evanston hospital.

The family of Rachelle Bentivenga alleged that hospital staff failed to properly treat her high blood pressure during labor and that she suffered a massive brain hemorrhage as a result.

Source:  Chicago Tribune

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a bill that passed the Wisconsin Senate that will give medical  malpractice rights to two classes of people.

• Parents of adult children
• Children of adult parents

In many cases and states around the country if an adult dies from medical malpractice and has no spouse or children, then no one could bring a case.  Wisconsin is trying to change that with this bill. 

A bill passed by the Wisconsin Senate would give parents of adult children who die as a result of medical malpractice the ability to file lawsuits.

Right now, parents of adult children in Wisconsin can't sue for malpractice deaths. Adult children also don't have the right to sue if their parents die because of malpractice.

The bill would give both classes legal standing. Its author, Democratic Sen. Jeff Plale of South Milwaukee, says they deserve a day in court.

Republican Sen. Alberta Darling of River Hills counters the state's patients compensation fund, which goes to malpractice claims, is in the red and this is no time to expand the client pool.

Source:  Insurance Journal

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

From over at the NHLawBlog.com  (one of our other blogs)  Please go read about legislation in New Jersey  that will provide more protection to families.  This law will allow families to recover emotional damages when a family member dies. 

This law will basically allow people to be valued using more than just what they might have earned in the future. 

Support the Wrongful Death Legislation

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Recently in in West Virginia a justice said that the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act was creating "pointless procedural hoops"  that were taking away from the courts being able to actually answer the factual questions.

Here is a portion of the article itself really describes the problem that was presented to the court: The full article link is at the end of this post.

The article by Justin D. Anderson is titled..

Justice says medical malpractice reforms fueling absurd cases

...

The plaintiffs sued Charleston Area Medical Center and Thomas Memorial Hospital as well as the makers and distributors of the sutures.

The Kanawha Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit last year because of the way the plaintiffs sued.

The plaintiffs brought the suit against the hospitals as a straight products liability issue, not a medical malpractice issue.

The lower court found - and justices agreed - that the lawsuit should have complied with the requirements of the Medical Professional Liability Act of 1986 because it stems from the administration of health care.

The state Supreme Court reinstated the lawsuit, but still ordered the plaintiffs to comply with the act.

The act has been tweaked in recent years as legislators have tried to limit malpractice lawsuits in the state. Critics said a high number of unfounded complaints were causing malpractice insurance to skyrocket and wreaking havoc on the state's legal system.

Under the act, plaintiffs have to file pre-lawsuit notices to the defendants and a qualified expert has to say the suit is valid.

Also, under the act, the plaintiffs' non-economic damages will be capped at $250,000 and $500,000 for other damages.

Starcher called the pre-lawsuit requirements "pointless procedural hoops" because a jury could determine whether or not the sutures were safe.

Starcher said the act itself wouldn't affect a jury's finding as to whether or not the sutures were contaminated.

"To the contrary, application of the (Medical Professional Liability Act) to the instant case clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the (act), and demonstrates why the Legislature should exercise restraint when it attempts to meddle with centuries-old common law principles," Starcher wrote.

He continued, "The only impact the (act) might have is to deprive injured plaintiffs of their rightful damages, by capping the damages that can be recovered at an arbitrary amount that has no relationship to the evidence."

In harmony with Starcher's dissent, Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis, in a footnote to the original opinion in this case, declared that the pre-lawsuit requirements violated the state constitution, which says the Supreme Court makes such rules, not the Legislature. The constitution also guarantees access to the courts for all people and justice administered without "sale, denial or delay."

(emphasis added.)

The last bolded quote is the biggest problem with caps on damages.  They are arbitrary.  The nice thing about the court system is that it allows the individual to show what they are all about.  Each person is different and that is a major point behind the legal system. 

California has had this problem for years.  An arbitrary cap was set on damages and all that has done is save insurance companies money and keep seriously injured people from recovering fully.

Read the Full article at The Charleston Daily Mail

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The National Center for Policy Analysis has released a report proposing that medical malpractice cases be moved completely out of the legal system and be handle by contract. 

The idea appears to be that you agree with your doctor or other medical care provider ahead of time what the value  of your life or injury would be.  Then if you are injured  in some way you get paid based on that contract.  So how does the doctor pay for that agreed to injury amount?  They buy insurance, but this time the insurance company knows what the max payout will be because of the contract.

Will this reduce lawsuits, probably. 
Will it fairly value malpractice claims?  I doubt it.
It sounds like it will allow insurance companies to more concretely lock in their profits as opposed to their taking on risk.  So is it about risk or profits.

In any event you can read the about the NCPA report at this link.  Medical Malpractice suggestions

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

OK After a bit of hiatus... (OK it was quite a while) we are back with our Medical Malpractice Law Blog.  We had a few technical difficulties along the way, but it looks like we have managed to solve those.

So without further ado...  I present the Medical Malpractice Law Blog (Again).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The State of Washington has offered the opinion that the new medical malpractice law allows hospitals to NOT release to the public

 

The medical-malpractice law passed last year does prevent public disclosure of individual hospitals' reports of errors such as performing surgery on the wrong body part or leaving behind objects in surgery patients, the state Attorney General's Office has advised the Department of Health.

             Seattle Times

So Hospitals announced that they would no longer release error information to the public.  Once they did that the public outcry was huge and they seemed to have reversed their position.

The Washington State Hospital Association has changed its stance on the public disclosure of hospitals' preventable mistakes, saying now that it won't try to block the release of information about errors such as leaving instruments inside patients and performing the wrong operations.

After a story Tuesday in The Seattle Times highlighted the association's legal efforts to prevent such disclosures, the phones started ringing, association spokeswoman Cassie Sauer said.

"Your article made us realize that people really want the information," she said. "There's been a lot of reaction to this, more than we expected."

Seattle Times

The info should be public.  It helps people decide whether to use a particular hospital or not.  That is the kind of information that actually helps improve health care.  Now I do not think that the error reporting should be used in medical malpractice lawsuits.  The reason is that hospitals should be free to report these errors and not worry about the reports being used against them in cases.  Why?  Because if you allow that then nobody will report errors or they will report them poorly.  Allow the hospitals a reporting system that lets them improve their quality of care systems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Ohio Supreme Court threw out a $30 million dollar medical malpractice case in Ohio.  The court cited the plaintiff lawyer's theatrics during the case as one of the reasons for overturning the verdict.

The case involved a brain injury case arising from a delayed cesarean section.

In his closing argument to the jury, Fieger assumed client Walter Hollins' character in his mother's womb, his brain deprived of oxygen as he waited to be delivered.

"Doctors, nurses, I'm suffocating. Please help me to be born," Fieger told the jury. "I want to play baseball. I want to hug my mother. I want to tell her that I love her. Help me."

Hollins, 20, of Cleveland, will have to file another lawsuit to seek compensation for his injuries.

Source: Columbus Dispatch

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

I'm dropping this here for those who follow our blog.  We have decided to look into cases involving the Medtronic Defilbriltor recall.  While it is not related to cerebral palsy, it is something our firm is looking at.

On October 15, 2007 Medtronic, a manufacturer of implantable defibrillators, has recalled the Sprint Fidelis leads (electrodes) used in its products. Additionally, the company recommends against new implants of the leads (Sprint Fidelis Models: 6930, 6931, 6948, 6949). Medtronic has identified five patient deaths in which a Sprint Fidelis lead failure may have been a likely or contributing cause in that death.

We are looking at cases where  there is a required replacement of an Implantable Cardiover Defibrillators (ICD's) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators (CRT-D's) or the Sprint Fidelis Leads, or if there is an injury related to these defibrillators.

Burke & Eisner. PA

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

From an article I read online at the Edwardsville Journal I see that the Illinois Supreme Court has approved a program that requires medical malpractice cases be mediated to hopefully reduce the number of long and costly trials in Illinois.

All Good.  I believe that mediation forces lawyers and parties to try to resolve the case before either side has spent a whole boatload of money preparing the case.

Also It forces parties to realistically look at their case early on.  AND It gets someone else who is not part of the case to look very closely at the merits.  This is kindof an unbiased opinion and is often very helpful.

The only objection I have with the article is this line...

The rule fits into an overall effort to address flagrant lawsuits in Illinois, especially Madison, St. Clair and Bond counties, which have long histories of doling out large class action settlements.

This incorrectly links "doling out large class action settlements" with medical malpractice cases.  The two kinds of cases are not the same.  Additionally, courts do not "dole out" settlements.  Settlements are by definition reached between the two parties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In addition to cerebral palsy cases, our attorneys and lawyers also investigate pharmaceutical liability cases as well.  We are investigating Zelnorm cases.  Zelnorm was recently withdrawn from the market over concerns that there is a higher incidence of heart attack, stroke and angina.

http://www.burke-eisner.com/zelnorm/

http://www.prescription-drug-liability-law-blog.com/

FDA: FDA Announces Discontinued Marketing of GI Drug, Zelnorm, for Safety Reasons

FDA: FDA Public Health Advisory Tegaserod maleate (marketed as Zelnorm)

FDA: Drug Safety Podcasts Tegaserod maleate (marketed as Zelnorm)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

From the Boston Globe recently.

"Hippocritical Doctors"

 When they work for health insurers - and help deny care - physicians are kicking aside the oath they pledged to uphold.

By ADAM J. WOLFBERG  |  March 25, 2007

My 5-year-old daughter has mild cerebral palsy that affects the strength and dexterity of her right hand. With the help of her physical and occupational therapists, she has made tremendous gains in her ability to accomplish routine tasks. She swung from the monkey bars for the first time recently and can now use her right hand to drink chocolate milk. But in 2005, the prospect of having her therapy paid for seemed unlikely when my health insurance plan at the time refused to cover it. I filed an appeal, only to have it rejected weeks later.

At least two physicians reviewed my appeal before it was denied – physicians paid by the health plan to review claims when there is a dispute about what is covered and what is not. While one of these doctors has no expertise with cerebral palsy, the second one does. In his other job, he cares for children with severe physical disabilities and is a proponent of therapy for disabled children. As he wrote to me in an e-mail, “my personal view is that children with [cerebral palsy] benefit from therapy services.” However, in his review of my appeal, he wrote a careful explanation justifying why the health plan should not pay for the therapy. (Although the monkey bars know differently, the health plan asserted my daughter’s right arm would not improve significantly in 90 days – a requirement for coverage.)

This doctor and others like him are making money denying care – and they might as well hang up their white coats. They may believe that their administrative decisions are medically justifiable. However, it often appears that they are hired because their MD degrees lend a patina of legitimacy to administrative decisions that are based on interpretation of a health plan’s policies, not a chart, lab test, or CT scan.

For the full article please go to www.boston.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

United Cerebral Palsy has put a document on their website that reviews the history of the Terry Schaivo case. It includes some opinions, but it also discusses a lot of the facts of the case and it brings to light how difficult and expensive it is to care for someone with a brain injury.

Washington Watch: The Terry Schaivo Case

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

No Kidding.

A study has come out showing that

Texas' medical malpractice crisis was not driven by runaway juries and high-priced settlements.

The premium increases were due to volatility in the insurance industry. Tort Reform will not reduce premiums.

The article at The Herald & Review

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

You hear it on the news fairly frequently now.

"Frivolous lawsuits are driving doctors to close their practice" Hmmm. Insurance companies accept premiums from doctors and then invest those premiums while they are waiting to pay any claims that might be brought against the insurance companies.

So...if the insurance companies want to make more money then they can raise premiums or cut down on the lawsuits. Why not do both.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link