Reed points to managed-care and insurance companies as have a large part in shifting the medical ethic away from doing what is best for the patient to doing what works to drive up profits.
]]> Reed apparently suggests in her book that reform of the system requires that malpractice damages be controlled and that overhead costs of medical care be reduced. Interestingly, she advocates a single-system of medical care, saying that such a system would save on medical costs by cutting out the insurance bureaucracy.While we will not comment on the notion of a single-payer health care system, it is certainly the case that some medical malpractice suits are frivolous. Meritless suits are a problem in a variety of personal injury cases. That being said, medical errors can have enormously harmful effects on their victims. Any new suggestions for a medical system need to have some way to keep doctors accountable to patients for their errors and faulty judgments.
To cut out such protections or minimize them greatly is to do an injustice to those who suffer at the hands of careless doctors, some of whose mistakes should not allow them to continue practicing their profession.
Source: Nashville Ledger, "Physician: Drive for profit hurts health care," Stephen W. Hines, May 18, 2012.
]]>The initial surgery was for a penile implant. Such surgery is commonly performed for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, after all other forms of treatment have failed. With the surgery, there is the risk of infection, even years after the surgery is performed. In this man's case, he had an additional risk because of diabetes and high blood pressure.
]]> In the Florida man's case, he developed an infection two weeks after the operation, which eventually turned into gangrene and required amputation.He hopes to win the malpractice case on the grounds that his doctors had reason to know that he was not a good candidate for the surgery in the first place, and on the grounds that the doctor didn't exercise proper care after the surgery.
According to the doctor, the infection was probably the result of the man's failure to follow medical instructions to avoid sex after surgery for a period of time. The man's attorney, however, argued that the infection could have had a number of other causes.
It isn't clear how strong of a case the man has here, given the facts available. To win a medical malpractice case, a victim has to prove that a doctor violated the accepted standard of care. While it isn't clear whether the doctor in this case has done that it is clear that whatever went wrong will be the cause of great suffering and humiliation for this man.
Source: ABC News, "Diabetic Sues Doctor After His Infected Penis Is Amputated," Susan Donaldson James, May 17, 2012.
]]>Last Friday, a Philadelphia woman was awarded $78.5 million in a medical malpractice case against medical center she had accused of creating the circumstances which ultimately resulted in her son's cerebral palsy. In particular, she blamed faulty diagnostic procedures.
]]> According to the woman's attorneys, the woman had demonstrated signs of complications when she arrived at the hospital which caused her son to be deprived of oxygen, resulting in cerebral palsy. The problem, they argued, could have been avoided by delivering the child right away, but the doctor in charge mistakenly determined that the baby had died.It wasn't until 81 minutes after that determination that a fetal heartbeat was detected and an emergency cesarean section was performed. Outdated medical equipment and failure to provide trained staff were determined to be part of the problem.
The jury in the case determined that it was the medical center, and not the doctor, that was responsible for the birth injury.
Cerebral palsy is one of a number of conditions that can result when an improperly executed birth. Others include, spastic quadriplega, hypoxia, developmental delays, microcephaly and mental retardation.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, "Phila. Jury awards $78.5M in medical malpractice case," Chris Mondics, May 6, 2012.
]]>As a recent case shows, however, there is still some question as to whether federal law permits claims against generic drug companies for design defects.
]]> The case at issue involves a New Hampshire woman who had suffered a severe skin reaction after taking the generic anti-inflammatory drug sulindac for shoulder pain. As a result of taking the drug, she suffered burns on two-thirds of her body and permanent near-blindness.According to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the woman's $21 million jury award, the drug was unreasonably dangerous due to its risk of causing Stevens Johnson syndrome, a life-threatening skin reaction.
Referring to the 2011 case that insulated generics from liability for label warnings not provided by brand name pharmaceuticals, the court said that the Supreme Court would have to issue a separate ruling in order to extend that decision to design defects and that generics are liable for them until then.
Attorneys for the generic drug company in the case were upset by the decision, pointing to FDA approval of the drug, but the plaintiff's attorney noted that the drug's risks outweigh its benefits, and generic drug makers should be responsible for injuries occurring in the sale of the product.
Source: Thomson Reuters News & Insight, "1st Circuit affirms $21 mln award in generic drug suit," Terry Baynes, May 4, 2012.
]]>The FDA has apparently not commented on how widely the gel had been distributed, but health care professionals were ordered to stop using the product immediately. The agency did say that patients exposed to the bacteria develop severe skin inflammations. For those undergoing invasive biopsy procedures, the bacteria could be carried into tissues, causing abscesses or blood poisoning.
]]> The FDA also found that the bacteria could make its way into the digestive tract, potentially causing pneumonia or other infections if exposed to the lungs and other tissues.Ultrasound gel is widely used to capture images of a child in utero, but it isn't clear whether the product in question had been used for this purpose. The FDA commented that the risks presented in abdominal ultrasounds by the gel were remote unless the patient has open cuts on her skin, though the risks in a transvaginal ultrasound are greater.
As with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, patients receive treatment expecting that any pharmaceutical device or product they use is safe for the purpose intended. When patients are made ill or injured by such products, they often feel like they have nowhere to turn. Those who've suffered because of a pharmaceutical drug or other product may be entitled to compensation for injuries, medical expenses and other costs.
Source: CNN Health, "U.S. marshals seize ultrasound gel that allegedly sickened 16 patients," Todd Sperry, April 18, 2012.
]]>News sources are reporting that a Polish dentist, in an act of anger and revenge, removed all her ex-boyfriend's teeth during an appointment to treat a toothache, just days after their breakup. As a result of the incident, she is facing up to three years in jail, as well as an investigation for medical malpractice and abusing the trust of a patient.
]]> The case is instructive on a number of levels, including the dangers of seeking medical care from an ex. Another interesting aspect of the story is the issue of whether the doctor's actions constituted medical malpractice. Technically, medical malpractice is an act or omission characterized by professional negligence, which by definition falls below the standard of care generally accepted by the medical community.Medical malpractice laws vary by state, but generally require the establishment of four elements. The first is the standard of care according to which the doctor is to act or not act in the treatment of a patient. These are generally nationwide standards. The second element is that the doctor failed to act according to the standard of care. The basic issue in this element is whether a reasonable and prudent doctor would have made the same mistake in the same or a similar situation. The third element is that a real injury must have actually resulted, and the fourth is that the doctor's negligence was the legal cause of the injury.
It isn't clear whether the actions of the dentist in this story would fall within the definition of negligence. What happened here was certainly no error, but intentional, and this isn't the kind of case one would typically associate with medical malpractice. More often, medical malpractice claims result from doctors cutting corners, overlooking details, or taking unnecessary and unfair risks.
Whatever the case may be with respect to the medical malpractice investigation, the dentist's actions were tortious and constituted a serious violation of trust and professionalism, regardless of the personal problems that motivated them. It is a reminder, as well, of the ever-present possibility of lapses of judgment in medical professionals.
Source: 5 NBC Chicago, "Heartbroken Dentist Accused of Yanking Ex-Boyfriend's Teeth," Dominique Z. Scott, May 1, 2012.
]]>Five hospitals will reportedly be participating in the program, which targets what is often termed "defensive medicine" and seeks to expedite the resolution of disputes in cases of medical error. Defense medicine, as sources point out, is widely believed to be one of the largest factors behind rising health care costs. Doctors, so the theory goes, are so concerned about medical malpractice suits that they often order unnecessary tests just to cover themselves from potential liability.
]]> The program requires hospitals to promptly disclose and investigate unanticipated, negative outcomes of medical procedures. If the hospital is found to be at fault, it will issue an apology and make an offer of financial compensation. Patients who accept the offer would waive the right to future litigation. Hospitals are not required to apologize or make a financial offer if they determine no errors were made and the medical outcome was unavoidable because of an underlying disease or the inherent risks of surgery. The program seeks to correct policies which leave a bad taste in the mouth of patients who are injured by doctor's mistakes.The new Massachusetts program is reportedly based on a previous one designed by the University of Michigan Health Care System. That program has apparently been credited with resolving a majority of claims outside court, as well as with cutting legal and insurance-related malpractice expenses for hospitals.
Medical malpractice attorneys, as our readers might guess, would welcome any changes which favor greater openness on the part of medical professionals, who all too often have the tendency to want to cover up responsibility for their mistakes. This Massachusetts program may promote that, though it is questionable whether it reflects a desire on the part of hospitals and their insurers to avoid litigation.
Those who are injured by the negligence of a doctor often face unbearable medical bills and great frustration. Such suits can help relieve injured patients from the financial stress that can result from these medical errors.
Source: Insurance Journal, "Massachusetts Docs Eye New Approach to Medical Malpractice Claims," April 19, 2012
]]>Is your water free of dangerous chemicals?
By Ed Greenberger, THELAW.TV
If you've seen the movie Erin Brockovich, you're likely familiar with hexavalent chromium. Also known as chromium-6, hexavalent chromium is a chemical that comes from chromium, a naturally occurring metal used for things like steel manufacturing and leather tanning.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified chromium-6 as a likely carcinogen. Many experts believe the chemical can do serious damage if it is ingested.
"We're most concerned about chromium-6 and cancer," said Dr. Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG). "We've known for a long time that when you inhale this chemical, it can cause cancer. But recent evidence also indicates that it's a problem when you drink it."
Dr. Sutton recently led a study of chromium-6 in U.S. public water supplies. EWG tested 35 cities across America and found the chemical in 31 of them. EWG conducted the study because, more than a decade after Erin Brockovich, the EPA only requires utilities to test for total chromium, not chromium-6. Earlier this month, the EPA delayed adopting a drinking water standard for chromium-6 until it completes an additional study.
"That is sobering news for some, especially since chromium-6 has been in the news for so long," says attorney Martin Sweet of legal information website THELAW.TV. The lawsuit on which Erin Brockovich was based was settled in 1996, with Pacific Gas and Electric paying out $333 million to residents of Hinkley, California, many of whom claimed groundwater contaminated with chromium-6 gave them cancer. The film, which was released in 2000, was a box office hit and received several Academy Award nominations.
"Chromium-6 is potentially a very dangerous chemical to have in our drinking water," explains Houston, Texas personal injury attorney Sean Tracey of the Tracey Law Firm. "The EPA would be wise to set a standard for our water as soon as possible."
Public water utilities might not test for chromium-6, but they do test for a lot of things, including total chromium. Each public water utility is required to issue a report that contains the results of their testing on an annual basis. According to EWG, which collects test results from all over America, more than 300 pollutants have been found in U.S. tap water since 2004. EWG claims more than half of the chemicals detected are not subject to health or safety regulations and can legally be present in any amount.
]]>Is your water free of dangerous chemicals?
By Ed Greenberger, THELAW.TV
If you've seen the movie Erin Brockovich, you're likely familiar with hexavalent chromium. Also known as chromium-6, hexavalent chromium is a chemical that comes from chromium, a naturally occurring metal used for things like steel manufacturing and leather tanning.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified chromium-6 as a likely carcinogen. Many experts believe the chemical can do serious damage if it is ingested.
"We're most concerned about chromium-6 and cancer," said Dr. Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG). "We've known for a long time that when you inhale this chemical, it can cause cancer. But recent evidence also indicates that it's a problem when you drink it."
Dr. Sutton recently led a study of chromium-6 in U.S. public water supplies. EWG tested 35 cities across America and found the chemical in 31 of them. EWG conducted the study because, more than a decade after Erin Brockovich, the EPA only requires utilities to test for total chromium, not chromium-6. Earlier this month, the EPA delayed adopting a drinking water standard for chromium-6 until it completes an additional study.
"That is sobering news for some, especially since chromium-6 has been in the news for so long," says attorney Martin Sweet of legal information website THELAW.TV. The lawsuit on which Erin Brockovich was based was settled in 1996, with Pacific Gas and Electric paying out $333 million to residents of Hinkley, California, many of whom claimed groundwater contaminated with chromium-6 gave them cancer. The film, which was released in 2000, was a box office hit and received several Academy Award nominations.
"Chromium-6 is potentially a very dangerous chemical to have in our drinking water," explains Houston, Texas personal injury attorney Sean Tracey of the Tracey Law Firm. "The EPA would be wise to set a standard for our water as soon as possible."
Public water utilities might not test for chromium-6, but they do test for a lot of things, including total chromium. Each public water utility is required to issue a report that contains the results of their testing on an annual basis. According to EWG, which collects test results from all over America, more than 300 pollutants have been found in U.S. tap water since 2004. EWG claims more than half of the chemicals detected are not subject to health or safety regulations and can legally be present in any amount.
]]>Is your water free of dangerous chemicals?
By Ed Greenberger, THELAW.TV
If you've seen the movie Erin Brockovich, you're likely familiar with hexavalent chromium. Also known as chromium-6, hexavalent chromium is a chemical that comes from chromium, a naturally occurring metal used for things like steel manufacturing and leather tanning.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified chromium-6 as a likely carcinogen. Many experts believe the chemical can do serious damage if it is ingested.
"We're most concerned about chromium-6 and cancer," said Dr. Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG). "We've known for a long time that when you inhale this chemical, it can cause cancer. But recent evidence also indicates that it's a problem when you drink it."
Dr. Sutton recently led a study of chromium-6 in U.S. public water supplies. EWG tested 35 cities across America and found the chemical in 31 of them. EWG conducted the study because, more than a decade after Erin Brockovich, the EPA only requires utilities to test for total chromium, not chromium-6. Earlier this month, the EPA delayed adopting a drinking water standard for chromium-6 until it completes an additional study.
"That is sobering news for some, especially since chromium-6 has been in the news for so long," says attorney Martin Sweet of legal information website THELAW.TV. The lawsuit on which Erin Brockovich was based was settled in 1996, with Pacific Gas and Electric paying out $333 million to residents of Hinkley, California, many of whom claimed groundwater contaminated with chromium-6 gave them cancer. The film, which was released in 2000, was a box office hit and received several Academy Award nominations.
"Chromium-6 is potentially a very dangerous chemical to have in our drinking water," explains Houston, Texas personal injury attorney Sean Tracey of the Tracey Law Firm. "The EPA would be wise to set a standard for our water as soon as possible."
Public water utilities might not test for chromium-6, but they do test for a lot of things, including total chromium. Each public water utility is required to issue a report that contains the results of their testing on an annual basis. According to EWG, which collects test results from all over America, more than 300 pollutants have been found in U.S. tap water since 2004. EWG claims more than half of the chemicals detected are not subject to health or safety regulations and can legally be present in any amount.
]]>As our readers may know, Yaz and Yasmin are known to cause increased risk of blood clotting, which may result in heat attack, stroke, or death. Bayer has been accused of misleading women regarding the health risks associated 9ith Yaz and Yasmin. Among the accusations are that Bayer marketed Yaz and its other contraceptives as safer than products offered by other companies, despite the fact that they knew of the increased risk of clotting.
]]> The Settlements come after the FDA ordered Bayer, earlier this month, to heighten blood-clot warnings on their products. That order applies to pills containing the synthetic drug drospirenone, which research has shown may triple the risk of clots.Bayer has already settled 70 cases over the Yasmin line of contraceptives.
Patients, who are mostly unsophisticated regarding matters of pharmaceutical safety, trust their doctors and pharmaceutical companies to give them accurate information regarding the medication they are prescribed. When pharmaceutical companies fail to disclose the risks of a drug, patients don't have the opportunity to make a fully informed decision with their doctor.
As with Yasmin and Yaz, the effects of some pharmaceutical drugs are potentially very serious. For those who've been injured by a drug manufactured by a large pharmaceutical company, the prospect of seeking some kind of recovery may be overwhelming. Having an advocate at one's side is invaluable.
Source: Businessweek, "Bayer Said to Pay $110 Million in Yaz-Birth Control Cases," Jef Feeley & Margaret Cronin Fisk, April 13, 2012.
]]>Roughly 25 million U.S. residents fall into the category of not speaking English very well. Under federal law, U.S. hospitals receiving federal funds must offer some form of translation assistance for those patients. Some hospitals hire professional interpreters, while others purchase telephone or video-based translation services. While this costs hospitals extra money, it may actually reduce costs by preventing unnecessary tests and making care for these patients more efficient.
]]> The study in question looked at 57 different families seen in 2 Massachusetts pediatric emergency rooms. All the families primarily spoke Spanish. Only 20 of them had assistance from a professional interpreter, while ten had no help and 27 had a non-professional interpreter, such as a family member or a bilingual member of the hospital staff.What the study found was that 12 percent of the translation errors could have had health risks to a child. In cases where a non-professional interpreter was used, between 20 and 22 percent of translation errors were potentially risky. Errors were most infrequent when the interpreters had at least 100 hours of training.
The findings should remind our readers of the importance of effective communication with one's physician and caretakers. Without good communication, the risk of medical error increases.
Source: Fox News, "Interpreters in ER may limit medical errors, study suggests," April 18, 2012.
]]>The study, published by Health Affairs, looked at nearly 2,000 physicians across the United States. What they found was that a substantial percentage of them reported they were not 100 percent truthful with their patients. There may be a number of reasons for this, ranging from fear of medical malpractice suits to having a difficult time communicating a scary diagnosis. Whatever the reasons, the trend is disturbing.
]]> The study reportedly found that 34 percent of doctors don't feel they need to disclose serious medical errors to patients, and almost 20 percent said they had opted not to disclose an error in 2011 because of fear of malpractice. Around 55 percent of doctors surveyed said they often or sometimes describe a patient's prognosis in a more positive manner than the facts may support.Nearly two-fifths of those surveyed said they didn't think they need to disclose their financial relationships with drug companies to patients. Over 10 percent of them said they had told a patient something that wasn't true in the last year.
Patient advocates say that patients should be clear with their physician about their wants, including communication, that they should educate themselves prior to meeting with their doctor. Some suggest meeting with doctors face to face rather than over the phone, writing down questions before hand, and not being afraid to ask questions.
Medical error can have life altering consequences, and patients need to be proactive in communicating with their physician and looking out for their health.
Source: ABC News, "Your Doctor May Be Keeping Secrets," April 8, 2012.
]]>According to the woman's complaint, Dr. Lo performed the spinal surgery in January of 2009, which was over a year after an initial MRI taken by a neurosurgeon following an automobile accident in which the woman had been involved in 2007.
]]> According to the complaint, Dr. Lo failed to properly interpret the MRI results and performed a corpectomy rather than taking the neurosurgeon's recommendation. Because of this, the woman lost feeling in her legs and now experiences a weak sensation in her arms.According to the suit, the Baptist hospital is negligent due to its failure to property assess monitor the woman following the surgery and for failing have recourse to Dr. Lo's superiors when the latter decided not to take immediate action following the surgery.
Under Texas law, medical malpractice claims must be substantiated by a medical expert within 120 days of filing the suit. The rule-also known as the certificate-of merit law-is intended to prevent frivolous medical lawsuits and related costs.
Sources didn't give the details of the defendants' dismissal request, but only said they claimed the woman's report was inadequate. Following the court's decision, however, the suit will be allowed to move forward.
Source: Southeast Texas Record, "Justices find expert report adequate in med mal," David Yates, April 9, 2012.
]]>The suit-which was filed against John, Wolfram H. Enseleit and Houston County Health Care Authority Incorporated-reportedly arose from events that took place in 2001. According to the woman who brought the suit, the defendants were responsible for the death of her unborn child, who died when she was 28 weeks pregnant.
]]> According to court records, the woman checked into the Southeast Alabama Medical Center emergency room on December 10, 2011 with a headache, nausea and central nervous system symptoms. After waiting for four hours, she was reportedly dismissed by Gregory Johns, M.D. with a diagnosis of a middle ear infection.She apparently returned to the emergency room later in the day complaining of the same symptoms. After a urine sample indicated the presence of proteinuria, another doctor by the name of Wolfram H. Enseleit determined that she had a urinary tract infection, and she was given pain medication as well as an antibiotic and sent home. Sources noted that an obstetrician was not consulted.
The next morning, the woman was taken to the emergency room because of a seizure. Enseleit, who was the attending doctor at the time, transferred her to labor and delivery, where the woman's baby was delivered by cesarean section and found to be deceased.
Sources said that the woman accused the defendants of failing in their duty to act according to the accepted standard of care for a patient in her condition, but did not indicate anything regarding the details of the allegations.
In any malpractice suit, a defendant makes similar claims, but the specific vary from case to case. Based on a simple internet search, proteinuria can be caused a number of conditions, some serious and some not so serious. In a pregnant woman, however, proteinuria can indicate preeclampsia, a serious condition in which a pregnant woman develops high blood pressure and protein in the urine. Complications from preeclampsia can be serious and could result in the death of an unborn child or of the mother, in rare cases.
Source: Dothan Eagle, "$650,000 judgment issued against Dothan doctor in malpractice suit," Greg Phillips, March 27, 2012.
]]>