Milwaukee Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Minnesota Hospital Admits Wrong Organ Removed

Jenny Albano — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:15:07 GMT

Methodist Hospital in Minnesota acknowledged that their medical staff accidentally removed the wrong organ from a patient. Dr. Samuel Carlson, chief medical officer for Park Nicollet Health Services, stated that one of the surgeons removed a patient's healthy kidney and left the cancerous one in place.

The surgery was performed last Tuesday, but it wasn't until the next day that a pathologist noticed the kidney taken from the patient was healthy. The doctor who removed the kidney - a veteran surgeon - has voluntary stopped seeing patients. Carlson says the mistake may have originated at a Park Nicollet clinic.

Wrong-site surgeries do happen, last year there were 24 in Minnesota, but removal of the wrong organ rarely happens. In the past four-and-a-half years that Minnesota has been collecting data there has not been any wrong organ removals.

Most hospitals have safety measures prevent wrong-site surgery, such as marking body parts that are being operated on before surgery and requiring a break in the operating room so surgical staff can double check documentation. Apparently standard protocols were followed at Methodist Hospital to avoid wrong-site surgery, but that was not enough. The hospital has now added another safety procedure requiring that surgeons double check MRI and CT scans before beginning surgery.

Neither the identity of the surgeon or the patient have been disclosed. It is known that the patient is still under the care of the Methodist Hospital.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Ritter Lawsuit Demonstrates How Medical Malpractice Caps Discriminate On Basis Of Wealth

David Lowe — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:22:29 GMT

After a month long trial, John Ritter's doctors were found not liable by a California jury for medical malpractice in the actor's death in 2003. The lawsuit alleged that a cardiologist misdiagnosed an aortic dissection as a heart attack, and that a radiologist failed to perform an x-ray that might have revealed the dissection, thus causing Ritter to lose the chance for surgery that might have saved his life.

A recent New York Times Magazine article by Lisa Sanders describes the challenge of making the diagnosis of aortic dissection, calling it "one of the classic difficult diagnoses in medicine. Far too often it's not even considered."

A Los Angeles Times story about the trial's outcome makes the point that medical malpractice caps discriminate on the basis of wealth: "The case highlighted the high stakes in malpractice cases where the alleged victim is wealthy: Attorney's for Ritter's family contended that with a new hit show, the veteran actor best known for his role as Jack Tripper on "Three's Company" could have gone on to earn an additional $67 million had he lived."

The family has already received more than $14 million in settlements form the hospital and eight others relating to the malpractice claim. The family was seeking more than $67 million from the remaining defendants. Whether they would have received this exact figure if they had won the case we will never know. But the family certainly would have received a large award because Ritter had a track record as a successful actor, and was in the starring role of the first season of new TV series entitled "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter."

We regularly review cases in which there is merit to the claim of medical malpractice, but statutory caps on the amount a family can recover preclude pursuing the case because the victim was either retired, in a low paying job, or unemployed. Typically, there is either no cap or a high cap for loss of income, but unfairly low limits for loss of companionship. The expense of devloping the case may approach the maximum a victim's survivors may recover for the loss of companionship, making the cases uneconomical to pursue. Of course, that is the reason that the health care industry and its insurers urge the adoption of caps. If it were not for the potential of a large verdict for loss of future income, the Ritter family may not have received the settlements they already obtained, and may not have secured the excellent legal team that fought so hard for them. Caps on the recover of damages for medical malpractice result in this kind of inequity.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Decline in Medical Malpractice Cases Has Brought Down Malpractice Insurance Costs

David Lowe — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:20:06 GMT

Another story today adds to the mounting evidence that medical malpractice suits are in decline and that medical malpractice insurance costs are headed downward.

In Baltimore, Maryland, a consent order settlement has been reached between the State and the largest medical malpractice insurance carrier, Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society, which will result in the return of excess medical malpractice premiums of nearly $100 million charged since 2005.

In 2004, Med Mutual raised malpractice rates by 28-33%. Doctors rallied in Annapolis in protest, resulting in an emergency legislative session during the Christmas week of 2004, which resulted in the creation of a special state subsidy. Now it turns out that the forecast of increasing lawsuits and litigation payouts was overblown, and Med Mutual, which had received about three-quarters of the money paid out, has agreed to return about $72 million and forego about $12 million in subsidy this year. Another $14 million will be credited to physicians Med Mutual insures.

Forbes' online story about the settlement quotes the Maryland insurance commissioner, Ralph Tyler, attributes the decline in medical malpractice lawsuits were dropping, due to"improved practices by health-care providers, legislative reforms and the cyclical nature of the insurance industry."

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Milwaukee Hospital Warns of Brain Disease Contamination

Paul Jacquart — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:43:39 GMT

Froedtert Hospital has issued a warning to nearly 100 patients who underwent surgery this week that they may have been exposed to a rare, fatal brain disease spread by surgical instruments. It was discovered that another patient who had surgery this week may have Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, part of a family of prion diseases, which include mad cow and chronic wasting disease. It is thought that this disease may be transmitted by eating brain or nerve tissue from infected cows. Cruetzfeldt-Jakob has been known to survive on surgical instruments even after they have undergone ordinary sterilization procedures.

The hospital does not believe that if the patient is a carrier that it is likely to have spread to other patients, but felt it necessary to issue the warning. A state epidemiologist has stated: "This poses no risk to the public at large, and assuming the patient has CJD, which is not a given, the risk to the people on whom the instruments were used is very minimal."

Unfortunately for those who received the warning, there is no quick fix or simple test to check to see if the disease has been spread. Symptoms of the disease might not appear for years or even decades and the only definitive test for the disease requires brain tissue samples. Hopefully, incidents such as this will lead to advances in sterilization techniques for surgical instruments.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

Medicare Data on Doctors to be Shared

Paul Jacquart — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:37:58 GMT

A recent U.S. District Court ruling may help shed some light on doctors' experience levels in their respective disciplines. The L.A. Times has reported that the ruling, which resulted from a consumer group's lawsuit to open up the Medicare database, may result in the release of files and billing information for 700,000 doctors. This information could be used to track doctors' performance and experience levels. According to the article:

Those files could reveal far more than how many times a year a surgeon performs a hip replacement operation. The data could also be analyzed to determine how a doctor makes crucial decisions on tests and procedures that determine both quality and costs. They would show which doctors fail to order prudent preventive tests. And they could indicate which ones order duplicative tests or unnecessary hospitalizations.

Hopefully, the Medicare data can be synthesized in such a way that it will be accessible and comprehensible for consumers so that they can make informed decisions based on a physician's experience level and rates of error for various procedures. Given the current lack of transparency for data concerning physician experience, this type of information should be helpful and may reduce repeat medical errors and incidents of malpractice by rewarding physicians with good track records with increased business. The Medicare data could be useful to establish informed consent for patients seeking information about a particular procedure. Some court decisions (such as the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision Johnson by Adler v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis.2d 615, 545 N.W.2d 495 (1996)) hold that a patient's informed consent may require a surgeon to disclose his experience with a procedure and the availability of specialists with greater experience. It is uncertain at this point whether the Department of Health and Human Services will appeal the ruling, or how and when the data may be made available to the public.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Jacquart

California Jury Awards $2.5 Million For Surgical Malpractice

David Lowe — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:01 GMT

A story in the Merced Sun-Star reports that a California jury has awarded $2.5 million to a patient who lost control of his bowels due to medical malpractice during routine surgery to remove a cyst from his buttocks. The patient alleged that his surgeon negligently cut a nearby muscle while attempting to remove the cyst.

But this medical malpractice victim will likely face another painful cut because because California has a cap on noneconomic damages. The verdict will likely get reduced to the $250,000 limit under the state's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. This could set up a challenge in the California appellate courts over the constitutionality of its damages cap.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Damage Award Against Nursing Home Operator Stirs Debate

David Lowe — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:13:06 GMT

A $4.1 million judgment awarded against a Tennessee nursing home is generating debate in that state over the rights of abused residents to compensation versus the costs to insurance companies and nursing home operators.

The jury heard evidence that the resident developed bedsores, and had an undiagnosed hip fracture and other problems, all of which were ignored by the nursing home because of chronic understaffing at the facility owned by National HealthCare Corporation.

Spokesmen for a state medical society and the nursing home reacted by charging that the jury's award threatens to run nursing homes out of business and doctors to flee the state. But Ken O'Connor, the attorney for the resident's family, responded:

"All these proposed reforms will do is multiply medical malpractice in the state because it will immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their actions....We don't need tort reform. We need medical malpractice reform. We need nursing home reform. The less accountable you make wrongdoing, the more likely you are to provide incentives for wrongdoing."

Insurance and health care industry groups are citing the case as support for a bill pending in the Tennessee legislature to set a cap of $250,000 on pain and suffering awards against doctors and nursing home facilities.

Caps such as these deprive compensation to innocent victims who are the most vulnerable members of our population: the elderly, sick and disabled. And they do nothing to promote better care for the residents. If anything, the caps reduce any incentive to upgrade staffing and training.

Juries such as this one speak for the community. The legislature would be wise to listen.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Intimidation of Expert Witnesses for Malpractice Victims Blocks Access To The Courts

David Lowe — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:03:10 GMT

It is always a challenge for the malpractice victim to find a qualified doctor willing to stand up in court and point the finger at another member of the profession who has committed malpractice. Most potential experts are specialists who depend on referrals from general practice doctors and others in the same community. Testifying against a colleague in the community can be the death knell for future patient referrals to the testifying doctor. Beyond that, there is a growing campaign by the bodies that certify medical specialists to dissuade their members from serving as experts for malpractice victims by imposing discipline against expert witnesses for their pro-plaintiff testimony and seeking to expel them from membership.

On the other hand, it is not difficult for an accused doctor to find a colleague willing to testify in the defense of his handling of a case of patient care. Such is the challenge for those of us who agree to represent medical malpractice victims seeking compensation for their injuries.

It has become all the more challenging for a Florida man whose attorney hired a heart surgeon to testify about malpractice by a Veterans Administration doctor's malpractice. Taking expert witness intimidation to new a new level, the VA's defense attorney (from the civil side of the United State's Attorney's office) referred the heart surgeon for criminal prosecution for allegedly exaggerating the number of similar cases he had acted as lead surgeon. A colleague at the same United States Attorney's office was only too happy to oblige, and has now secured an indictment charging the expert witness with fraud for the manner in which he described his surgical experience.

It is unfortunate to see intimidation of physicians who see that it is part of their responsibility to the profession to help police its own ranks. Blogger Day of Torts quotes an interesting letter from a physician who writes anonymously against such intimidation of expert witnesses:

I think the current approach, which appears to emphasize suppressing lawsuits, is very misguided. When I signed on to my specialty society, I know I agreed to follow their bylaws but I never dreamed this would subject me to abuse by a "kangaroo court" bent on killing off expert witnesses.
But for me this is simply not a significant enough source of income. I don't have the time, the energy or the resources to fight this, at least not individually. I hope that those who have more of an interest in this subject will campaign against the efforts of the various medical specialists to suppress malpractice cases.

Added to caps on damage awards, expert witness intimidation is yet another unfair obtacle placed in the path of innocent victims who seek to have their day in court in an effort to obtain compensation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Suit Challenges Illinois Caps on Damage Awards

David Lowe — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:31:09 GMT

My colleague Jeffrey M.Goldberg, a nationally-renowned trial attorney who is an expert in birth injury cases, has filed a medical malpractice suit in Illinois on behalf of a child born with cerebral palsy and severe brain damage as the result of a mismanaged labor and delivery. The suit seeks fair compensation for the child and his family, but argues that fair compensation can only be provided if the Illinois courts declare unconstitutional the law passed by the Illinois legislature in August 2005 limiting pain, suffering, and disability awards in medical malpractice cases to $500,000 per doctor and $1 million per hospital.

Jeff Goldberg is an energetic and extremely effective advocate for victims of medical malpractice, and is a former president of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a national law firm that specializes in precedent setting and socially significant litigation designed to secure a better society. I am sure that he will wage a strong fight in this important struggle to protect the rights of innocent victims to obtain fair compensation in the Illinois courts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe

Consumer Rights Remain At Risk Despite Mid-Term Election Results

David Lowe — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:19:44 GMT

Stephanie Menciimer, author of the blog The Tortellini, cautions in a guest editorial posted in TomPaine.com that victims' rights remain at risk despite the Democratic Party's victory in the mid-term elections. The business lobby, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is not going away. As Mencimer observes,

So long as Americans continue to exercise their right to sue when they've been injured, financially or otherwise, the folks on the receiving end will continue fighting to restrict those suits, regardless of who's in charge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Lowe