Practice Areas

• Medical Malpractice
• Workers' Compensation
• Automobile Accidents

News

Medical Malpractice

• Medical Literature Ghostwriting
  Jun 28, 2010

  Medical malpractice lawyers use medical literature on behalf of patients against hospitals, HMOs and doctors in many cases.  And hospitals, HMOs, doctors, drug companies and medical device manufacturers sometimes rely on medical literature to defend their positions or get their products used, sold or prescribed.
  
  A Congressional study has exposed ghostwriting on behalf of some drug companies and medical device makers.  Ghostwriting is a practice where these corporations hire writers to write articles favorable to their product and present these to physicians or scientists to sign on as an author of the article - naturally there is no disclosure of the financial incentives and compensation paid to the physician. 
  
  The report, commissioned for Sen. Grassley, found the role of these companies in medical literature remained "veiled or undisclosed."  
  
  Medical ghostwriting was exposed through the Vioxx litigation and investigations and led to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that examined Merck's manipulation of scientific literature through ghost writers to market Vioxx.  Vioxx was ultimately taken off the market because it caused dangerous heart problems for some patients. - 1 - 10

• Hospital data shows 969 incidents of preventable patient injuries
  Jun 28, 2010

  The Las Vegas Sun investigated two years worth of hospital data and found 969 incidents of preventable injuries, patient harm and life threatening infections.  As reported, the information analyzed from inpatient visits at Las Vegas hospitals showed instances of preventable harm, deadly infections and possible neglect at a rate of one injury per day.
  
  Preventable medical mistakes or errors are medical malpractice.
  
  Dr. John Santa, director of the Health Ratings Center for Consumer Reports said these events "aren't inevitable.  They're preventable.  It just involves attention to detail and a willingness to change the culture."
  
  The investigation found hospitals were under reporting such events and that hospital lobbyists have resisted the state's effort to make the information regarding preventable or avoidable incidents and the identity of the hospitals public.
  
  For more on this investigation into preventable medical errors in hospitals, read the article Health care can hurt you, by Marshall Allen and Alex Richards by clicking on the title above. - 2 - 10

• Radiology survey shows doctors reluctant to disclose medical errors
  Nov 11, 2009

  A recent survey of 364 radiologists, conducted by a physician, indicates doctors may be reluctant to disclose mammography errors to patients.
  
  According to the author, the radiologists were given a hypothetical case and were asked how likely they would be to disclose the hypothetical mammography error.  Apparently, 9% said they would "definitely not" disclose ther error, 51% would disclose only if "asked by the patient", 26% said they "probably" would disclose the error while 14% said they would "definitely" disclose the error.
  
  The authors concluded that "effective disclosure (of errors) remains the exception, not the rule."  
  
  
    - 3 - 10

• Many Not Receiving Compensation for Medical Malpractice
  Oct 28, 2009

   

  "Our medical-malpractice lawsuit system is too capricious and too clogged with costs and delays to do justice for malpractice victims or for wrongly sued doctors. It also does little to deter malpractice.

  Worse, unless fundamentally reformed, malpractice law could greatly weaken efforts to control health care costs. The main reason, in the view of many experts, is that doctors' fear of unwarranted malpractice liability helps spur many billions of dollars in unnecessary "defensive medicine" costs.

  Medical malpractice does happen. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that as many as 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors. This cries out for effective legal remedies. But malpractice law as we know it is not effective. It is, in too many ways, bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for the country.

  • Bad for patients. Only 1.5 to 3 percent of all victims of medical negligence -- and about 17 percent of severely injured victims -- file claims, according to data, including a study cited by the Congressional Budget Office last year.

  Many of these patients are apparently unaware that medical errors caused their injuries. But many others are probably deterred by the difficulty of finding lawyers -- who typically take only the most lucrative cases -- and the prospect of years of legal brawling with little chance of timely compensation and no assurance of ever being compensated.

  A careful 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 73 percent of those who brought valid claims ended up winning compensation. That's not so bad. But it takes five years, on average, leaving injured plaintiffs without compensation when they need it most. Moreover, an exorbitant 54 percent of the money spent in the malpractice system goes to legal and administrative costs."
  
  October 3, 2009
  National Journal Magazine

  - 4 - 10

• Malpractice Reform is Necessary for Patient's Rights
  Oct 28, 2009

  "Medical negligence isn't a topic I gave much thought to until my 6-year-old son went to the hospital sick for the first time in his life and died of oxygen deprivation. A happy little boy, with no history of breathing problems, no allergies ... never sick. Christopher was my only son. His daddy, my husband, had died of cancer a few years earlier.

  In experiencing the death of my husband and son, I have seen the best medical professionals and the worst. I have seen the most caring, and the least.

  I buried my husband knowing that medical professionals did everything they could. I buried my son knowing that medical professionals failed him at the most basic level.

  Acting without due care

  In my attempt to uncover the truth about what happened to Christopher, I took legal action.

  I was represented by wonderful and caring attorneys. Throughout 18 months of litigation and over 40 depositions, I saw medical professionals who - resisting pressure from their colleagues - had the courage to testify that the care provided to Christopher fell far short of the minimum standard of care. I also saw medical professionals lie under oath, and doctors and lawyers who seemed to have no qualms about defending the indefensible.

  Through my medical and legal experiences, I learned the meaning of negligence ... a failure to act with due care. I am now concerned with political negligence - legislators failing to act with due care.

  How big is 'defensive medicine'?

  Lobbyists for the medical and insurance industries tout "malpractice reform" as an essential part of a health care bill. When they talk about "malpractice reform," they do not mean taking steps to reduce medical malpractice. Instead the reforms they seek would prevent injured patients and their families from discovering the truth and seeking redress in the courts.

  Our congressional representatives need to look behind the "malpractice reform" propaganda, and consider the facts.

  We are told that doctors will stop ordering unnecessary tests and procedures if they are freed of the threat of malpractice lawsuits. Both the Government Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have issued reports questioning the pervasiveness of "defensive medicine" and concluding that meddling with the legal system will have a minimal effect on health care costs. When doctors and hospitals have an economic incentive to order additional tests and procedures, we should be skeptical of their claims that they were motivated by the fear of being sued.

  One of the lessons of Christopher's unnecessary death - and my necessary lawsuit - is not that health care providers need to engage in cost-inflating "defensive medicine." Instead, it is that doctors and nurses must pay attention, communicate with their colleagues and adhere to well-recognized standards of practice."
  
  By: Laurie Sanders
  October 1st, 2009
  The Charlotte Observer

  - 5 - 10

• Texas Case Challenges Time Limits on Malpractice Lawsuits
  Sep 29, 2009

  "Surgical sponges left inside two Texas women - but undiscovered for years - will test state laws that place fairly strict time limits on suing doctors and hospitals for malpractice." The sponges were discovered after nine and eleven years, respectively, "long after the two-year statute of limitations had expired." Both cases "are before the Texas Supreme Court, which will decide whether their legal challenges should continue. The women argue that enforcing the lawsuit deadlines would deny them access to the courts - a right guaranteed by the Texas Constitution - because they had no way of knowing that misplaced sponges were causing their health problems until a surgeon found and removed the objects. But doctors and hospitals say time limits for lawsuits - intended by the Legislature to lower malpractice insurance rates and attract more doctors to Texas - provide a public benefit that outweighs the rights of individual plaintiffs."
  
  Austin American Statesman. 9/29/09 - 6 - 10

• The Politics of the Medical Malpractice Debate
  Sep 25, 2009

  New York Times, 9/22/09
  
  The direct costs of malpractice lawsuits — jury awards, settlements and the like — are such a minuscule part of health spending that they barely merit discussion, economists say. But that doesn’t mean the malpractice system is working.

  The fear of lawsuits among doctors does seem to lead to a noticeable amount of wasteful treatment. Amitabh Chandra — a Harvard economist whose research is cited by both the American Medical Association and the trial lawyers’ association — says $60 billion a year, or about 3 percent of overall medical spending, is a reasonable upper-end estimate. If a new policy could eliminate close to that much waste without causing other problems, it would be a no-brainer.

  At the same time, though, the current system appears to treat actual malpractice too lightly. Trials may get a lot of attention, but they are the exception. Far more common are errors that never lead to any action.

  - 7 - 10

• Health Care Reform should not include arbitrary caps on damages for victims of medical malpractice
  Jun 17, 2009

  President Obama's recent speech to the American Medical Association did not endorse capping damages for medical malpractice.  As much as health care corporations and insurance companies favor limiting recovery for Americans injured or killed due to medical malpractice, there has been no evidence that these caps reduce premiums.
  
  In fact, caps hurt the most severely injured (or the families of those killed) due to a doctor or hospital's negligence.  By arbitrarily limiting recovery this way, some patients won't be able to recover for future medical care needs or replace their lost income, or make modifications to their home, or hire a home health aid or pay for their medications or buy a wheelchair accessible van.  Why should someone devastated by medical malpractice through no fault of their own be forced to choose among their needs?
  
  The most severely injured - children with cerebral palsy due to hypoxic injuries at birth, amputees because of a misdiagnosed cancer, families of a patient who died of a preventable pulmonary embolism - should get fair but full damages.
  
  And if you negligently run over a doctor leaving the hospital, is there a cap on his damages against you?  Is that fair?     - 8 - 10

• Hospital Death Rates Allow Patients to Compare Medical Treatment
  Aug 26, 2008

  USA Today reported that the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services has released data comparing the death rates, also called mortality rates, of hospitals.  The study analyzed deaths from heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia within a 30 day period of hospitalization and studied only these common, life threatening conditions.  The findings, published at hosptialcare.hhs.gov  are significant because many believe a hospital's death rate based just on these common medical conditions, is a better indication of hospital care quality than previous death rate studies that included patients with other diseases and medical treatment for other conditions. 
  
  Unfortunately, like we see in many medical malpractice cases, rather than take responsibility for their mistakes, hospital corporations and administrators blame their patients.  The article indicated one chief of medical education (of a hospital with above average death rates) stated patients in his community often did not seek medical attention soon enough or follow doctors orders.  A doctor at a top ranked hospital put it best, saying "we have those patients here too."
  
  Hopefully hospitals and health care providers will use this study as a tool to improve health care, including patient education and communication, not just for heart attacks and health disease.  And now patients can compare a hospital's track record online. - 9 - 10

• Doctors without medical malpractice insurance deny justice for patient victims
  Jul 28, 2008

  Many states require insurance - especially auto insurance - to protect victims of negligent drivers who cause accidents.  But some states don't require physicians and healthcare providers to have medical malpractice insurance to protect their patients.  Think of it - a doctor's negligence injures or kills a patient.  The patient needs medical care and treatment, can't work, and has a permanent injury.  Or worse, his family who relied on him for love, support and income, is left with nothing - even in cases of blatant medical errors like prescription errors, surgery on the wrong body part, or failing to tell a patient about life threatening test results like cancer or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).  This article from the South Florida Sun Sentinel, describes the situation. - 10 - 10

Free Book

Click Here For
Free Books

Ask an Attorney