Blog

Connecticut Supreme Court Reinstates Medical Malpractice Case September 22nd, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nIn its opinion released on September 9, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the trial court in a Connecticut medical malpractice case where the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the medical malpractice case even though it was commenced within one year of the dismissal of the first action, because the defendants were not properly served within the statute of limitations. The trial court further determined that Section 52-592 did not apply to save the plaintiff’s action because the first action was not “commenced” for purposes of that statute.

The Alleged Underlying Facts

The administratrix of the estate of a deceased man filed a wrongful death medical malpractice case against the Connecticut medical malpractice defendants who had provided the man with medical care and treatment. The man had died on August 15, 2007.

General Statutes Section 52-555 requires that a wrongful death action be filed within two years of the date of death. Prior to August 15, 2009, the plaintiff had obtained a ninety day extension of time to file suit pursuant to General Statutes § 52-190a (b), which extended the statute of limitations contained in Section 52-555 until November 13, 2009.

On November 9, 2009, the plaintiff sent a writ, summons and complaint to a marshal by overnight delivery and requested that the medical malpractice defendants be served in hand. On November 12, 2009, the marshal left copies of the writ, summons and complaint in various professional or hospital offices and erroneously indicated on the return that each defendant was served “in hand” on that date.

On April 29, 2011, the trial court dismissed the claims against the defendants for improper service.

The plaintiff re-filed the wrongful death medical malpractice case in December, 2011, pursuant to Section 52-592. The plaintiff filed the writ, summons and complaint on January 9, 2012. Thereafter, all of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment or, in the alternative, dismissal, on the basis of the two year statute of limitations contained in Section 52-555. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the action: although it was commenced within one year of the dismissal of the first action, the defendants were not properly served within the statute of limitations and therefore the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the case. The trial court further determined that Section 52-592 did not apply to save the plaintiff’s action because the first action was not “commenced” for purposes of that statute. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

The Connecticut Supreme Court’s Decision

The Connecticut Supreme Court stated that it was required to interpret the phrase “commenced within the time limited by law” contained in Section 52-592 (a) (“If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service or return of the writ due to unavoidable accident or the default or neglect of the officer to whom it was committed, or because the action has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, or the action has been otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of a party or for any matter of form … the plaintiff … may commence a new action … for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action or after the reversal of the judgment”).

Citing one of its prior decisions, the Connecticut Supreme Court stated that the phrase “commenced within the time limited by law” cannot mean effectuating proper service, and that effective notice to a defendant is sufficient. In the present case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff’s counsel sent the writ, summons and complaint to a marshal on November 9, 2009, by overnight delivery and requested that the marshal effect in hand service on the defendants; despite indicating on the return of service that she effected in hand service, the marshal actually left copies of the writ, summons and complaint at the business addresses of two of the defendants; these two defendants became aware of the first action and received a copy of the writ, summons and complaint on November 13, 2009 (within the statute of limitations), as evidenced by the deposition testimony of the business manager of one of the defendants who testified that she left the copy of the writ, summons and complaint on the defendant’s desk on November 12, 2009 and that the defendant saw the documents on November 13, 2009, and the other defendant testified during her deposition that she received a copy of the writ, summons and complaint on November 13, 2009.

Hence, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the wrongful death medical malpractice action was commenced against these two defendants when they had effective notice within the time period prescribed by the statute of limitations.

With regard to the remaining three defendants, the Connecticut Supreme Court had to construe whether the additional thirty days for a marshal to serve process under Section 52-593a is part of the “time limited by law” contained in Section 52-592 (a) (Section 52-593a states: “[A] cause or right of action shall not be lost because of the passage of the time limited by law within which the action may be brought, if the process to be served is personally delivered to a state marshal, constable or other proper officer within such time and the process is served, as provided by law, within thirty days of the delivery”).

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that reading these two remedial statutes together so as to give effect to both required it to conclude that the thirty day time period for a marshal to effectuate service must be included within the “time limited by law” for purposes of the savings statute. Therefore, if a defendant has effective notice within the thirty day period allowed for a marshal to make service of the writ, summons and complaint, the action will be considered commenced for purposes of the savings statute (“if a defendant has actual notice within the thirty days in § 52-593a for a marshal to make service, the savings statute would operate to save the claim”).

Source Karen Dorry, Administratrix (Estate of Jerome Dorry), et al. v. Mitchell S. Garden, et al., SC 19191.

If you may have been seriously injured as a result of medical negligence in Connecticut or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Connecticut medical malpractice attorney or find a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with Connecticut malpractice lawyers or medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Case Alleging False HIV Test Result Was Filed Too Late September 21st, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nA Circuit Court judge in Kentucky has entered summary judgment against a man with regard to his Kentucky medical malpractice lawsuit filed against the University of Kentucky Medical Center that alleged that the plaintiff was falsely told in 2004 that he was HIV positive.

The Kentucky medical malpractice plaintiff alleged that it was not until last year, when he actually saw the HIV test result, that he discovered for the first time that he was not HIV positive. However, the Circuit Court judge determined that the man waited too long to file his Kentucky medical malpractice lawsuit.

Kentucky has a short, one-year statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases: (1) The following actions shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued: … (e) An action against a physician, surgeon, dentist, or hospital licensed pursuant to KRS Chapter 216, for negligence or malpractice; … In respect to the action referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue at the time the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered; provided that such action shall be commenced within five (5) years from the date on which the alleged negligent act or omission is said to have occurred. Kentucky Revised Statutes Title XXXVI Section 413.140.

The Circuit Court judge stated in his written opinion filed in the case: ” … it is clear that the plaintiff knew or should have known about the misdiagnosis before the mandated timeframe. He knew he had been wronged and by whom. Moreover, he had been informed by others that the doctors at UK had misdiagnosed him.” The judge therefore entered summary judgment in favor of the hospital and against the plaintiff.

After summary judgment was entered in its favor because the judge held that the plaintiff had waited too long to file his medical malpractice lawsuit, the defendant issued a statement:  “We are pleased that the Court has granted summary judgment to the University’s physicians. While this legal ruling was based on statute of limitations, we feel equally strong that the underlying allegations of misdiagnosis had no merit. The court records includes evidence that [the plaintiff] has had 5 subsequent Western Blot tests that were positive for HIV after the very first Western Blot test was negative.”

Source

One lesson that can be learned from this Kentucky medical malpractice case is that people who suspect that they may have been injured or suffered other harms as a result of medical negligence in Kentucky or in another U.S. state should promptly seek the legal advice of a Kentucky medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in their state who may investigate their medical malpractice claim for them and represent them in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in Kentucky (or medical malpractice lawyers in your state) who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

Internal Audits Question Cancer Doctor’s Competency September 20th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nA cancer doctor who worked from 1993 until 2011 at a Kansas medical practice owned by approximately seventy physicians, and now works at another physician-owned cancer center in Wichita, Kansas, was the subject of internal audits beginning in 2010 that addressed whether the oncologist treated some patients for cancer that they did not have, and if the doctor unnecessarily and inappropriately treated other cancer patients. The results of the audits that were conducted in 2010 and 2011 were disturbing, to say the least.

The audit of 104 randomly selected patient charts for patients treated by the doctor reportedly found evidence to question the competency of the oncologist in his treatment of some cancers, including findings that the doctor failed to follow established national cancer treatment guidelines in 40% of the charts reviewed; that the doctor unnecessarily and “often too early, too much, and too long” treated some patients who had lymphoma and blood cancers; that he frequently split doses of chemotherapy and other medications without documenting his reasoning; and, that he overprescribed support IV therapies and gave patients with blood cancer an excess number of bone marrow tests, which the auditor stated may be interpreted as Medicare fraud.

Dose Splitting Allegations

Dose splitting is where a doctor splits the dosage of chemotherapy (or other drugs) and administers the drugs over a period of days or weeks instead of giving the entire dose at one time. There may be legitimate reasons for dose splitting, such as when a patient cannot tolerate the entire dose at one time. However, the doctor’s rationale for dose splitting should be documented in the patient’s chart.

Engaging in dose splitting when it is not appropriate or justified results in physicians billing Medicare (or other health insurance) for additional treatments and in physicians receiving additional reimbursement to which they are not entitled (Medicare reimburses physicians per service and pays for administration of chemotherapy by the hour). Dose splitting may also result in dilution to the point that it becomes ineffective.

The auditor stated, “The high frequency for choosing the day 1-8 fractionation scheme suggests a rationale in [the doctor's] mind other [than] patient-specific factors such as a suspected intolerance to the recommended and conventional way of dosing these medications. The rationale [the doctor] has in mind is never in the medical records of these patients.”

A 2010 internal document from the outside auditor stated, “[The doctor's] decade-long solo practice created a ‘god-like’ status where mid-level providers and nurses did not question his practice style and this atmosphere still creates difficulty. [The doctor's] practice includes the off-label use of oncology drugs and non-evidence based dosing and schedule variation.” The auditor recommended that the oncologist should not be allowed to treat certain cancer patients or he should become Board-certified in the required area. (An audit of the other oncologist who worked at the same medical practice found no compliance issues.)

Source

If you or a loved one may have a claim against a cancer doctor (an oncologist), you should promptly consult with a local medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your cancer claim for you and represent you in a cancer medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or call us on our toll-free line in the United States (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Alleges Failure To Inform Patient Of Cancer Diagnosis September 19th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nAccording to a Chicago medical malpractice lawsuit filed against a urologist and a medical center, the daughter of a 58-year-old man who died from bladder cancer alleges that her father was not timely told about the results of a pathology report that found cancer after her father had a biopsy of a bladder tumor. The pathology report allegedly was received by the defendant urologist one week after the biopsy procedure, which showed that the man had bladder cancer, but the urologist never advised the patient of the pathology results (the doctor had told the man shortly after the procedure that he was cancer-free, according to the malpractice allegations).

The man had a tumor removed from his bladder by the defendant urologist on January 24, 2011. The malpractice case claims that the patient was told at that time by the urologist that he was free of cancer; however, the defendant urologist alleges that the tumor was cancerous and that he had advised the man of the cancer diagnosis. The urologist further alleges that the man failed to follow his instructions regarding follow up care, and that the man failed to request a copy of the pathology report at that time.

A year after the biopsy, the man returned to the medical center, complaining of bladder pain and other issues and was diagnosed shortly thereafter with invasive bladder cancer. The 2012 cancer diagnosis was followed by the surgical removal of his bladder and prostate, followed by chemotherapy treatments. The man died as a result of bladder cancer in April 2013. Shortly before his death, the man filed his medical malpractice lawsuit. In discussing the continuing medical malpractice lawsuit, the man’s daughter stated, “I remember him saying to me that doctors are human, but negligence is not an accident.”

The malpractice lawsuit contends that had the man been told of his bladder cancer diagnosis and received appropriate treatment earlier instead of going one year without treatment, his chance of survival would have been much improved. The plaintiff’s expert contends that it was the defendant urologist’s responsibility to promptly and properly inform his patient regarding the pathology report that diagnosed the cancer, especially since the pathology findings were different (and much more serious) than the information that the urologist had allegedly provided to his patient shortly after the procedure. The expert further alleges that the defendant urologist was required to emphasize to his patient the need for extensive and timely follow up care and to advise that bladder cancer has a high recurrence rate.

Source

If you or a loved one suffered as a result of cancer misdiagnosis, late diagnosis of cancer, or the failure to diagnose cancer, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a local cancer misdiagnosis lawyer in your U.S. state who may investigate your cancer claim for you, and represent you in a cancer misdiagnosis case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers (cancer claim lawyers) in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well.

Former Baltimore Ravens Cornerback Wins North Carolina Medical Malpractice Case September 18th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nFormer Baltimore Ravens cornerback Samari Rolle won a $650,000 North Carolina medical malpractice verdict on September 5, 2014 against an orthopedic surgery practice. The case was originally filed in 2011 and was scheduled for trial in April 2013 but the case had to be postponed when the defendant orthopedic surgeon suddenly died just hours before the trial was to begin.

Samari Rolle underwent spinal surgery for fusion at C3 – C4 in September 2008, which was successful. However, the medical malpractice lawsuit alleged, the defendant orthopedic surgeon released Mr. Rolle too early to resume playing for the Baltimore Ravens. As a result of resuming his football career prematurely, his fusion failed, according to the medical malpractice claim, requiring a second fusion performed by another surgeon, which was successful. However, he developed nerve problems in both his arm and hand due to the alleged medical negligence, which led to his early retirement from football.

Mr. Rolle’s medical malpractice attorney requested that the jury award Mr. Rolle the amount of his salary that he would have earned playing in the NFL had the failure to provide proper follow-up care not occurred. The North Carolina medical malpractice jury returned what is considered to be a compromised verdict: $650,000, which would have been Mr. Rolle’s net income had he played in the NFL for one more year.

Source

The now 38-year-old Samari Rolle was born in Miami, Florida and attended Florida State University. He played the cornerback position for eleven years in the NFL:  seven years with the Tennessee Titans (1998 – 2004) and four years with the Baltimore Ravens (2005 – 2008). He is credited with 298 tackles, 9.5 sacks, 31 interceptions, and 3 forced fumbles. He was drafted in the second round of the NFL Draft in 1998. He was selected for the Pro Bowl in 2000.

Mr. Rolle disclosed on November 21, 2007 that he had epilepsy that he attributes to the many serious hits he gave and received during his football career. He announced his  retirement from the NFL on May 7, 2010, citing his neck injuries as the primary reason for his retirement. Mr. Rolle is currently working as an assistant football coach at Atlantic Community High School in Delray Beach, Florida.

Source

Whether you are a professional football player, amateur athlete, or a couch potato, you rely on medical professionals to keep you healthy and treat your medical conditions. The vast majority of your interactions with health care providers are helpful and successful. However, if a trusted medical provider caused you to suffer injuries or other harms due to medical negligence (the failure to provide care within the standard of care expected of someone with similar training, education, and experience under similar circumstances), you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and losses as a result of bad medical care.

You should promptly consult with a local medical malpractice attorney in your U.S. state if you suspect that medical malpractice has harmed you.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you with your medical malpractice claim.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/05/5152485/former-nfl-player-wins-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/05/5152485/former-nfl-player-wins-lawsuit.html#storylink=cpy

$1.7M Baltimore Medical Malpractice Verdict In Erb’s Palsy Birth Injury Case September 17th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nOn September 5, 2014, after eight days of trial and three days of jury deliberations, a Baltimore City medical malpractice jury returned its verdict in the amount of $3 million in favor of the plaintiff, which was reduced to $1.7 million due to Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages and a calculation error by the jury in determining the lost wages claim, in a case alleging injuries to a baby during birth.

The Alleged Underlying Facts

On December 15, 2011, a woman who was almost 38 weeks pregnant went to Maryland General Hospital in Baltimore (which is now part of the University of Maryland Medical System and is presently called the University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown Campus), complaining of shortness of breath. She was transferred to the main hospital at the University of Maryland Medical Center in downtown Baltimore City, where she underwent a chest x-ray on December 16, 2011 that was suggestive of either pneumonia or a pulmonary embolism.

The Baltimore medical malpractice lawsuit alleged that the standard of care required that the woman be offered/recommended a Cesarean section delivery under the circumstances but her medical providers negligently failed to do so. They decided to induce labor on December 17, 2011.

During the delivery of her daughter, the mother’s medical malpractice lawsuit alleges that the baby’s shoulder became lodged in the birth canal and that the medical providers negligently failed to use the proper birthing techniques to properly address the situation. As a result, the baby suffered permanent and catastrophic injuries during birth and was diagnosed with Erb’s palsy, resulting in loss of motion of, and weakness in, the effected upper extremity.

The six-person Baltimore medical malpractice jury that consisted of six women and one man awarded the plaintiff $700,000 in noneconomic damages, which was reduced to Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages in the amount of $695,000 that was in effect on the date of the alleged medical negligence, as well as economic damages that included lost wages for the mother, which the jury miscalculated, leading to a verdict for lost wages that was excessive by $1 million. Hence, the entire jury award was reduced to $1.7 million.

In response to the jury’s verdict and award of damages, a spokesperson for the medical malpractice defendant stated, “UMMC [University of Maryland Medical Systems Corporation] firmly believes the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof for negligence in this case. The evidence presented was entirely lacking in any medical or scientific basis. It was clear that the jury’s finding was based on sympathy and not on the medical facts of the case.”

Source Uriah Evans, et al. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corporation, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No.: 24-C-13004285.

If you or your loved one suffered injuries during birth that may be due to medical negligence in Baltimore or elsewhere in the United States, you should promptly consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your birth jury claim for you and represent you in a birth injury malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website to complete a short, secure form to be connected with Baltimore medical malpractice lawyers (or medical malpractice lawyers in your state) who may assist you, or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well.

Diagnostic Errors Are A Major Factor In U.S. Medical Malpractice Claims September 16th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nThe Doctors Company, the largest physician-owned medical malpractice insurer in the United States whose unabashed mission is to be “fiercely committed to relentlessly defending, protecting, and rewarding our members with the industry’s most aggressive claims defense, unrivaled protection, and innovative rewards,” recently published the findings of its review of 1,877 medical specialty-specific, diagnosis-related closed claims from 2007 to 2013, focusing on alleged diagnosis-related errors and the specific diagnoses that were involved in the claims involving ten medical specialties.

Diagnosis-related medical malpractice claims involve allegations of misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, failure to diagnose, and other related claims.

The review found that 31% of the nonsurgical specialty claims were related to diagnosis (which was the number one allegation in nonsurgical specialty claims) and that 11% of the surgical specialty claims were related to diagnosis, which was the third most common allegation in surgical claims.

The review of the closed claims for ten medical specialties during the stated period found the following:

Of the 1,647 orthopedic claims closed between 2007 and 2013, 13% (215) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of post-operative infection (11.2%) and cancer of the bone and soft tissue (5.6%).

Of the 1,134 family medicine claims, 37% (417) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of lung cancer (4.3%) and acute MI (4.3%).

Of the 986 internal medicine claims, 40% (374) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of lung cancer (6.4%) and acute MI (5.6%).

Of the 885 general surgery claims, 16% (143) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of puncture or laceration during a procedure (15.4%) and breast cancer (9.8%).

Of the 757 obstetrics claims, 9% (68) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy (17.6%) and postpartum hemorrhage (7.4%).

Of the 674 gynecology claims, 15% (98) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of breast cancer (21.4%) and puncture or laceration during a procedure (12.2%).

Of the 447 cardiology claims, 26% (114) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of acute MI (10.5%) and puncture or laceration during a procedure (6.1%).

Of the 414 emergency medicine claims, 58% (242) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of fracture (13.4%) and acute CVA (13.4%).

Of the 350 hospital medicine claims, 34% (118) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of acute CVA (8.5%) and acute MI (5.1%).

Of the 144 pediatrics claims, 61% (88) were diagnosis-related, with the greatest percentage involving the diagnosis of meningitis (8.0%) and pneumonia (4.5%).

Hence, of the 7,438 closed claims reviewed by The Doctors Company for ten specialties during the period from 2007 to 2013, 1,880 were diagnosis-related.

The reviewer suggests the primary cause of diagnostic errors is not a deficiency in knowledge (based on the finding that 52% of the top five diagnosis-related claims in each of the ten medical specialties were repeatedly found in different specialties) but other factors are involved, such as human-factors errors (impaired judgment, fatigue, or distractions); system-related errors due to poor communication or design flaws in electronic health records; failure to follow diagnostic protocols; failure to order appropriate diagnostic tests; failure to create a differential diagnosis; impaired synthesis of diagnostic data from sources such as medical history, physical examination, diagnostic tests, or consultations; narrowly focused diagnoses influenced by a known chronic illness; context errors; and, first-impression or intuition-based diagnoses.

Source

If you or a family member may be the victim of diagnosis-related medical negligence in the United States, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a local medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website to submit a short, secure form to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you, or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well.

Minneapolis VA Medical Center Under Fire For Alleged Medical Records Fraud September 15th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nTwo former employees of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center have alleged that they were pressured by supervisors to falsify medical records and appointment dates to hide evidence of delays in medical treatment that may have harmed VA patients. The former employees allege that were instructed to document in patient medical records that the patients had declined follow-up appointments when the patients had never been contacted to schedule the follow-up appointments.

One of the former VA employees was a supervisor in the Minneapolis VA Medical Center’s gastroenterology department and the other was a medical support assistant in the same department. Their VA department was responsible for scheduling colonoscopies intended to detect cancers and to schedule follow-up appointments with physicians if problems were detected. Their allegations of fraud are particularly serious inasmuch as some of the delays involved suspected colon cancer for which veterans may not have received proper and timely care and treatment. They allege that they were fired after making efforts to advise VA administrators regarding their serious allegations.

The former Minneapolis VA Medical Center employees further allege that they were instructed to keep a secret patient waiting list so that the problems would not be detected in the VA’s electronic medical records system.

Source

On September 8, 2014, the VA’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued a report regarding the Minneapolis VA Heath Care System entitled “Community Based Outpatient Clinic and Primary Care Clinic Reviews at Minneapolis VA Health Care System Minneapolis, Minnesota” that stated, “The purpose of the review was to evaluate selected patient care activities to determine whether the community based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) and primary care clinics (PCCs) provide safe, consistent, and high-quality health care for our veterans.”

Some of the OIG’s findings are as follows:

Staff did not provide education and counseling for 2 of 11 patients who had positive alcohol use screens.

We did not find documentation of the offer of further treatment for two of six patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

Treatment was not provided within 2 weeks of positive screening for two of eight patients.

We found that 21 (39 percent) of 54 RN Care Managers did not receive motivational interviewing training within 12 months of appointment to PACT.

We found that 10 (19 percent) of 54 RN Care Managers did not receive health coaching training within 12 months of appointment to PACT.

We did not find documentation that medication reconciliation included the newly prescribed fluoroquinolone in 5 (13 percent) of 39 patients’ EHRs.

We did not find documentation of medication counseling that included the fluoroquinolone in 5 (13 percent) of 39 patients’ EHRs.

Source

If you or a loved one may have suffered serious injuries or death as a result of medical care received through the VA (or necessary medical care that was delayed or never provided by the VA), you should promptly consult with a local medical malpractice attorney in your U.S. state who handles medical malpractice claims against the VA who may investigate your VA medical malpractice claim for you and guide you and represent you with regard to complying with the requirements regarding bringing claims against the VA for medical negligence.

Click here to visit our website or telephone us on our toll-free line (800-295-3959) to be connected with VA medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well

$73M Transvaginal Mesh Verdict In Texas September 14th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nAfter a two-week jury trial that concluded on September 8, 2014, the 42-year-old plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in Texas state court for her alleged injuries as a result of her transvaginal mesh implant that she claimed was defective won a jury verdict in her favor in the amount of $73 million against the manufacturer of the mesh device, Boston Scientific Corporation.

The jury found that Boston Scientific Corporation was grossly negligent in designing and marketing the allegedly defective product, awarding the plaintiff $50 million in punitive damages in addition to $23 million compensatory damages for past and anticipated future pain and suffering.

The 12-person jury took only a few hours to arrive at its verdict. This Texas verdict was the first loss by Boston Scientific Corporation regarding its mesh device, which device is used to treat pelvic organ prolapse as well as stress urinary incontinence — it had previously won two trials regarding its mesh device in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, Boston Scientific Corporation faces more than 23,000 transvaginal mesh device lawsuits including thousands of federal cases that have been consolidated in the federal court in West Virginia (the first federal mesh case against it in West Virginia is scheduled for trial in October 2014).

The female plaintiff in the Texas state case had experienced urinary leakage for which her physician recommended that she have the transvaginal mesh device implanted. The woman had Boston Scientific Corporation’s Obtryx sling implanted four years ago. She alleged in her mesh lawsuit that she suffers from permanent nerve damage and lives with constant pelvic pain as a result of the defective mesh device.

Boston Scientific Corporation is but one of seven mesh device manufacturers facing transvaginal mesh claims. Other transvaginal mesh defendants include Ethicon Inc. (a unit of Johnson & Johnson), which suffered a mesh verdict against it in the amount of $11 million in New Jersey and a Texas mesh verdict against it in the amount of $1.2 million, although it did win a mesh case earlier this year in federal court; and C R Bard Inc., which suffered the first federal verdict against a mesh device manufacturer in 2013, when the jury awarded the plaintiff $2 million. (See our blog posted on September 12, 2014 that discusses the September 5, 2014 $3.27 million federal verdict against Ethicon regarding its transvaginal mesh device that the jury determined was defective, and the jury found that Ethicon failed to warn patients and their doctors regarding the risks associated with its mesh product.)

Salazar v. Lopez, District Court for Dallas County, Case No. DC-12-14349.

Source

If you or a loved one had a transvaginal mesh device implanted and you suffered pain and/or other injuries as a result of the implant, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a transvaginal mesh claim attorney who may investigate your mesh claim for you and represent you in a claim against the designer, manufacturer, and/or others who may be held responsible for your suffering and damages.

Click here to visit our website to complete and submit a short, secure form, or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959, to be connected with transvaginal mesh claim lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well

Florida Medical Malpractice Trial For Death Due To Pulmonary Embolism September 13th, 2014

162017_132140396847214_292624_nA Florida medical malpractice trial that started on September 8, 2014 and is expected to last from two to three weeks seeks compensatory damages from the defendant physician, defendant hospital, and defendant home health care service for a 78-year-old man who died on March 2, 2011 due to alleged negligent medical care. The medical malpractice plaintiff is the man’s surviving wife, who is seeking damages in excess of $15,000.00

The man’s ordeal began on January 17, 2011, when he suffered a fractured hip due to a fall. He was brought to the defendant hospital the same day and had surgery on his hip the following day. Two days later, he was prescribed Lovanox injections to help prevent deep vein thrombosis, which is a known complication from hip surgery that can lead to pulmonary emboli that can be fatal. Part of the hospital discharge planning included a physician ordering physical therapy after discharge, nurses to visit with the man at home, and the continuation of Lovanox injections for ten days after discharge.

The defendant home health care service allegedly failed to continue the Lovanox injections while the man was home. One week later, he was re-admitted to the defendant hospital where he was diagnosed with large bilateral pulmonary emboli, for which he was treated with a heparin drip. The heparin drip was discontinued on January 30, 2011, after which the man developed more pulmonary emboli within hours after it was discontinued. The man went into cardiac arrest shortly afterwards and died just over one month later.

The wife alleges that the defendant physician negligently failed to follow appropriate procedures, failed to communicate with the other health care providers, failed to properly assess her husband’s condition, and prematurely discontinued appropriate medications that led to her husband’s death. The defendant hospital is alleged to have negligently failed to provide appropriate case management and discharge planning, failed to enforce its own policies, and failed to communicate with other health care providers. The defendant home health care service allegedly failed to provide the Lovanax injections as ordered, failed to properly assess the man’s condition and needs, failed to provide sufficient skilled nursing services, and failed to communicate with other health care providers.

Source

Approximately 350,000 hip fractures occur in the United States each year. Most hip fractures are treated surgically. Hip fracture surgery is in the highest risk category for venous thromboembolism. Studies have shown that deep vein thrombosis in patients with hip fractures without prophylaxis range from 46% to 75%. A study from Britain that investigated 580 consecutive patients who had femoral neck fractures found that 4% of the patients who did not receive prophylaxis suffered fatal pulmonary embolism. Hence, all patients with hip fractures need prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism.

Source

If you or a family member suffered injuries (or worse) during a hospital stay or post-hospital care in the United States that may be due to medical negligence, you should promptly consult with a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or telephone us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with local medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.

You can follow us on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn as well