Under Minnesota law, a medical malpractice plaintiff must file an affidavit identifying (1) experts who intend to testify; (2) the substance of their testimony; and (3) a summary of the basis for the experts’ opinions. Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4(a) (2012). Failure to comply with the statutory requirements mandates that the district court, upon motion, dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice.

The Underlying Facts

In late 2008, the medical malpractice plaintiff’s wife was diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm that required surgery. Preoperative testing revealed that she had heart problems for which she had to have stents implanted into her heart to relieve artery blockage and she was prescribed blood thinners. The abdominal surgery was performed on January 13, 2009 during which the woman experienced “some renal ischemia and postoperatively . . . some transient hypotension.”

On January 18, 2009, the woman was transferred to a nursing home for rehabilitation services. She was discharged from the hospital on prescribed blood pressure and pain medications and she was utilizing supplemental oxygen on an intermittent basis. The woman’s condition deteriorated sometime after 3:00 a.m. on January 19th. At 4:36 a.m., the police department was called by the nursing home staff  (the 911 system was inoperable at the time). An ambulance arrived at 4:42 a.m. and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The EMTs estimated that the woman been “down” for at least 20 minutes. She died at 5:05 a.m. on January 19, 2009.

The Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

The woman’s surviving husband filed a wrongful death medical malpractice lawsuit in which he alleged that the medical malpractice defendants were negligent and asserted direct corporate liability on the part of the corporate defendant. The medical malpractice plaintiff filed an affidavit provided by the surgeon to establish the causal connection between the defendants’ negligence and the woman’s death. The affidavit stated that the woman likely suffered from one of three conditions and that, had she received treatment prior to 3:30 a.m., it was more probable than not that she would have survived.

The medical malpractice defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that the affidavit was insufficient, and the trial court thereafter determined that the surgeon’s affidavit “fails to explain why 3:30 a.m. is the critical time for emergency treatment for each of [the woman's] probable conditions.”

The Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision

The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that the surgeon’s affidavit identified three possible conditions that the woman likely suffered from: (1) a hemorrhage; (2) a pulmonary embolus; or (3) a myocardial infarction, and that the surgeon concluded that, “in any of those circumstances, it is more probable than not that had [the woman] received immediate medical attention she would have survived the event.” The surgeon’s opinion was that had the woman received treatment “at or before [3:30 a.m.] . . . her condition could have been treated” by testing and providing intravenous fluids that would have sustained her until surgery.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the surgeon’s conclusion that 3:30 a.m. was the pivotal time for providing the woman life-sustaining care was an unsupported, and therefore speculative, inference because he failed to explain why 3:30 a.m. was the required time for treatment, stating that in order for the surgeon’s affidavit to sufficiently create a causal link, it must be able to identify a “precise explanation of why [the defendants'] failure to follow the applicable standard of care caused the [injury].” The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the surgeon’s assertions enabled it to establish the “how” of the woman’s death, but not to identify the “why” linking the defendants’ failure to act within his identified, though unexplained, timeframe. The Minnesota Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

Source

If you, a family member, or a friend were injured as a result of possible medical malpractice in Minnesota or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the advice of a Minnesota medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may be willing to investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and file a medical malpractice lawsuit on your behalf, if appropriate.

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

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

The Underlying Facts

On September 3, 2005, a 73-year-old woman visited the emergency room of Baptist Medical Center East (“BMCE”), a hospital operated by the Authority, for an evaluation after she had fallen at home. At the time of the visit, she had a number of chronic preexisting medical conditions, including respiratory problems, diabetes, hypertension, chronic pain, gastrointestinal bleed, and stroke-related problems.

The initial examination did not find any injuries from the fall and did not indicate that the woman had an infection. However, after the woman complained that she had a sore throat, a test for streptococcus (“strep”) was ordered. After the woman had been discharged, the step test came back positive for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) that was recorded in the electronic medical records but not reported directly to the woman’s treating physician.

On November 3, 2005, the woman returned to BMCE’s emergency room complaining of a cough and moderate to severe respiratory distress. The woman died on November 8, 2005.

On May 25, 2006, a medical malpractice lawsuit was filed on behalf of the woman’s estate naming the Authority and two physicians at BMCE as the medical malpractice defendants. The estate’s expert witnesses testified at trial that BMCE had breached the applicable standard of care by not reporting its finding of MRSA directly to the woman’s attending physician, that the woman died from MRSA-related pneumonia, and that the failure of the BMCE laboratory to report the finding of MRSA to the woman’s doctor caused her death.

The Authority’s expert witnesses testified at trial that MRSA does not cause a sore throat; that, because the woman was not suffering from a throat infection when the streptococcus culture was taken, the standard of care did not require that anyone be notified of the presence of MRSA, which is present in a large part of the population without symptoms or consequences; that notifying the woman’s doctor of the finding of MRSA would not have changed her course of treatment; and, that she died of congestive heart failure unrelated to the MRSA, and not of MRSA-related pneumonia.

The medical malpractice jury sided with the medical malpractice plaintiff and awarded $3.2 million against the Authority and in favor of the plaintiff. The Authority filed a postjudgment motion seeking, in part, a remittitur of the judgment from $3,200,000 to $100,000 based on the statutory cap for damages set forth in § 11-93-2, Ala. Code 1975. On September 29, 2009, the trial court entered an order denying the Authority’s postjudgment motion.

The Authority’s Appeal

The Authority filed an appeal, arguing that it possesses State immunity, also known as sovereign immunity, pursuant to § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, which provides “[t]hat the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Also, the Authority argued that the trial court erred by not remitting the $3,200,000 damages award to $100,000, pursuant to § 11-93-2.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s (Second) Decision

Sovereign Immunity

The Alabama Supreme Court noted that the Authority is a public corporation that is an entity separate from the State and from the persons and entities who participated in its creation. The Alabama Supreme Court stated, “Although the powers to arrange for the provision of health-care services to the indigent and to promote public health are legitimate ends of government, they certainly are not functions unique to government. Thus, the power granted authorities under the HCA Act in this regard, and in particular by the Board to the Authority, is not of the same character, for example, as the power granted an entity that is charged with a strictly governmental function … Clearly, the nature of the authority to operate a public hospital is not such as to dictate an affirmative answer to the question whether the entity who holds that authority is entitled to immunity … we must conclude that a health-care authority organized and operating under the HCA Act is not an “‘immediate and strictly governmental agenc[y] of the State’” …  The Authority does not serve as “an arm of the State.” Instead, it is a “franchisee licensed for some beneficial purpose” …  namely to participate with other health-care providers in this State, both public and private, in rendering health-care services to citizens of this State. The Authority therefore is not entitled to State immunity under § 14 of the Alabama Constitution.”

Damages Cap (§ 11-93-2)

With regard to the damages cap, the Alabama Supreme Court held, ”we can and must conclude in the present case that the Authority “do[es] not enjoy the unique status of counties or cities; and, therefore, no such status … supports the constitutionality of the [§ 11-93-2] cap on any … judgment against [the Authority].” That is, to the extent § 22-21-318(a)(2) [§ 22-21-318(a)(2) of the HCA Act provides that health-care authorities shall be amenable to suit in both tort and contract actions] may be construed as an attempt to extend the partial immunity for counties and municipalities recognized in § 11-93-2 to an entity that is neither of those, that attempt is unconstitutional.”

You can read the entire decision of the Alabama Supreme Court as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions in this case by clicking here.

If you or a loved one were injured as a result of medical malpractice in Alabama or in another U.S. state, you should promptly contact an Alabama medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state to learn about your rights and responsibilities in filing a medical malpractice claim.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with Alabama medical malpractice lawyers or medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing to investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

Our first question for you: Can you name or describe even one medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed in your state within the last ten years that was determined to be frivolous?

Simply because a doctor prevails at trial in a medical malpractice lawsuit (statistics reveal that more medical malpractice cases result in a jury verdict in favor of the medical malpractice defendant than the medical malpractice plaintiff) does not mean that the medical malpractice lawsuit was frivolous when filed or frivolous when tried before the jury – while many of the stronger medical malpractice claims are settled before trial rather than go to trial, many valid and substantial medical malpractice claims are lost at trial for reasons other than the validity of the claims against the miscreant medical providers (such as jurors who are biased in favor of medical providers, jurors who are biased against people who file claims for injuries resulting from someone else’s negligence, jurors who are confused by the medical terms and medical experts’ testimony to the extent that they throw up their hands in confusion and defer to the medical malpractice defense, and entries in medical records that are relevant to the medical malpractice claim that seemingly support the defense even though the medical records were solely created and authored by the medical malpractice defendants who have an obvious incentive to fail to mention why something really went wrong or incredulously blame the patient or “an act of God” (often called ”a known risk/complication of the procedure,” as if that should excuse the resulting injuries to the patient when a medical procedure is performed negligently – sort of like saying that because it is a known risk that a drunk driver may violently crash his car into your car and severely injure you and your family, the drunk driver should not be held responsible for your injuries)).

Our second question for you: What are the actual statistics regarding the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed throughout the United States within the last ten years that have been found by a jury or a judge to be “frivolous”? 

You won’t find the statistics – we have looked for them but have been unable to uncover any valid statistics. Then how can anyone justify medical malpractice tort reforms that solely benefit the financial interests of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers at the expense of the innocent victims of medical malpractice who, because of “tort reform,” do not receive the full amount of the compensation that medical malpractice juries have determined to be the fair and actual damages suffered as a result of medical malpractice (so-called “caps” on damages in many states in the U.S. limit the amount of noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, and the like that victims of medical malpractice may recover from their negligent health care providers, and the existence and amount of such caps are not told to the jury – that means that a 21-year-old formerly vibrant and physically active person who is now in a wheelchair for the rest of his life due solely to the medical negligence of a medical provider will be severely under-compensated for his emotional losses in the past and his likely emotional trauma that will be suffered for the rest of his life)?

Since the founding of the United States, we have held as sacrosanct the right to have our differences determined by a jury of our peers who are unbiased and who are selected from the communities in which we live – why and how, then, can any state legislature or state court enact or uphold intrusion into the sacred right to a trial by jury that shackles the jury and eviscerates its decision? Why are medical providers given special rights and unique privileges that only benefit them, but at the same time directly harm the patients that they negligently injured?

Our third question for you: Do you really think that a medical malpractice lawyer will knowingly file and/or litigate a frivolous medical malpractice case? What incentive is there for the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawyer to do so?

The out-of-pocket expenses that the medical malpractice plaintiff’s lawyer will have to incur for his client’s medical malpractice case for experts, depositions, etc. are staggering – upwards of tens of thousands of dollars in the typical medical malpractice case and in the six figures for some medical malpractice cases. Do you think that a medical malpractice attorney will risk so much of his own money on a frivolous medical malpractice lawsuit that he will likely lose and therefore not recover his expenses of the litigation? In addition to the medical malpractice lawyer’s expenses, he will also lose forever the value of the enormous amount of his time devoted to a losing lawsuit, which could have been devoted to more winnable cases. What rational medical malpractice lawyer would be willing to risk vast amounts of his own money and vast amounts of his time on a frivolous medical malpractice lawsuit?

Identifying a “frivolous medical malpractice lawsuit” is like finding a unicorn, locating the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, or seeing Santa Claus come down the chimney – none of them exist although some people would like you to believe otherwise.

If you, a family member, a loved one, or a friend may have been injured as a result of medical malpractice in the U.S., you should promptly consult with a local medical malpractice attorney in your state who may agree to investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice lawsuit, if appropriate.

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

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

The author suggests that medical malpractice litigation can help uncover previously uninvestigated medical errors that formal reporting requirements imposed on hospitals may miss. This may be particularly true where the injuries suffered as a result of diagnostic or treatment errors may take a long time to manifest (i.e., after the hospital reported the incident to comply with the requirements established by federal and state agencies). Furthermore, medical malpractice litigation may help bring to light medical mistakes that should have been reported but were not, which may help to identify trends or problems within hospital units that may otherwise go unnoticed and cause unnecessary harms to other patients.

Another benefit of medical malpractice litigation is that the discovery process undertaken during litigation may help to more thoroughly investigate and determine the circumstances and details of medical malpractice that can then be incorporated into the hospital’s risk management efforts to reduce the incidents of medical malpractice. Hospitals may learn more about what went wrong and how to avoid similar circumstances in the future by analyzing and incorporating into their policies and procedures the information and opinions expressed by medical malpractice litigants’ experts that they would not otherwise have had available to them that may result in greater patient safety.

In addressing the unintended effects of medical malpractice tort reform efforts that are increasingly being imposed in many U.S. states, the op-ed author noted that tort reforms such as enacting damages caps (i.e., limits on the amount of damages that can be recovered by those injured by medical malpractice) and requiring the non-judicial determination of medical malpractice claims (such as administrative entities adjudicating medical malpractice claims outside of court) “may actually impede patient safety efforts” because the tort reform limitations placed on medical malpractice cases reduce the value imparted to hospitals by medical malpractice litigation that helps identify otherwise unreported medical mistakes and the details of the medical errors that can lead to beneficial patient safety initiatives.

The law professor concluded her op-ed opinion by stating, “Medical-malpractice lawsuits do not have the harmful effects on patient safety that they are imagined to have — and, in fact, they can do some good.”

Source

Isn’t it time that we re-focus on the victims of medical malpractice and on patient safety that affect all of us instead of protecting the financial interests of negligent physicians, dangerous hospitals, and other negligent health care providers who are the sole beneficiaries of medical malpractice tort reforms?

If you or a family member may have been injured or suffered other serious harms as a result of a medical mistake, a medical error, or an incompetent physician or other health care provider, you should promptly consult with a local medical malpractice attorney in your state who may be willing to 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 medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be able to assist you with your medical malpractice claim.

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

The jury’s verdict was for the resident’s pain, suffering, and mental anguish. The plaintiffs were the resident’s two daughters.

The Underlying Facts

According to the plaintiffs, their 76-year-old mother was admitted to the nursing home on March 28, 2008 for an anticipated 30 days of rehabilitation following the woman’s stroke. During the night of April 6, 2008, the resident expressed that she was in severe pain and she was sweating and unable to have a bowel movement yet the nursing home did nothing to relieve her distress.

The nursing home finally called a physician at 2:20 p.m. on April 7th. The physician ordered that the resident be transferred to an emergency room for evaluation. The nursing home’s director of nursing (“DON”) received the faxed physician’s order at 3:34 p.m., but she was leaving for the day. The DON faxed the order to a different fax located in a closet of the nursing home wing in which the resident lived but no one saw the fax. The resident was screaming in pain throughout the afternoon; so much so that residents on other halls complained. The resident was found dead at 10:20 p.m. on April 7th. The faxed physician’s order was found on April 8th.

Will The Plaintiffs Be Able To Collect The Judgment?

Now the hard part starts: even though the nursing home was part of a chain of nursing homes owned by the same private company, it was set up as a distinct and separate limited liability corporation with self-insurance in the amount of only $100,000 through a company in Bermuda. The $100,000 insurance limit is first used to pay defense costs such as the hourly fees charged by the nursing home’s defense lawyers. In this case, the nursing home had six defense attorneys representing it, which means that little if anything is left of the $100,000 that can be used to pay the $5.2 million verdict.

One possible avenue open to the plaintiffs to collect on its judgment will be if their attorney can “pierce the corporate veil” so that the parent company can be held responsible to pay the judgment. However, piercing the corporate veil can be very difficult.

Source

If you or a loved one may have a claim against a nursing home for injuries or other harms caused by nursing home negligence, nursing home abuse, or nursing home neglect, you should promptly seek the advice of an Arkansas nursing home claim attorney or a nursing home claim attorney in your state who may agree to investigate your nursing home claim for you and file a nursing home case on your behalf, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or telephone us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with Arkansas nursing home lawyers or nursing home claim lawyers in your state who may be able to assist you with your nursing home claim.

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

The Underlying Facts

The plaintiffs’ medical malpractice lawsuit alleged that a 33-year-old man was left with permanent brain injuries after he failed to wake up from anesthesia following a procedure on December 4, 2008. The procedure was a Manipulation Under Anesthesia (“MUA”) that the two local defendant doctors performed at a local surgical center in Pompano Beach, Florida (one performed the procedure and the other was the anesthesiologist for the procedure). It was reported that the doctor who had performed the MUA finally admitted at trial that the procedure should have not been performed on the man. The anesthesiologist had his medical license suspended as a result of the incident.

Other medical malpractice defendants had entered into confidential settlement agreements with the family of the man before the trial. The trial may be over but the man’s family and nurses must continue to provide care to the man, who now resides in Georgia.

The family’s medical malpractice lawyer called the jury’s verdict “a victory for patient safety” and stated after the jury’s verdict, “We intend to collect all of the doctor’s insurance money, present the jury’s findings to the board of medicine, and then go after these doctors personally to collect the balance of the verdict.”

Source

The Florida “Three Strikes” Amendment states as follows:

Article X (“Miscellaneous”)

SECTION 26. Prohibition of medical license after repeated medical malpractice.—

The physician claimed that she did not foresee all of the professional consequences of the Consent Order, and, after experiencing those consequences, she asked the Board to revise the Consent Order.

The Underlying Disciplinary Allegations

The physician had been practicing pain management and anesthesiology in Maryland since 1973. The Board had received a report in 2009 that the physician had been sending prescriptions for painkillers to patients through the mail and without conducting appropriate examinations. After an investigation, the Board determined that the physician had failed to meet the appropriate standard of care and failed to keep adequate medical records for twelve individual patients.

The Board charged the physician with prescribing potent painkillers (including Oxycontin, Percocet, and other opioid medications) from her home, without justification, without monitoring the patients, and without examining or seeing the patients either prior to or over the course of prescribing the drugs, which could have exposed the physician to revocation of her license and significant fines.

Proceedings Before The Board

Subsequently, the Board and the physician entered into a Consent Order, signed by both the physician and her attorney (who “read and approved” the Consent Order ), to resolve the charges against her. The Consent Order suspended the physician’s Maryland license immediately for ninety days and placed her on probation for at least two years. The Consent Order also required that the physician not practice algology or pain management and not treat any patients for chronic pain management, and that she forfeit her Federal DEA registration number and Maryland CDS registration number and not re-apply for the same. Significantly, the Consent Order stated that the physician waived any right to contest the terms of the Consent Order, she waived any right to appeal, and she acknowledged that she understood the Consent Order’s meaning and effect.

Several months later, the physician’s attorney wrote to the Board to ask “that her consent order be revised or interpreted to allow her the right to have DEA or CDS registrations for the sole purpose of writing orders for anesthesia drugs for Hospital patients” because the physician allegedly did not realize at the time she entered into the Consent Order that forfeiting her federal DEA and Maryland CDS registration numbers would preclude her from returning to her anesthesiology practice at a local hospital because “the Hospital could not fill her ‘orders’ for anesthesia drugs unless she had a DEA registration number” and because the “Hospital by-laws expressly require her to have a DEA registration number to maintain staff privileges.”

The Board denied the physician’s request, stating that “Forfeiture of [the physician's] DEA registration number was an essential component in resolving concerns that she engaged in dangerous prescribing practices, which the Board considered a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public. To eliminate that condition and permit [the physician] to hold a valid DEA registration number would diminish an important safeguard of the Consent Order, which restricted her ability to prescribe controlled dangerous substances. To permit [her] to obtain a DEA registration number, enabling her to resume prescribing controlled dangerous substances would be contrary to the best interests of the public.” The Board disagreed that there had been any mistake and noted the physician’s representation that she had “fully comprehended the meaning and terms of the Consent Order” when she signed it.

The Appeals

The physician filed a Petition for Judicial Review, Administrative Mandamus, and/or Declaratory Relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which was denied (the Circuit Court granted the Board’s Motion to Dismiss). She then filed the present appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.

The Court of Special Appeals framed the issue before it as whether the Board erred in declining the physician’s request to revise the Consent Order after the fact, and then whether the circuit court erred in refusing to compel the Board to revise it.

The Court of Special Appeals held, “We find no error at either level. [The physician] knowingly and voluntarily, with full disclosure and advice of counsel, waived her rights to challenge the terms of the Consent Order. Even still, the Board considered and denied her request for a revision … As a matter of fairness, a litigant “cannot, knowing the facts, both voluntarily accept the benefits of a judgment or decree and then later be heard to question its validity on appeal.””

The Court of Special Appeals noted that, “By entering into this indisputably valid Consent Order, [the physician] spared herself the cost, stress, uncertainty, and potentially-even-more-serious consequences of proceeding to an administrative hearing. She knew and acknowledged, after consulting with counsel who read and approved its terms, that the deal included agreements to forfeit her registration numbers during the period of her probation and to waive her rights to challenge the terms of the Consent Order or to appeal them. She does not argue that the Consent Order is void or voidable, procured by fraud or misrepresentation, nor was the mistake on which she relies mutual. On this posture, then, [the physician] had no right to challenge or appeal directly the terms of the valid and enforceable Consent Order, and the Board, having agreed to a “no backsies” resolution of these serious charges, did not commit an error of law by holding her to her waiver and declining her request for a revision … She was welcome to ask the Board to consider revising the Consent Order, and she did. But her acceptance of the terms of the Consent Order and the impact of its meaning and effect left any decisions about future revisions to the administrative discretion (or grace) of the Board, which in turn was free to hold [the physician] to her agreement. We find no error, either in the Board’s decision not to revise the Consent Order or the circuit court’s decision to dismiss [the physician's] petitions for judicial review, administrative mandamus, and declaratory judgment. No backsies.”

To read the Court of Special Appeals’ opinion in full, click here.

If you or a loved one are the victim of medical malpractice in Maryland or in another U.S. state, you should seek the advice of a Maryland medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may agree to 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 on our toll-free line (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in Maryland or in your state who may be able to assist you with a medical malpractice claim.

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

What Went Wrong?

A 16-year-old patient who was suffering from “several psychiatric symptoms and/or conditions” was being treated at the hospital as an outpatient by a psychiatric fellow beginning in August 2011; the patient was categorized as a psychopharmacological patient. Beginning in October 2011, the psychiatrist became involved in the patient’s care and attended two treatment sessions along with the psychiatry fellow. The psychiatry fellow was having some difficulty in engaging the patient but the patient seemed to engage with the psychiatrist more easily.

During one of the girl’s outpatient sessions, the psychiatrist became concerned about the girl’s “spiritual wellbeing,” believing that the girl’s problems “were not only the result of her psychiatric symptoms and/or conditions, but were also spiritual in nature.” He even told members of his own church that he was treating a patient for whom he had concerns regarding her spiritual wellbeing.

The girl was hospitalized as an inpatient from February 8, 2012 to February 23, 2012. The psychiatrist told the patient during her hospitalization that he believed that there was “a significant spiritual component” to her symptoms and conditions. He gave her a cross in exchange for a different religious symbol that she was wearing, which she later returned to him. On February 15, 2012, the psychiatrist decided he could no longer be part of the girl’s treatment team.

On February 17, 2012, the psychiatrist offered to the girl to become her “spiritual mentor” and obtained her father’s consent to act as the girl’s spiritual mentor. He brought the girl to his church and introduced her to other church members.

In March 2012, the girl was evicted from her home, had no place to stay, and stayed overnight in the psychiatrist’s home. She told the psychiatrist that her mother had pushed her down a flight of stairs and tried to asphyxiate her, which the psychiatrist failed to report to the Department of Children and Families as required by Massachusetts law (he also failed to report to any state agency that the girl had been evicted from her home).

The Board found that the psychiatrist had imparted his own religious system of belief to the girl and had failed to separate his own religious belief for diagnostic concepts and therapeutic practice. According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Guidelines Regarding Possible Conflict Between Psychiatrist’s Religious Commitments, “psychiatrists should not impose their own religious systems of belief on their patients nor should they substitute such beliefs or ritual for accepted diagnostic concepts or therapeutic practice.”

Source

Injuries and harms caused by psychiatric malpractice can be just as devastating as physical injuries due to medical malpractice committed  by physical medicine practitioners. In many circumstances, psychiatric patients may be more vulnerable or susceptible to harm when medical negligence occurs.

If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of possible medical malpractice committed by a psychiatrist, you should promptly seek the advice of a local medical malpractice attorney who may agree to investigate your possible psychiatrist malpractice claim for you and represent you in a psychiatric malpractice case, if appropriate.

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

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

Those who were charged are accused of fraud-related crimes such as conspiracy to commit health care fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes, and money laundering.  The fraudulent schemes involve primarily home health care but also involve mental health services, psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment (“DME”), and ambulance services.

The alleged fraud involved schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. The allegations claim that so-called patient recruiters, Medicare beneficiaries, and other co-conspirators were paid cash as illegal kick-backs for supplying Medicare beneficiary information to providers so that they could submit fraudulent billing to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed.

1. The Miami Allegations

Twenty-five defendants (including two nurses, a paramedic, and a radiographer) were charged with participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $44 million in false billings for home health care, mental health services, occupational and physical therapy, DME, and HIV infusion. Three of the defendants were charged for their alleged participation in a $20 million home health fraud scheme involving a home health agency that allegedly bribed Medicare beneficiaries for their Medicare information that was then used to bill for home health services that were not rendered or were not medically necessary.

2. The New Orleans Allegations

Eleven defendants (including two doctors) were charged with participation in a $51 million home health fraud scheme that allegedly recruited Medicare beneficiaries by offering cash and other incentives for their Medicare information that was then used to bill medically unnecessary home health services. Six people (including one doctor) were also charged with over $30 million in fraud in connection with a community mental health center, which is in addition to charges brought against the owners and operators of a related community mental health center who were allegedly involved in a $225 million fraud scheme charged in an earlier criminal indictment.

3. The Houston Allegations

Two people (a nurse and a social worker, who are brother and sister) were charged with fraud schemes involving $8.1 million in false billings for home health care by allegedly using patient recruiters to obtain Medicare beneficiary information that they then used to bill for services that were not medically necessary and not provided.

4. The Los Angeles Allegations

Thirteen people were charged in Los Angeles for their alleged roles in schemes to defraud Medicare of approximately $23 million. Three of those defendants allegedly billed Medicare for more than $8.7 million in fraudulent billing for DME by paying illegal kick-backs to patient recruiters to bribe Medicare beneficiaries to participate in the scheme. It is alleged that once the Medicare beneficiaries provided their Medicare information to the recruiters, doctors and medical clinics conspiring with these defendants wrote prescriptions for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs, which they sold to the defendants for illegal kick-backs.

5. The Detroit Allegations

Eighteen defendants (including two doctors, a physician’s assistant, and two therapists) were charged for their roles in alleged fraud schemes involving approximately $49 million in false claims for medically unnecessary services, including home health, psychotherapy, and infusion therapy. Three of these defendants were charged in a $12 million scheme where they allegedly held themselves out to be licensed physicians, which they were not, and signed prescriptions for drugs and signed documents about purported psychotherapy they provided.

6. The Tampa Allegations

Nine defendants were charged with participation in allegedly fraudulent schemes ranging from pharmacy fraud to health care-related money laundering. Four of the defendants were charged for their alleged roles in establishing and operating four supposed healthcare clinics in Tampa which they allegedly used to steal more than $2.5 million from Medicare for surgical procedures to treat patients with high blood pressure by collapsing veins in their legs, which were never performed.

7. The Chicago Allegations   

Seven people in Chicago (including two doctors) were charged with various health care fraud schemes.

8. The Brooklyn Allegations

Four people (including two doctors) were charged in Medicare fraud schemes involving $9.1 million in false claims. Three other people were allegedly involved in a $15 million fraud scheme where massages by unlicensed therapists were billed to Medicare as physical therapy.

Source

If you aware of a possible Medicare fraud scheme or Medicaid fraud scheme in your state, you may wish to consult with a local medical malpractice attorney to determine if you can file a False Claims Act federal lawsuit that may entitle you to receive a portion of the amount recovered as a result of your efforts (called a qui tam action)..

Click here to visit our website or telephone us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers (qui tam lawyers) in your state who may agree to investigate whether you have the basis for filing a False Claims Act lawsuit that may result in you receiving a portion of the recovery.

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!

The Underlying Facts

On July 13, 2005, the decedent was admitted into a local Mississippi hospital with complaints of confusion, decreased appetite, and tremors. She also had end-stage renal disease, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and had been on dialysis. It was quickly determined that an immediate concern was that the woman had probable sepsis from her dialysis catheter. The physicians treated her with antibiotics, Levaquin and Vancomycin, but her catheter was not removed. The antibiotics seemed to be working at first inasmuch as her white blood cell count and temperature were lowered.

On July 16, 2005, the woman’s blood pressure dropped unexpectedly and she had abdominal pain. Her physicians placed her on dialysis but her pain continued and her blood pressure dropped more. Her physicians then planned to remove the catheter and planned additional testing, including a CT scan. However, by early afternoon on July 16, 2005, the woman went into cardiopulmonary arrest and died.

The plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit alleged that one of the woman’s physicians at the hospital failed to recognize the woman’s medical problems, he failed to move her to intensive care soon enough before she died, and that he should treated her with more than just antibiotics, including removal of the allegedly infected catheter, which led to septicemia and systematic inflammatory response syndrome that were the proximate cause of the woman’s death.

The Medical Malpractice Trial And Appeal

The medical malpractice jury found that the medical malpractice defendant was negligent and that his medical malpractice was the proximate cause of the woman’s injuries and her death. The medical malpractice jury awarded $200,000 in economic damages and $800,000 in noneconomic damages.

The medical malpractice defendant filed an appeal that challenged the trial judge’s instruction to the jury that an element of damages in this case was the “loss of the value of life of [the woman]” because Mississippi Code Section 11-1-69(2) states, “In any wrongful death action, there shall be no recovery for loss of enjoyment of life caused by death.” Rather, damages are limited to: (1) the present net cash value of the life expectancy of the deceased, (2) the loss of the companionship and society of the decedent, (3) the pain and suffering of the decedent between the time of injury and death, and (4) punitive damages.

The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed and held, “we find that it was reversible error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that it might consider the “value of life” of the deceased in awarding damages.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court further held that the following statements made in the closing argument of the attorney for the medical malpractice plaintiff were improper and prejudicial:

“The first thing they do in a communist Nazi Country is destroy the jury system. Why do they want to destroy the jury system? Because you represent the line between tyranny and democracy, right and wrong. You have the power …. You have more power today than the President of the United States …. But the question is, will you have courage today? Do you have the God given courage ….

The value of the life of [the woman] …. I had to bring each one of the kids up here and ask them, what did your mother mean to you? What did she do with you? What did she do for you? The value of a loss.”

Source

If you or someone you know may have been injured or suffered other harms as a result of medical malpractice in Mississippi or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the advice of a Mississippi medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may be willing to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you and file a medical malpractice lawsuit on your behalf, if appropriate.

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

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

You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!