Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Medical Malpractice Suits From Botched Deliveries Help Families Deal With Lifelong Medical Costs

David Mittleman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:48:39 GMT

When Misty Tipton's son, Tyler Tipton, suffered a brain injury due to the medical malpractice of hospital staff during his birth, she had no ability to predict how far reaching the effects of his injuries would be. Tyler's birth was induced and nurse midwives used suction to extract him when the doctor who was paged to deliver Tyler never showed up. The delivery was done without physician supervision, which means that Tyler now must live every day of his life with intense supervision at a staggering cost.

Medical Malpractice claims across the country, such as this one for the traumatic birth, face greater uphill battles thanks to "tort reform" legislation introduced in many states. Yet the reality is that parents like Misty Tipton are the ones left with the overwhelming expense, both financially and emotionally, with having to raise their children whom have been permanently disabled with cerebral palsy or some other condition.

As Misty explains, Tyler needs constant supervision, even requiring one parent to sleep in his room every night due to seizures, and he is incapable of speaking. At the settlement proceedings, one of the defense attorneys had to leave for her child's dance recital. Misty remarked that Tyler will never get to do that due to medical negligence. Fortunately for her and her family, at the very least they were able to receive a settlement put into a trust account that would help to pay for Tyler's continuous medical expenses.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Woman's Experience at Hospital Exemplifies Problems with Mistaken Identity and Wrong-Site Surgeries

David Mittleman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:47 GMT

When Kerry Higuera started bleeding three months into her pregnancy, she instantly rushed to the hospital. Fearful that she was miscarrying, she knew that seeing her doctor would most likely give her the best chance to save her pregnancy. Unfortunately, that decision ultimately changed her life for the worse.

Upon arriving at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in Glendale, Arizona in February 2008, a nurse lead Higuera to a room and was instructed to wait for a doctor. However, just a few minutes later, another nurse poked her head into the room and told Kerry that the doctor wanted her to undergo a CT scan of her abdomen. Kerry questioned the nurse, but followed along anyway, confident that her doctor knew the correct procedures to perform.

After the CT scan, the nurse led Kerry back into a waiting room. Soon, the emergency room physician, two radiologists, and a representative from the hospital’s human resources came to speak with her. With such large crowd, Kerry was positive that it was bad news that she had miscarried. In fact, it was much worse news. According to the group of doctors, there were two Kerrys in the hospital that night: Higuera and another, younger woman named Kerry who needed the CT scan. Immediately, the hospital staffers offered to purchase Kerry Higuera flowers and also offered her coupons for free meals in the hospital cafeteria.

No large studies have been done on the effects of CT scans on fetuses. However, experts say that a fetus exposed to radiation can, in some cases, develop physical and mental growth problems. Kerry is being represented by legal counsel in the matter and appears to be moving toward litigation against the hospital, according to a CNN report. Her child, Nathan, is now 15 months old and shows signs of delayed growth. Kerry feels guilty for going to the emergency room that night in February 2008. However, her story is not unfamiliar: patients trust doctors and other hospital staff to be informed and aware.

Indeed, the five wrong-site surgeries at Rhode Island Hospital exemplify the fact that it isn’t uncommon for a hospital patient to fall victim to hospital errors. However, according to Jim Conway, the senior vice president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, there are some steps you can follow to avoid falling victim to wrong-site surgery or mistaken identity blunders. For example:

1. Say: "My name is Mary Smith, my date of birth is October 21, 1965, and I'm here for an appendectomy."

You might feel like an idiot, but say this to every doctor, nurse, and technician who takes care of you.

2. Say: "Please check my ID bracelet."

Hospital staff is supposed to confirm your identity in at least two ways, according to Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association. One of those ways is to check your ID, or scan it if it has a bar code. Another way is to ask you for your name and date of birth.

Of course, you should check your bracelet to make sure the information on it is correct.

3. Say: "Please look in my chart and tell me what procedure I'm having."

If a nurse states that you're having an appendectomy and she's right, that's not enough, because that nurse won't necessarily be there with you in the operating room.

"Make sure the nurse is looking at your chart when she tells you what procedure or test you're having," says Ilene Corina, president of PULSE, New York, a grass-roots patient safety organization.

4. Say: "I want to mark up my surgical site with the surgeon present."

Hospitals these days often hand patients a pen and ask them to mark where they're going to have surgery. Corina says you should do it in front of the surgeon who will be with you in the operating room, and not just in front of the person who hands you the pen.

"If you mark it and the surgeon doesn't know about the marking, what's the point of marking it?" Corina asks.

5. Be impolite.

Foster, the executive at the hospital association, gives this example.

"If the nurse comes in and says, 'Are you Mary Jones?' and you're really Miriam Jones, you might just nod your head and say yes because you're too polite to correct her," Foster says. "Don't be polite."

Higuera now wishes she'd been impolite and followed her instincts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Marion, Illinois VA Hospital Continues to Have Safety Issues

David Mittleman — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Federal Veterans Affairs Officials had assumed that the VA medical center in Marion, Illinois would clean up its act after being under such intense scrutiny for 2 years. However, serious safety issues continue to be a problem at the southern Illinois hospital even after Federal Veterans Affairs officials suspended surgeries in 2007 at the location after an investigation revealed at least nine deaths attributable to substandard care between October 2006 and March 2007.

While the hospital still isn’t performing any major surgeries, outpatient procedures are still performed there. The most recent inspector general’s report indicates that the hospital failed to monitor 87%, or 20 out of 23, of its physicians to ensure procedures were properly performed. Furthermore, there are problems with infection control, specifically staph infections, after a patient with a history of MRSA staph infections was put in a room with two other patients and shared a bathroom. Additionally, there are other problems with poor medication management and monitoring, patient data analysis, and tracking patient deaths. In fact, according to the hospital’s own reports, there were three different tallies for April 2009 deaths and two deaths went completely unreported. These problems are no different than those that occurred a few years ago: the most severe case involved a veteran who bled to death after receiving a faulty gallbladder surgery. The surgeon resigned just three days after the man’s death.

The inspector general has once again ordered the hospital to completely redesign its reporting structure and investigations of the hospital will continue until all the problems are resolved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

AAJ Debunks Myths About Medical Negligence

David Mittleman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:46:56 GMT

President Obama promised a floor debate on health care reform in the House, and now that promise is coming to fruition. The debate is sure to include the classic opponents of healthcare reform, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as other tort reform proponents such as the asbestos, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. However, one of the most problematic arguments used by these groups is that medical malpractice lawsuits are the basis for the rising cost of healthcare and that the answer is not healthcare reform. Instead, they argue that limiting “frivolous lawsuits” is the panacea to our country’s healthcare cost woes.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), a trial lawyers group based Washington, D.C, recently released a 30-page report (pdf) outlining the pertinent arguments of the debate. Specifically, the five myths the AAJ outlines are:

Myth #1: There are too many frivolous lawsuits, and curbing the number of lawsuits would cut down the cost of healthcare.

The actual number of lawsuits filed per year is questionable. What most people don’t understand is that trial lawyers don’t have near the financial power that an insurance company does. Specifically, insurance companies can spend enormous, and seemingly endless, amounts of money to win a case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, on the other hand, are on very tight budgets and must question the validity of every case that might come their way. Wasting money attempting to prove a case that doesn’t have merit is nonsensical, so plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t scooping up every case possible, contrary to popular belief.

While the number of frivolous lawsuits is questionable, the number of medical negligence cases aren’t: in fact, according to the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 “To Err is Human” report, 98,000 people are killed in hospitals each year from preventable medical errors.

Furthermore, a Hearts Newspaper Group “Dead by Mistake” investigation into medical malpractice found that the number of patients affected was closer to 200,000, when hospital-acquired infections were taken into consideration.

Are all of these individuals affected by medical negligence flocking to file lawsuits? Apparently not: according to a Harvard study, only 1 in 8 people injured by medical negligence filed a malpractice claim.

Other myths included in the AAJ report include:

Myth #2:

Malpractice claims drive up the cost of healthcare

Myth #3:

Doctors are fleeing

Myth #4:

Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums

Myth #5:

Tort reform will lower insurance rates

For additional information on the myths surrounding healthcare reform and the costs of healthcare, see AAJ's "Debunking the Myths".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Michigan Medical Malpractice Claims Fraught With Obstacles

David Mittleman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:58:00 GMT

Most of us know little or nothing about the practice of medicine. When we go to our doctors, for everything from a routine checkup to a serious emergency, we trust in them to conduct a proper and thorough examination and to formulate an adequate plan of care. Sometimes, as a result of the carelessness or inattention of the physician or other medical provider, a patient is harmed rather than healed.

Doctors and other medical providers have a legal duty to provide patients with treatment that meets the "standard of care." In layman's terms, the standard of care is what an ordinary and prudent doctor should do in a given situation. If a doctor breaches the standard of care, and the patient is injured as a result, the doctor has committed medical malpractice.

Medical malpractice is more than just a breach of duty, it is a betrayal of trust. However, Michigan law can make it very difficult and expensive for victims to hold the at-fault doctors accountable. There are numerous procedural requirements demanded by law that must be strictly followed. Failure to follow these rules precisely could (and often does) result in the dismissal of an otherwise valid medical malpractice claim. Injured victims have only two years to bring a claim for malpractice, while victims of other types of negligence have three years. Moreover, the victim is required to procure the testimony of other doctors in order to prove his or her case. This is an expensive requirement, and the injured person's doctors must have exactly the same credentials as the at-fault doctor or the claim may be dismissed.

In Michigan, even if a victim of medical malpractice can satisfy all the procedural requirements and prevail in court, their level of compensation may be limited. Medical malpractice damage caps operate to prevent severely hurt patients from fully recovering for their injuries.

Our office handles medical malpractice claims regularly, and our attorneys have extensive experience navigating Michigan's legal obstacle course. If you suspect that you or a loved one is a victim of medical malpractice, contact our office to see if we can put our expertise to work for you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

RI Hospital Fined for Fifth Wrong-Site Surgery, Ordered to Install Cameras in Operating Rooms

David Mittleman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:26:54 GMT

Recently, I wrote about Rhode Island Hospital’s fifth wrong site surgery since January 2007, where doctors operated on the wrong finger of a patient. After conducting an investigation, the Rhode Island Health Department has levied a fine of $150,000 against the Hospital, citing that the surgical team violated safety policies when it performed the incorrect operation on October 22^nd.

According to investigation reports, the surgical team failed to mark the correct fingers and also failed to follow the rules for a “time out”, which is a pause before beginning a surgery to verify the patient, and ensure the correct procedure and operating site. Furthermore, the Hospital also failed to follow new error-prevention protocols instituted in Rhode Island on July 1.

Along with the fine, Rhode Island Hospital will also be required to install video cameras and audio equipment in all its operating rooms within 45 days. All surgeons will be taped at least twice a year. However, the Hospital can decide if it will inform the doctors in advance that they will be monitored during a particular surgery. Moreover, the Health Department will also require the Hospital to assign a clinical employee who is not part of the surgical team to observe all surgeries at the hospital for at least one year to ensure that doctors are marking sites to be operated on and taking a time out prior to starting a surgery.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Radiologists Reluctant to Admit Mammography Errors to Patients

David Mittleman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:31 GMT

According to a new study released this month, radiologists may not be so honest when it comes to admitting their mistakes. Specifically, radiologists may not disclose mammography errors to patients, resulting in delayed treatment for progressive cancers.

The study, conducted by the departments of medicine and bioethics & humanities at the University of Washington, surveyed 364 radiologists at seven different Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites located in separate geographical areas. The radiologists were given a hypothetical situation in which comparison screening mammograms were placed in an incorrect order, so that it appeared as if breast calcifications were decreasing in number in a patient when they had actually increased. The doctors were then told that there was an error, which resulted in a delay in treating the cancer. The radiologists were then asked to respond to three questions: 1) how likely they were to disclose the mistake, 2) what information they would share, and 3) what were their actual experiences and attitudes with malpractice.

The results of the study indicated that:

24% responded that they would “not say anything further to the patient”
31% responded that they would tell the patient that “the calcifications are larger now and are suspicious for cancer”
30% responded that they would tell the patient “the calcifications may have increased on your last mammogram, but their appearance was not as worrisome as they are now”
15% responded that they would tell the patient that “an error had occurred during the interpretation of your last mammogram, and the calcifications had actually increased in number, not decreased”

74% of the radiologists claimed that they were more reluctant to tell patients of mistakes because of fears over medical malpractice. Apparently, failure to report errors to patients was not an uncommon practice for many of the radiologists surveyed. In fact, 49% admitted that they had been sued for medical negligence. However, other factors also had an effect in the radiologists’ degree of honesty. For example, physicians have expressed concerns over increasing stress in patients after admitting a medical error. Furthermore, the study author also hypothesized that some physicians feel uncomfortable with their communication skills, and struggle to admit to a patient that they had mad a mistake. Despite these other factors, 15% is not a comforting amount of radiologists who say they would be completely honest about their mistakes. Hopefully, continued studies like this will help to improve doctor and patient communication.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Kansas Supreme Court Called to Protect Patients From Tort Reform

David Mittleman — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:35:06 GMT

Kansas, like Georgia, will be visiting the problem of tort reform this year as it decides whether or not caps on damages in medical malpractice cases violates a patient's rights after he or she has been injured by a doctor's negligence.

The legal battle surrounds a wrongly removed ovary. Amy Miller of Eudora, Kansas, went to have her right ovary removed. Dr. Carolyn Johnson unfortunately removed the left ovary instead. Ms. Miller filed a lawsuit and a Kansas jury comprised of her peers returned a verdict for $759,680.

However, because of laws in Kansas that place limits on damages for pain and suffering (noneconomic damages) in medical malpractice, the Judge in the case stripped $150,000 of the verdict that had to do with future noneconomic loss.

Attorneys for Ms. Miller argue that Kansas's law on medical malpractice caps violates Kansas's constitutional guarantees to a jury trial.

In addition to the Constitutional violation, her attorney argues that it violates the seperation fo powers by allowing the Legislature to unnecessarily take away a power vested to the judiciary and juries.

Most important, however, is the fact that caps on noneconomic damages do nothing but place the greatest limitations on the people who have been injured the most. Follow us as we let you know how these pivotal cases are decided across the country.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

The Doctor Is In and He Says Tort Reform Isn't the Cure

David Mittleman — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:26:12 GMT

Even doctors are starting to speak out about our insurance crisis. I recently read a post online by Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. that had me nodding my head. Dr. Parikh went straight to task and took on the proponents of "tort reform" (Crooked Justice) with the following line:

"There's nothing "sure or quick" about changing medical liability laws that will improve healthcare or its costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to healthcare's price tag, and rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care."

Why does he get it? It's because he's willing to look at the facts and put people first, not profit, not even his own profit. First, he noted that no matter how you look at it, malpractice lawsuits aren't the major factor in rising health care costs. As Dr. Parikh put it:

malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending. Saving 2 percent of the over $2 trillion we spend on healthcare isn’t going to bend the cost curve.

Second, malpractice lawsuits are not frivolous. By and large, if you're willing (both as a client and a lawyer) to go through the incredible expense of suing a doctor or hospital, something truly significant has probably happened to you. Dr. Parikh reviewed a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. He nails it on the head when he says:

Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases involved errors by doctors.
Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients.

Yes, that's right. Lawsuits were more likely to result in payment when the doctor made an error. Lawsuits were more likely to result in no payment if there was no error. Where's the frivolity? It's PR propoganda.

What isn't propoganda is the following. Tort reform will not save lives. Giving doctors and hospitals less incentive to improve practices and maintain care at high levels only puts us in jeopardy. Maybe that's what the doc meant when he wrote:

So for those who push tort reform as a panacea for a sick healthcare system, working to prevent injuries is a much more noble pursuit than writing up baseless arguments for the back pages of a newspaper.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Medical Negligence Law Equals Accountability, Tort Reform Equals Insurance Greed

David Mittleman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:14:42 GMT

There's some smoke and mirrors going on at the Congressional Budget Office and it's designed to take away your rights as a patient and to diminish the value of the 7th Amendment. We're in the middle of an insurance crisis, and all anyone wants to talk about is a medical crisis that the evidence is showing doesn't really exist.

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report that was heralded as signaling a need for "tort reform", aka "erasing patient's rights." Yet, its own math just doesn't add up to the rhetoric. Even if all the most stringent medical malpractice liability reforms were enacted, it would only reduce the cost of health care by one half of one percent (0.5%). To put it this way, it would reduce the cost of health care by the amount Americans spend on dog and cat food each year.

The Center for Justice and Democracy has released its own response to the CBO report and its conclusions are stunning - the CBO report on Medical Malpractice is flawed through and through. First, the report failed to indicate that 100,000 people die every year from medical negligence in hospitals alone, a figure determined by the Harvard School of Public Health. That is more than the annual combined fatalities in the U.S. from motor vehicle accidents, AIDS, and fires. MORE.

Second, the study failed to really analyze its own factual findings. Defensive medicine, a hot-button issue, is being cited as a response to the fear of medical malpractice lawsuits. But the CBO report found that defensive medicine only really happens with Medicare patients, due to the payment structure of fee-for-services. Defensive medicine was not found in private managed health care systems. Well, the same rules of medical malpractice apply to doctors regardless of their patient's age, so medical malpractice isn't what is causing defensive medicine. To the extent defensive medicine exists at all, it can be controlled by simply managing care correctly as opposed to taking away patients' rights and possibly killing more people.

Most importantly, the CBO ignores its own findings that Tort Reform (Crooked Justice) could increase patient deaths due to medical negligence by as much as 4,800 patients per year. Apparently, three studies was insufficient data to really consider the consequences.

Tort Reform will not make health care cheaper. It will not make you healthier.

Tort Reform would make it more likely that the next time you go to a hospital or doctor, the doctor treating you or your loved one will have less of an incentive to perform his duties reasonably. That's a risk we just can't afford.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman