Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice - Most Commented

Malpractice Damage Caps: Adding Insult to Injury

David Mittleman — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:14:47 GMT

No matter how much education or training a doctor has, he or she is still a human being. As all of us know, humans make mistakes. Although some degree of error is essentially inevitable in any profession, the magnitude of harm that results from medical malpractice is perhaps unsurpassed. The victims’ betrayed trust and damaged bodily integrity are personal violations of the highest order. As a society, we expect that doctors who make mistakes should be held accountable for their conduct. Unbeknownst to most patients, however, is the fact that many states limit the amount of compensation they can receive if their doctor commits malpractice.

Medical malpractice damage caps, as they are called, are laws that protect insurance companies by ensuring that victims do not receive more than a certain amount of money for their pain and suffering, even if a jury awards them a larger sum. In Michigan malpractice cases, the limit on non-economic damages is $280,000 (adjusted yearly for inflation) in most instances and $500,000 (also adjusted for inflation) under certain, well-defined exceptions. This provision means that no matter how much pain a victim experiences or how drastically his or her life changes as a result of a doctor’s malpractice, he or she cannot receive more than the statutory limit. There can be no doubt that the Legislature adopted this measure to protect insurance companies at the expense of individual victims.

Proponents of malpractice damage caps argue that these laws keep the cost of health care down. This assertion has no basis in fact. Damage awards comprise such a small percentage of the overall cost of health care that imposing limits has a negligible effect on cost. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine attributes the bulk of rising health care costs to advances in, and overuse of, new medical technology. As the author notes, our current President favors a cap on non-economic damages. A more effective approach, according to the article, would be to ensure that a larger percentage of malpractice liability premiums are directed toward compensating injured patients.

Malpractice victims should be compensated in an amount proportional to their injuries. These patients deserve to have a jury decide what that amount is, not a decades-old law passed by a Legislature that put insurance companies before people.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Negligent Circumcision and Failure to Respond lead to $2.3 Million Dollar Jury Verdict

David Mittleman — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:54:41 GMT

A jury in Georgia awarded $1.8 million in damages to a boy (and $500,000 to his mother) who will live the rest of his life with a severed penis. At the time of his birth, the attending physician removed too much tissue while performing a circumcision. A nurse attempted to contact the child’s pediatrician, but the pediatrician failed to respond and go to the hospital.

The boy’s penis could have been re-attached, had a urologist attended to the boy within 8 hours of the medical malpractice. However, the severed tip of the penis remained in a biohazard bag even after the nurse detected the excessive bleeding.

The jury did not award any punitive damages in favor of the boy and his mother, but rather compensated them for the cost of medical treatments and psychiatric counseling that the boy and family will require throughout his life.

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

Equal Access to Medical Records Key to Level Playing Field

David Mittleman — Fri, 01 May 2009 08:37:00 GMT

Most of us have no idea what our medical record contains. We assume our providers keep thorough and accurate accounts of our office visits and medical procedures, yet we rarely ask to see these documents. Often it is only when something goes wrong that we think to request a copy of our medical records. The information our doctor or hospital provides could mean the difference between a successful malpractice case or a travesty of justice.

The truth of the matter is that your medical record belongs to you. Aside from a few narrow exceptions, you are entitled to a copy of your records for a reasonable administrative fee. Despite this fact, some providers will try to block or discourage your access to records, especially if there is the potential for litigation. Worse yet, the provider may give you some but not all of the information you request, thereby painting an incomplete or inaccurate picture of your healthcare. In some cases, providers have been known to intentionally render their records illegible - a tactic known as spoliation of evidence.

Medical privacy is governed to a large extent by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. The law can be quite complicated, but violations can be reported to the Office for Civil Rights.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to possible medical negligence, don’t let your doctor or hospital take advantage of your inability to access records. Let us help you obtain the information you need to see if there is any recourse available.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Bill Introduced to Protect Troops From Medical Negligence

David Mittleman — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:46:32 GMT

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces serve under some of the most hostile and dangerous conditions imaginable. On the battlefield, some of the most advanced equipment in the world is used to try to protect our troops from harm. Away from the front lines, however, our brave soldiers, seamen, and airmen (and women) are refused even the most basic legal protections.

The plight of the family of Carmelo Rodriguez is emblematic of this problem. Rodriguez, a Marine sargent, was a victim of medical malpractice when his doctors failed to inform him that he had melanoma and did not treat him for the condition. Tragically, Rodriguez died as a result of this negligence.

In Feres v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that servicemembers cannot sue the federal government for personal injuries resulting from the negligence of other members of the armed forces. A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives might change that. Known as the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act, HR 1478 would permit military personnel to pursue causes of action based on medical negligence. The bill was introduced by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and is currently before the Judiciary Committee. That Committee is chaired by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan.

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

Why Do Doctors Always Think They Are Entitled To Special Treatment?

David Mittleman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:59:00 GMT

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal on just this topic. The truth is, it's not just my friend and anesthesiologist Dr. Kenneth Elmassian, who takes this viewpoint - the local Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS) and the national American Medical Association (AMA) group that want to place doctors above the law. They have a problem with defensive medicine because of their faulty assumption on its connection to health care costs. They also want to single out doctors and give them blanket immunity that doesn't exist with any other type of private individual.

Frankly, it is my choice and right as a patient to want defensive medicine for me and my family. I don't want doctors cutting corners if the technology is available. We are not in the midst of a medical or legal crisis. WE ARE IN AN INSURANCE CRISIS. WE NEED INSURANCE REFORM.

The Constitution of the United States makes the right to a jury trial in civil matters a protected right by virtue of the 7th Amendment. If a jury can decide the factual disputes in all other negligence cases, and if a jury can decide whether a person commited a crime that can be punishable by loss of libery (incarceration), then a jury can certainly decide fair and adequate damages when a doctor harms a patient, and they and their families are affect for the rest of their lives!

Doctors put their pants/skirts on just like WE do!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

South Florida Man's Family Wins $14 Million in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

David Mittleman — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:37:26 GMT

Prior to an emergency room visit to a South Florida hospital, Francis Ziadie was an optometrist and father of four. However, he is now a shadow of the man he once was—paralyzed and bedridden for life. However, Ziadie’s family won a $14 million malpractice verdict last week, including $5 million for his medical care, $8 million for pain and suffering, and $250,000 for each of his minor sons.

One day in 2002, Ziadie began experiencing dizziness and slurred speech. He immediately went to Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Luckily, his symptoms began to improve after doctors gave him aspirin and the anti-platelet medication, Plavix. Later, tests revealed that Ziadie had not suffered a stroke, but radiologist Dr. Hoang Dinh Doung placed a mesh stent in Ziadie’s carotid artery to help improve the blood flow anyway. However, during the procedure Dr. Doung punctured Ziadie’s blood vessel. After waking from the procedure, Ziadie still complained of slurred speech and weakness on his right side. Nevertheless, nurses sedated him instead of addressing his complaints. As a result, Ziadie suffered major bleeding in his brain, which also caused massive pressure on his brain stem, damaging his brain tissue and causing paralysis.

Ziadie now lives with his 76-year-old mother and gets around the house in a wheelchair, although he spends most of his time in bed. Ziadie also requires round-the-clock care, which he will continue to need for the rest of his life. Mr. Ziadie’s attorney successfully argued that homecare is the best option over care in a nursing facility, which Mr. Ziadie’s mother has vowed to provide.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Widow fulfills vow to ensure hospitals improve communication to save lives

David Mittleman — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:55:00 GMT

Vincent Hereford died from sepsis—poisoning from the spread of toxins or bacteria into the body—at 44, leaving behind his wife and two teenage children. Despite her devastating loss, his wife, Michelle Hereford, has dedicated herself to advocating for better communication between hospital staff and the patients they treat to stop needless deaths and spare another family from the pain she has experienced since her husband’s death.

Vincent Hereford had struggled with leukemia for 18 years and developed a bowel problem in January. His oncologist had recently moved to Michigan, so Vincent boarded a plane from Richmond, Virginia to the University of Michigan Medical Center, where he had surgery. As Michelle watched her husband’s fever continuously rise during his recovery time at the U of M hospital, she suspected that he had a perforated bowel and that fecal matter was leaking into the rest of his body. Michelle is no average layperson, either. In fact, she is trained as a clinical nurse and knew that a CT scan could reveal whether her suspicions were true. No matter, the hospital staff refused to hear her and according to Michelle, was largely unresponsive and ultimately declined to order a CT until it was too late. Finally, after seeing a new doctor every day, one decided to perform the CT scan Michelle had been pleading for. The scan did, in fact, reveal that Vincent had a perforated bowel and that toxins were spreading into the rest of his body. He was immediately flown back to the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond where he died nine days later on February 19, 2008.

Michelle filed a complaint with the U of M Medical Center, to which she received what amounted to a scripted letter. Furthermore, the letter neither admitted nor denied that they the hospital staff was at fault for diagnosing Vincent too late. Richard Boothman, the hospital’s chief risk officer, merely stated that the hospital “could have communicated better” but did not say the staff had made a mistake during Vincent’s treatment. However, the hospital has since pledged to communicate better with patients and to have the same doctor attend to the same patients each day, instead of giving the responsibility to a new doctor each day. Hereford has also agreed to work with the hospital and to chronicle her experience for the staff at the U of M hospital.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Michigan Supreme Court rightfully decides that domestic labor has economic value

David Mittleman — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:21:32 GMT

In a 4-3 decision, the new Gang of Justice at the Michigan Supreme Court stood up to conservative Justice Robert Young and ruled that backbreaking domestic work is, in fact, work.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young is showing us once again how little he knows about the lives of average Americans. His dissenting opinion in Thorn v Mercy Memorial Hospital shows that he thinks the day-to-day efforts of a mother and wife do not have an economic value. Not surprisingly, any mother or wife reading this right now might beg to differ. As anyone who has to pick up after kids, change diapers, fold laundry, prepare three meals, make the bed, walk the dogs, buy the groceries, vacuum the carpet, wipe the windows, clean out the fridge, mop the floors, sanitize the toilet, etc., already knows: it’s a J - O - B. Even the folks at Salary.com agreed, saying a stay-at-home mom, in 2006, would earn $134,121 a year if they were actually paid for all the work they do (a "working mom" would still rake in $85,876 a year, thanks to the Second Shift effect).

Young’s dissent really comes down to one thing. When it comes to the relatives of a deceased or injured loved one up against the corporation who hired the doctors that killed or injured the loved one, Young thinks average Americans should get no assistance from the corporation or doctor to replace all the tasks that person used to do before the malpractice. He’d like to lump it together with the idea that all that back-breaking work is just a part of the "companionship" of a spouse or relative.

Are we really back in the 1950s, that we’re discounting the actual labor people do in their homes? Is "women’s work" really a value-less activity that wives and mothers do because it’s their lot in life? Of course not, but Justice Robert Young has no other option to argue that because we all know who he really cares about - insurance companies and corporations.

Thanks to the wisdom and modern views of the majority members of the Michigan Supreme Court, if your spouse of relative is injured as a result of someone’s medical negligence, there won’t be a "cap" on how much you can recover for the loss of their labor value when it comes to all the things they did to be a "super-mom".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman