Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawyers Blog

Medical malpractice attorneys at Pintas & Mullins point to a recent article published by the New York Times detailing the importance of malpractice litigation in gaining a more transparent healthcare system. Lawsuits often reveal diagnostic and treatment errors that would not have been caught otherwise, helping hospitals better to identify and address medical errors.

The article details a study the author conducted to determine the various effects modern malpractice litigation is having on our nation's hospitals. The author, Joanna Schwartz, surveyed more than 400 risk management, claims management, and quality improvement specialists from health care centers throughout the country.

She notes that, with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, many legislators, advocate groups, and medical officials have focused the discussion around whether or not it will actually bring down our excessive health care costs. Because of the disproportionate costs, many have ignored other important aspects of our system: transparency of and improving on patient safety.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of American patients are seriously injured by preventable medical errors, and tens of thousands more die, making it the sixth leading cause of death in the country. Experts assert that the best, most efficient way to reduce these medical errors is by collecting and analyzing the data surrounding previous errors with the intention of improving future care. This can only be successful, however, if these efforts are made public and available for third-party review.

For many years, hospitals took a mostly secretive approach to medical errors and lawsuits, although this practice started changing in the information age. Now, about 80% of the hospitals Schwartz surveyed have a policy of apologizing to patients when mistakes occur, and are willing to discuss and learn from these mistakes with the staff. Unsurprisingly, hospitals found that disclosing and admitting to errors and offering early settlements reduce the costs and frequency of lawsuits.

Additionally, more than 95% of the hospitals surveyed integrate their information from malpractice lawsuits into improving patient safety efforts. For example, lawsuits often reveal errors that would have otherwise not been reported or collected (medical providers are notorious for underreporting). Moreover, analysis of case trends can reveal systemic problems within specific procedures and departments, making closed litigation files useful for teaching.

Some argue, and have been arguing for years, that the most significant barrier to achieving this is the medical malpractice court system. Dozens of recent articles and studies, like the one published recently by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, are proving just the opposite: that large medical payouts by doctors account for less than one percent of healthcare expenditures.

Their study used the government-run National Practitioner Data Bank, which lists all paid medical malpractice claims. Researchers looked at all "large" awards (over $1 million) between 2004 and 2010 and found that they added up to about $1.4 billion per year. This amount represents about .05% of American healthcare expense costs.

They noted that the real problems are the superfluous and unnecessary tests doctors order in the name of "defense medicine," which cost us about $60 billion a year. Physicians order these tests and procedures in fear that, if they do not, they could be sued for not practicing the "standard level of care," that medical malpractice lawsuits use to measure cases against.

Continue reading "Hospitals move Toward Transparency in Medical Malpractice" »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report of a recent lawsuit accusing a St. Louis, MO surgeon of operating on the wrong side of a patient's skull and brain. The woman, Regina Turner, is no longer able to speak intelligibly, and now requires 24-hour care for her basic needs.

The doctor, along with the president and CEO of SSM Health Care-St. Louis, issued a public apology to the patient. Their apology stated that the error was the result of a breakdown in procedure, and that it absolutely should never have happened.

After suffering from a series of strokes, Turner was admitted to St. Clare Health Center in Fenton, Missouri for a left-sided craniotomy bypass. Instead, the neurosurgeon operated on her right side. The goal of her craniotomy was to prevent future strokes.

Before her surgery, Turner was mobile, cognizant, and fully able to take care of herself. Her lawsuit alleges that the hospital's employees set up the operating room incorrectly and merely stood by while the neurosurgeon operated on the wrong side of her skull, watching, when they could have prevented the error. Healthcare facilities have mistake-proofing protocols and checklists which include the surgeon's marking of the operative site, members of the operating team verifying that site with the medical records, and a "timeout" phase in which surgeons explain the details of the operation, allowing all team members to ask questions or raise concerns.

Clearly, in this case, the quality control and safety protocols were significantly lacking. None of the defendants named in the case participated in a timeout, which could have spared Turner part of the right side of her brain. Alarmingly, in 2010, the Journal of Neurosurgery identified 35 cases of wrong-side craniotomies in the years after 1966. The Journal also noted that there were additional, undocumented cases that were never reported to state medical boards, courts, or news organizations.

Meanwhile, on the same day the hospital issued their public apology, the Missouri Senate was considering a bill that would reinstate damage caps on medical malpractice claims, such as that filed by Turner. Eight hours into the debate, Senator Dan Brown set the bill aside, apologized to the doctors he claims he was trying to help, and surrendered the effort.

The bill was in response to a 2005 Missouri Supreme Court decision which found that malpractice caps on jury awards were unconstitutional. Republican lawmakers in the state attempted to set the maximum amount for noneconomic damages at $350,000. Noneconomic damages are usually defined as damages not associated with lost wages and medical bills, and they generally include restitution for loss mobility, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium - all things Turner is now suffering from, and will continue to for the rest of her life.

So, had that law not been overturned, Turner would only be allowed to receive $350,000 for the devastating harm done to her through a hospital's negligence. Indeed, this violates her right to a trial by jury, which, we will soon see, will award her far greater compensation for the irreversible harm done to her.

Continue reading "Missouri Doctor Operates on Wrong Side of Patient's Brain " »

Malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins recently reported of an Oklahoma dentist who exposed about 7,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis. The state's Department of Health conducted free testing to those patients, at least 60 of whom have already tested positive for the infectious diseases.

The dentist, Dr. Wayne Harrington, is currently being investigated by the Oklahoma Dental Board, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, and the DEA. Out of the more than 3,000 patients tested thus far, 57 have tested positive for hepatitis C, three for hepatitis B, and at least one for HIV.

One lawsuit has already been filed against the doctor and his clinic, by 38-year-old Christina Quin, who saw Harrington to have her wisdom teeth removed in 2009. After the surgery, she experienced increasing pain and discovered she had an infection. She was prescribed antibiotics but the infection persisted; she ultimately developed liver problems, a rash, and high fever. She hopes her case will go to trial within the year.

Both the Tulsa and Oklahoma health departments are currently in the process of notifying Harrington's patients of their test results - those testing positive for hepatitis or HIV will be contacted personally, so they may be advised about the disease and its care options. Those patients' spouses are also encouraged to be tested.

The outbreak began in March 2013, after one patient tested positive for both HIV and hepatitis C. Officials then launched a surprised investigation into Harrington's practice, which revealed rusting instruments, reused needles, and using bleach to clean patients' wounds, among other gruesome practices.

Harrington has been practicing for more than 35 years in Oklahoma, though he voluntarily surrendered his license after the investigation. He could face criminal charges and will undoubtedly have his license permanently revoked. According to the investigations, Harrington was allowing unauthorized and unlicensed employees perform IV sedations of patients, which is illegal and incredibly dangerous. The drug lockers at the facility were also found unlocked and unattended. Some of the drugs were even years-past expired (one had an expiration date of 1993). There were no inventory logs in the office detailing the drugs in that cabinet.

Although the investigation into the initial source of the infections is still ongoing, it has been speculated that they were the result of Harrington's habit of accepting Medicaid patients straight from the ER. He was widely known to have a high number of patients with HIV and hepatitis, who he operated on after they had been transferred from local hospitals.

Even among well-trained dentists and anesthesiologists, IV sedation is dangerous, even life-threatening in some patients. If even one aspect of the procedure is not properly conducted, patients are at risk of stroke, cardiac arrest, allergic reactions, brain injury, and even death.

Continue reading "At Least 60 Oklahoma Dentistry Patients Infected with Hepatitis and HIV" »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins highlight a recent verdict awarded to the family of a seven-year-old girl now suffering from Erb's palsy from a negligent delivery. The family received $2.1 million for the birthing malpractice.

Erb's palsy, also known as brachial plexus injury, is an injury to the network of nerves in the spine, shoulder, arm, and hand. The injury may occur when the nerves are stretched or torn, and typically only one arm is affected. According to the Mayo Clinic, newborns can sustain this type of injury when there are problems during delivery, such as prolonged delivery. If an infant becomes stuck in the birth canal, the force of pulling the infant free can damage the nerves.

The mother in this case filed the malpractice lawsuit on behalf of her daughter, who is now seven years old, against the Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Bassett Healthcare, and certified nurse midwife Patricia Brown. The suit alleged that the mother did not receive adequate prenatal care from the hospital and that the midwife, Nurse Brown, directly caused the child's Erb's palsy by pulling too hard on her head during the delivery.

As a result of this trauma, the child will suffer from permanent nerve damage for the rest of her life, significantly limiting the mobility in her left arm. The suit was heard by a six-member jury in Ostego County's Supreme Court in upper New York State. After a three-week trial, the jury awarded the little girl $2.1 million in damages.

In a similar case, the Michigan family of a child diagnosed with Erb's palsy was recently awarded $2.25 million. The mother in this case had gestational diabetes, and about one week before delivery, the fetus was estimated to weigh eight pounds. Physicians recognized the potential of a high birth weight infant, but did not offer the mother a cesarean section. During the delivery, the infant's shoulder became stuck in the birth canal. Despite numerous attempts to correct the situation, he remained stuck for upwards of four minutes.

He was born weighing more than 11 pounds, and suffered from extensive brain damage from the lack of oxygen to his brain during delivery. He was later diagnosed with Erb's palsy and cerebral palsy (a group of motor conditions causing physical disability in development) as a result of the trauma.

The occurrence of Erb's palsy during delivery is the result of the head and neck being pulled to one side while the shoulder passes through the birth canal. The condition causes either partial or total paralysis of one arm, along with lack of sensation. The body's circulatory system may also fail to develop fully, leaving the victim unable to properly regulate temperature in that arm during colder conditions. Chronic pain may also be a part of that child's life, along with stiff joints and permanent disability. Pain associated with Erb's palsy is often described as a constant burning or crushing sensation.

Continue reading "$2 Million Award for Birth Defect Malpractice Victim" »

Surgical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report that an Alabama jury recently awarded a deceased man's family $3 million and held the surgeon negligent for delaying his gallbladder surgery. The 56-year-old man was hospitalized three separate times for severe gallbladder pain.

The man, Alan Hagar, was first admitted to Brookwood Medical Center in late November 2008 complaining of severe gallbladder pain. According to the lawsuit, all doctors involved in his treatment agreed on the first day that his gallbladder needed to be removed. Despite this, for reasons unclear, Hagar was discharged from the hospital two days later, without having undergone the surgery.

Hagar was re-admitted to the hospital another two days later, on November 29, where he stayed until December 5. His surgeon, Dr. Mirelman, continued to delay his removal surgery during that time. Again, on December 9, he returned to the hospital's ER, citing severe and consistent pain in his gallbladder. He remained in the hospital for more than two weeks without resection surgery, finally dying on Christmas Day.

For various unjustified reasons, Dr. Mirelman repeatedly denied his patient the surgery that could have saved his life. As a result, Hagar was forced to be repeatedly admitted and discharged to the hospital over a 30-day period, ultimately resulting in his death. Hagar's widow initially named about a dozen physicians and medical centers in her lawsuit, which was ultimately boiled down to Dr. Mirelman and Birmingham Surgical.

During the course of the trial, Mirelman attempted to argue that Hagar died of cardiac arrest and other natural causes; however, his death certificate and autopsy report affirmed that he actually died from a pus-filled gallbladder with severe inflammation and infection.

In related news, a woman in Michigan recently sued Trinity Health Michigan and two doctors for failing to diagnose lesions on her kidney. The woman, Marie Huddleston, underwent a CT scan of her abdomen in 2003. The scan revealed the presence of a kidney lesion, although the lesion was never revealed to her. Five years later, Huddleston again underwent a CT scan of her abdomen, which showed that the lesion had significantly expanded and become cancerous.

In her complaint, Huddleston alleged that her doctor, Joyce Leon, delayed in diagnosing her kidney cancer, ultimately resulting in the removal of her entire kidney. Had her cancer been diagnosed previously, in 2003, she would have only had to undergo a partial kidney removal.

Continue reading "Jury Awards $3 Million to Family of Man Who Died after Delayed Surgery " »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report of a $500 million verdict against a Las Vegas gastroenterologist and UnitedHealth Group. The plaintiffs alleged that UnitedHealth was negligent in signing a contract with the doctor, who allegedly exposed many patients to hepatitis C.

The lawsuit was brought by two plaintiffs who contracted hepatitis C after being treated by the doctor, Dipak Desai, in 2005. The 62-year-old former gastroenterologist allegedly mishandled anesthetics and had substandard sterilization practices, which led to the infections. Part of the blame is placed on UnitedHealth Group, which plaintiffs argued continued to renew contracts with Dr. Desai despite knowing about his inadequate medical practices.

The total $524 million award is so far the largest U.S. verdict of 2013. In 2005, the two plaintiffs went to Dr. Desai for colonoscopies. The doctor allegedly consistently reused anesthetic vials and failed to sterilize equipment, resulting in the hepatitis C exposure. Two years later, Nevada officials were forced to contact more than 50,000 patients who may have also been exposed. $24 million was awarded to the initial plaintiffs in compensatory damages.

UnitedHealth argued that insurance rates could skyrocket if insurers were held liable for the conduct of in-network doctors. The company denied the allegations against it and argued that the hepatitis C exposure was the fault of Desai, who cared more about profits than patient safety and health. It also argued that making insurers liable for the criminal actions of independent doctors would force those companies to initiate intrusive and expensive oversight into healthcare delivery.

Densai and two of his anesthetic nurses are also currently facing homicide chargers from the death of a colonoscopy patient. That trial is scheduled for later this month. The doctor is also facing federal fraud allegations.

In 1992, Health Plan of Nevada, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, dropped Desai from the network over quality care concerns. He was reinstated in 1997, which why plaintiffs were so adamant on naming the group in their lawsuit. They stated they are suing the group for violating public safety requirements and failing to make member health and safety its primary concern. Jurors agreed, finding that UnitedHealth was negligent in failing to monitor Desai's performance.

UnitedHealth affirmed that what was done to these patients was unconscionable, the result of a doctor intentionally disregarding fundamental common-sense medical principles to save a few bucks. Desai used the anesthetic Propofol, manufactured by Teva Pharmaceuticals in over-sized vials. The large size enabled, even invited Desai to reuse the vials, contributing to the hepatitis C infections. Nevada juries previously awarded colonoscopy patients over $750 million in damages over the over-sized Propofol. Another $250 million was used to settle more than 80 lawsuits.

A representative from UnitedHealth stated that the $500 million represented fantasy damages, not realistic punitive damages, and that the company intended to appeal the verdict. It argued the company was adequately punished with the $24 million jurors awarded the two sickened plaintiffs. It said it should not be held responsible for providing full-time monitoring of doctors in the HMO network, and that Desai had been credentialed at numerous state hospitals.

Continue reading "Huge Malpractice Verdict against Nevada Doctor who Exposed Patients to Hepatitis C" »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report that a woman in northeast Ohio is suing an abortion clinic after discovering she was still pregnant after the procedure, later giving birth to a healthy baby daughter. She is alleging negligence on the part of the doctors and the clinic.

The 22-year-old woman, Ariel Knight, made an appointment with the Akron Women's Medical Group when she learned she was pregnant because she feared her life was in danger. She had a pre-existing medical condition called uterine didelphys, which is a rare condition affecting the female uterus and can cause repeated miscarriages or preterm labor. In the suit, Knight argues that, because her health was compromised, and because she was solely responsible for the care of her preschool-aged son, carrying the child to full-term would put her and her son's well-being in jeopardy.

Knight was diagnosed with uterine didelphys while she was pregnant with her son. The condition is genetic, causing the uterus to be split in two while developing. She carried her son in her left uterus, which was healthy enough to carry her son to almost full term. In her second pregnancy, however, the fetus was located in the right uterus, which was not as healthy, unstable, and put her and her unborn child's lives at risk.

About a week after the procedure, Knight learned that she was still pregnant, and was referred to a second abortion clinic. However, Knight stated that this clinic was unwilling to perform the procedure, not wanting to be involved in the risky procedure. She made a second appointment at Akron Women's Medical Group but did not follow through.

Knight alleges that she spent the rest of her pregnancy in a state of constant fear and anxiety, worried what would happen to her unborn child, and to herself and her son, if any complications from her condition arose. Fortunately, nine months later, she gave birth to a healthy baby girl, who she calls her miracle baby.

Knight is still unsure why the abortion failed and why the doctor believed the procedure was complete. During the course of her pregnancy Knight was hospitalized four times, each lasting three to five days, and had to visit a special high-risk pregnancy physician twice a week.

Knight hopes the lawsuit, which was filed against the clinic and two doctors, will lead to better treatment of women in these types of clinics. Her description of the Akron Women's Medical Group is horrifying; she even went as far as to compare it to a slaughterhouse. She said there were dozens of women in the clinic at the time of her procedure, some even forced to stand. The procedural room itself was cramped, and she was told to position her lower body on a table above a trash bag. When the procedure was finished she was handed her things and shown the door.

She is seeking unspecified damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering. Her lawsuit alleges the clinic deviated from the standard of care, and Knight hopes to be a catalyst for change, at least for other women like her in northeast Ohio who wish, for personal and unique reasons, to undergo this procedure.

Although abortions are legal in the United States, bureaucratic limitations continue to render many clinics across the country unsafe. Just a year ago, in August 2012, a woman entered one of these clinics on Chicago's South Side to undergo an abortion. Following the procedure, she began bleeding uncontrollably. For reasons that are not yet clear, staff waited an astounding five and a half hours to bring her to Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

Continue reading "Ohio Woman Sues Clinic over Failed Abortion " »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report that a case filed by the parents of a teen who died after being deprived of oxygen during dental surgery recently settled out of court. The suit was filed against the anesthesiologist, oral surgeon, and medical practice, alleging negligence after they failed to revive the girl when her heart rate fell to dangerous levels.

The 17-year-old was undergoing routine oral surgery to remove her wisdom teeth when her heart rate began to fall. Her dangerously low heartbeat caused significant deprivation of oxygen to her brain. She did not have a pulse when emergency responders arrived at the Maryland office, which led to massive brain injury. She subsequently went into a coma for ten days and ultimately died. Her autopsy report stated that she indeed died from the lack of oxygen to her brain during the surgery, and that she was an otherwise healthy girl with no significant medical history.

The conditions and amount of the settlement were not made public, however, the court files show that her parents filed five counts of medical negligence along with other medical failures. Their lawsuit requested more than $30,000 for each of those five counts.

At the time of the filing, the teen's mother stated that she wished to raise awareness of the very real dangers of dental procedures - particularly those that require anesthesia. She wants to make Americans aware that routine visits for dental care can turn out to be anything but. According to the Maryland chief medical examiner, the teen was given the standard dose of anesthesia, which did not put her fully under, so doctors administered additional medication.

The president of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation affirmed that a patient's breathing and oxygen levels should be constantly monitored even during routine procedures relating to anesthesia. This can be accomplished through medical equipment and careful observation. Should the patient's levels be monitored properly, any signs of inadequate oxygenation would be evident and corrected before it caused cardiac arrest.

The girl's mother has been in contact with the Raven Maria Blanco Foundation, which advocates on behalf of dental safety. The foundation's website lists more than 35 children who have died during dental-related procedures.

Too often, dental offices allow unlicensed employees to perform anesthesia sedation, which carries extreme risks even when administered by certified anesthesiologists. These risks include allergic reactions, cardiovascular incidents, respiratory depression, stroke, and brain injury. Further intensifying the dangers is that most dental offices are not equipped with emergency equipment that could have potentially saved the life of the Maryland teen.

Unfortunately, dentist offices carry risks other than those associated with anesthesia. Recently in suburban Oklahoma, for example, about 7,000 dental patients of one office were forced to get tested for possible HIV and hepatitis exposure. State health officials and investigators stated that the W. Scott Harrington office was allowing unlicensed employees performe IV sedation, and found numerous sterilization and cross-contamination issues. They also found the drug lockers to be unlocked and unattended, with medications long past their expiration date. Neither were there any inventory logs for the drug cabinet, and one medication they found expired in 1993.

Continue reading "Lawsuit from Death of Teen after Dental Surgery Settles" »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report of a story of a young man with cerebral palsy who was recently the victim of devastating medical malpractice. A jury awarded the man $3.5 million in compensation for his injuries.

In 2005, Jeremy Freeman suffered a fall at his home and was taken to the emergency room at Walker Baptist Medical Center in Alabama. Doctors conducted a CT scan of his head and he was eventually sent home. Ten days later, Freeman returned to the hospital because of sharp pains in his neck and numbness in both hands, which are known, traditional signs of spinal cord injury. An x-ray of his spine was performed, however, doctors failed to order an MRI or reflex testing, which would have determined if the spinal cord was in any way injured (x-rays show only bone abnormalities).

Again, Freeman was sent home to his apartment where he lived alone. As a youth, Freeman suffered from cerebral palsy, which is a neurological disorder related to abnormal brain development. At the time, Freeman was 27-years-old, and ardently fought to overcome cerebral palsy, successfully getting a diver's license, an apartment by himself, and a maintenance job.

Two months after his second hospital visit, however, his mother found him almost completely paralyzed in his bedroom, unable to move to get help. He was taken to the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where he was found to have massive disc hernias on his spinal cord.

Doctors immediately performed surgery to relieve the pressure on his spinal cord, although the two months Freeman spent with the undiagnosed hernias left him with permanent spine injury and partial paralysis. He is now wheelchair-bound and wholly dependent on his mother for care. He suffers from spastic quadriparesis, which is one of the most severe forms of cerebral palsy, affecting all four of his limbs. He can no longer work, and is largely unemployable because of his injuries.

The trial lasted nine days, and the $3.5 million verdict is the largest malpractice verdict in Walker County history. This case was particularly devastating because of the great bounds Freeman took throughout his life to overcome his cerebral palsy - efforts that were completely reversed by one doctor's negligence. A simple MRI would have detected the disc hernias.

Cerebral palsy is one of the most severe birth injuries a child can sustain during labor and delivery. The disorder can be caused by an array of factors, however, the unfortunate reality is that many infants develop cerebral palsy because of negligence by doctors and nurses during the delivery process, when the baby is deprived of oxygen.

In one such case, a Maryland woman was giving birth at home with the assistance of a midwife when the baby became stuck. The mother and her husband rushed to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where she was forced to wait two hours for a C-section. Nurses claimed they had to wait for blood tests in order to perform the surgery.

Ultimately, the child developed cerebral palsy, which his parents believe was due to the lack of oxygen to his brain during that two hour period. He is unable to speak, walk, or even sit up on his own. They filed a lawsuit against Johns Hopkins, where experts testified that the C-section should have been performed within 30 to 40 minutes. The jury awarded the family $55 million, which they plan to use for medical treatments for their son, hoping one day he can do more than just smile.

Continue reading "$3.5 Million Malpractice Verdict for Young Alabama Man " »

In 2011, new regulations were introduced to restrict the amount of hours first-year residents could spend at the hospital from 24 to 16. Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins highlight the most recent data showing that medical interns are actually reporting more mistakes after these new regulations.

The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, and took information from 2,300 doctors from over a dozen hospitals in the U.S for a period of three months. Researchers compared this information to that of interns working before the 2011 regulations were implemented. Those at the hospital after the 2011 regulations worked no longer than 16 hours during any given shift, while those working before the new rules were on call for a maximum of 30 hours. The data was all self-reported, as interns recorded their on-duty and sleeping hours, symptoms of depression and fatigue, well-being, and medical errors.

The findings are somewhat disconcerting. Although interns working after the new regulations spent fewer hours at the hospital, they were not reporting sleeping any more on average than those residents working before the new rules. The risk of depression between the two groups remained the same, at about 20%. Most alarmingly, the number of reported medical mistakes in the post-2011 group was higher than the pre-2011 interns - an increase of about 15 to 20%.

How could this be possible? Interns reported many problems with the new system, perhaps the most significant being that they were still expected to complete the same amount of duties as the pre-2011 class, despite having about half the hours to accomplish them in. Overworked employees at any job site will simply not perform as well as those who are allocated a fair number of tasks. This type of work compression is a major factor in the majority of nursing home abuse and neglect cases, for example, as overworked nurses fail to meet the needs of each resident in a proper manner.

Similarly, the more interns are pressed for time, the more likely they are to make mistakes and errors. For most of the dozen programs studied, the reduction in work time did not also include any increase in funding to hire additional staff, which results in understaffing and, ultimately, more errors.

The decrease in working hours also leads to an increase in the amount of times the duties are handed off between interns. In the pre-2011 group, the average of hand-offs was about three in a single shift; in the post-2011 group, the average shot to nine. Every time a doctor hands off his case to another there is a significant chance for error. Miscommunications can occur in explaining potential complications, allergies, aspects of the patient's medical history, or other contributing factors. When a switch occurs nine times in one shift, the chances that an error will occur skyrocket.

In 2011, two doctors wrote in TIME that handoffs of this kind are notoriously fraught with dangerous miscommunications, creating opportunities for errors to arise, as the new shift workers are entering unfamiliar territory and are often not as emotionally invested in the patient's care. The doctors went on to suggest that physicians and nurses take breaks to nap while on the job to improve the sleep deprivation problems. Several studies showed that instituting naps did indeed improve this deprivation, in turn improving performance. Tired doctors often fail to recognize that they are fatigued, which leads to more medical mistakes.

Continue reading "Reducing Medical Training Hours means More Medical Mistakes " »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins highlight a troubling story from VA Pittsburgh, where a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease took the lives of at least five veterans. As many as 21 other veterans were sickened by the outbreak, which lasted between February 2011 and November 2012 at the VA's O'Hara and Oakland hospital sites.

The CDC informed VA Pittsburgh in October 2012 that contaminated tap water was the source of the outbreak. The hospitals only recently contacted the victims' families to inform them of the reason behind their loved ones deaths and injuries in an 'institutional disclosure' meeting. Many wonder why it took VA Pittsburgh so long - between 18 to 20 months - to disclose the source of sickness and to contact the victims and their families.

The family of one victim, Navy veteran John Ciarolla, recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the VA. They were not informed of the Legionnaire's outbreak until a year and eight months after his passing. Federal policy requires medical officials to inform patients or their families about adverse events, including hospital conditions that could cause death or injury, as soon as possible. However, none of the affected victims and families were offered the 'institutional disclosure' meetings until five months after the CDC reports came out.

The meetings lasted about an hour, and VA officials never admitted any wrongdoing. Maureen Ciarolla, the daughter of the deceased, stated that no one who ever directly cared for her father was present at the meeting to answer questions about his treatment or state of being in his final days. Ciarolla died in July 2011 from complications from pneumonia; Legionnaire's disease is the second leading cause of pneumonia among patients in VA hospital intensive care units.

The family of World War II Navy veteran William Nicklas had a similar meeting with VA Pittsburgh officials in February 2013. They also intend to file a claim against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that the city's VA healthcare system had numerous chances to stop the Legionella bacteria contamination, the first one being in July 2011 when the first patient, Ciarolla, died of Legionnaire's. The system's infection-control, engineering, laboratory, and plumbing staffs, however, failed to catch the contamination until a staggering 16 months after this. The outbreak is now the focus of a VA and congressional investigation.

According to federal documents, when the fist patient tested positive for Legionnaire's, infection control employees checked for the bacteria only in the rooms where that patient stayed. The chief of infection control told VA officials that his staff did not perform any additional testing because the department is extremely understaffed and stretched thin. Infection control employees later determined the patient contracted the disease outside the hospital. Due to this, Pittsburgh VA's chief of staff was not aware of the deaths, which prevented the hospital from taking action earlier in the outbreak.

In February 2011, the University Drive VA reported an unusual amount of Legionella in its water systems, finding the bacteria in six of 16 water sites. The hospital immediately performed a 'heat and flush' procedure to kill the bacteria. Testing the next month came back clear of Legionella.

According to a CDC report, doctors never received a sputum sample from Ciarolla after his death, although the test was positive for Legionnaire's. As stated, the environmental samples were negative, though they were only taken from specific rooms. Thus, with no patient or environmental samples to review, the infection control teams blamed the University Drive VA for Ciarolla's contamination, as he spent about three days there previously.

Continue reading "More than 20 Veterans Infected with Deadly Disease at two VA Hospitals" »

Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins report that a Maryland doctor was recently ordered to pay $1.42 million to a patient after removing the incorrect ovary during surgery and actively lying about the mistake afterwards.

The patient went to see OB/GYN Doctor Maureen Muoneke, who has a practice in Columbia, MD, because of a cyst on her left ovary. The patient, Nadege Neim, was pregnant at the time, and Dr. Muoneke recommended she have the cyst removed to prevent any complications that could harm the fetus. She checked into Saint Agnes Hospital in Baltimore soon after, where Dr. Muoneke performed the surgery.

After the procedure, Muoneke told Neim that the surgery had gone well, and that she had successfully removed the ovary. What she did not specify, however, was the she accidently removed the right-side ovary instead of the affected left, in addition to the Neim's fallopian tube.

The woman returned to Muoneke about a month later with severe pain in her pelvic region, although the doctor never revealed to her that she accidentally removed the wrong organs. Ultimately, the pain became so extreme that Neim was taken to Howard County General Hospital. There, a different doctor gave her a CT scan, informed her that the cyst was still on her left ovary, and that the right ovary and fallopian tube were removed.

During court proceedings, the patient claimed that Muoneke even tried to cover up the error by forging the woman's medical records. Neim claimed that, after the fact, Muoneke fraudulently went into her records and added that she was complaining of pain in the right side of her pelvis, opposed to the left, among other descriptions that justified her falsely removing the right-side organs.

The jury returned with a verdict on the case after an hour of deliberation. They awarded Neim $1.42 million in compensation for the ordeal.

In an eerily similar case, a woman in Texas recently sued for medical malpractice after her left ovary was removed in a surgery without her consent. The patient, Taryn Stevens, filed the lawsuit against the hospital, Memorial Hermann Baptist Beaumont Hospital, and her physician, Dr. Khalid Kayani.

Under Texas malpractice law, plaintiffs are required to provide expert testimony when filing their claim. The judge heard Stevens' expert reports, denied the defendant's motion for mediation, and allowed the case to continue; the case is expected to face a trial in the summer of 2013.

Stevens entered Hermann Baptist Hospital in 2010 for a myomectomy, which is a surgery to remove uterine fibroids. These growths can appear on the uterus during a woman's childbearing years, and it is the surgeon's goal to remove the fibroids and reconstruct the uterus, leaving the pelvic organs intact.

During the course of the surgery, however, Dr. Kayani removed Stevens' left ovary, a procedure which she did not consent to. Stevens is suing the doctor and hospital for past and future medical expense, mental anguish, and impairment.

Continue reading "Doctor pays $1.4 Million for Removing Wrong Organs" »

A recent Reuter's article affirmed that diagnostic errors are a major public health issue, and may even lead to more patient deaths and injuries than most other mistakes. Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins highlight this article to bring the frightening reality of the effects of missed and wrong diagnoses to public attention.

The article cited Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine's Dr. David Newman-Toker, who stated that a minimum of 150,000 Americans per year suffer from disabilities or death as a result of diagnostic errors. Dr. Newman-Toker wrote a commentary on a new study in which researchers tracked nearly 200 diagnostic errors at a primary care health facility using electronic health records.

The cases researchers tracked involved misdiagnoses that lead to hospitalization or ER visits within two weeks. Researchers found that the ailments in these cases varied largely, ranging from heart failure to cancer to pneumonia. Each of these conditions made up about five to seven percent of illnesses that physicians mistakenly diagnosed as something else at first visit. Out of the nearly 200 patients who suffered from missed or wrong diagnoses, more than 35 had serious and permanent damage done to them as a result. Alarmingly, nearly 30 patients died.

Researchers noted that many of these patients showed signs and symptoms that are very commonplace, such as shortness of breath and stomach pains, which could be symptomatic of a wide array of ailments. Most of the diagnostic errors could be traced back to the initial primary care visit, when the doctor did not receive an adequate patient's history, failed to administer a full exam, or did not order the correct tests.

Errors of this type can be corrected, but many of these changes have to come from medical school training programs. Patients can curtail a small amount of errors by coming to the doctor's office prepared with their medical history and other relevant information, including the details and timing of their symptoms.

Dr. Newman-Toker stated that he thinks it is important that patients feel comfortable questioning and observing their doctors. Patients should engage, ask pointed questions, and not just assume that diagnoses are the final, correct answer. For example, if a patient's symptoms worsen or change, doctors should be notified, and patients should not assume their condition is not serious just because their doctor initially told them it was not.

In one misdiagnosis medical malpractice lawsuit, a mother is suing a pediatrician for failing to recognize that her daughter had viral meningitis. The eight-year-old girl was taken to the pediatrician with a headache, fever, and sore neck. According to the pediatrician's notes, there were six possible explanations, including allergies, migraines, and viral meningitis.

The physician determined the girl was suffering from allergies, and sent her and her mother home with medication and instructions to keep a diary about her symptoms. 48 hours after being sent home, the girl started having seizures and fell into a three-week coma. She emerged from the coma with permanent, life-changing brain damage.

In the lawsuit, a specialist in children's brain damage was called to testify. He stated that viral meningitis is such a serious and disabling condition that doctors cannot afford to mistake it as something else, further stating that this particular pediatrician violated the standard of care by failing to perform tests for meningitis.

Continue reading "Missed and Wrong Diagnoses Put Thousands at Risk " »

As the disagreement continues over $85 million worth of federal budget cuts, the financial stability of all federal agencies hangs in the balance. Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins note that some point to medical malpractice reform as a creative way to slash the national debt.

An article in Bloomberg highlighted this proposal, explaining how reform could decelerate healthcare costs and subsequently aid in implementing a long-term deficit reduction plan. Currently, the top 25% most expensive Medicare beneficiaries make up 85% of total Medicare spending. Those expenses are the culmination of individual doctor's recommendations; meaning that spending is mostly driven by the treatment plans doctors prescribe to Medicare patients.

Although doctors are influenced by an array of factors in making their decisions, the most prominent include individual training, financial incentives, healthcare traditions, and the current medical malpractice system. Recent research by Cornell Law School suggests that if the federal government improves the criteria for what is considered appropriate care the results would not only change doctor's behavior, but save a significant amount of money as well.

There are currently proposals for legislation in many states that would alter the medical malpractice laws, however, these bills are mostly aimed at limiting doctor's and hospital's liability. The more important issue legislators should be focusing on is how guilt is determined in the first place. When medical mistakes are made, guilt is usually placed on whoever deviated from standard, customary practice. This concept made sense in previous decades, when only a few treatment options were available. Today, with the extreme acceleration of medicinal technologies, this concept is now ambiguous to say the least.

The concept of following standard and customary practices causes most doctors to merely mimic what others are doing or have done in the same situation, and use those methods to treat their patients. If modern medicine has taught us anything, however, it is that what we traditionally believed to be the correct, most effective forms of treatment are often anything but.

By changing the definition of the standard of care, states could then protect doctors more fully through their medical malpractice laws. The key to changing this definition is by making sure the standard is based not on tradition, but on good, modern, effective medicine.

In 2012, US spent nearly $3 trillion on health care, which is about 18% of total national spending on goods and services. Some are proposing the federal government creates a safety net for doctors who follow evidence-based, published medical documents when choosing their route of treatment. Institutions such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse would be responsible for deciding the qualifying guidelines for these new medical standards.

In theory, then, patients would not be able to file lawsuits for malpractice if the doctor or hospital could prove that they followed a best-care standard based on evidence and published, pre-approved research. On the other hand, if a doctor failed to adhere to best-care guidelines, and decided to follow the traditional, out-dated methods instead, a patient would have significant basis for a malpractice claim.

Continue reading "How Medical Malpractice Law Reform Could Reduce the Deficit " »

In the lawsuit, country singer LeeAnn Rimes is arguing that her dentist caused her permanent cosmetic deficiencies from his many mistakes, affecting her ability to perform and causing her to cancel several shows. Medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins are highlighting this story because dental negligence is often overlooked in malpractice law, although it can cause significant pain and suffering.

The singer is suing Dr. Duane C. McKay for the work he performed on her between December 2009 and April 2012, claiming he misdiagnosed her dental issues and conducted substandard care. In the initial incident, Dr. McKay allegedly gave her veneers that were the wrong shape, size and color, which he later substituted with crowns. The crowns caused her severe tooth pain, chronic gum bleeding, and gum inflammation, and eventually required emergency extraction.

Rimes needed all eight crowns removed, along with one tooth extraction, bone grafting, and nine root canals, which were all caused by the defective crowns. She is now seeking undisclosed compensation for emotional and psychological damage, pain and suffering, medical bills, and loss in earnings. The singer was forced to cancel numerous performances in the summer of 2012 in order to undergo emergency root canals.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. McKay told the singer that, through his work, pain in her Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) would subside, leading to the initial surgery. Many people suffer pain in this area, which is the sliding hinge connecting the jawbone to the skull. TMJ injuries can manifest through pain in the jaw, around the ear, and difficulty chewing. Most dentists recommend treating TMJ with nonsurgical treatments or pharmaceuticals. It is unclear what the motivation behind recommending surgery for Rimes was.

Dentists can be sued for substandard and negligent care just like medical doctors, nurses and hospitals can. Patients often suffer permanent and life-altering injuries from dental negligence - some have even died while in the dentist's chair. This happens when dentists and nurses inadequately or inappropriately administer anesthesia. Many dentists put you under needlessly, in the guise of "pain-free procedures," to increase profit margins.

In one such case, a six-year-old boy entered the Virginia Commonwealth University Pediatric Dental Clinic in 2010 to get crowns on some of his teeth. The dentist ordered the boy to be put under a general anesthetic, which rendered him unconscious for the entire procedure. The boy suffered an abnormal heartbeat as soon as his breathing tube was improperly removed, and because the dental team did not monitor his condition adequately, he was pronounced dead at a nearby medical center. His cause of death was due to a cardiac arrest, induced by the improper removal of a breathing tube.

His family brought a wrongful deal claim against the dentist's office, alleging that the team failed to monitor the boy's heart and respiratory conditions, vital signs, and oxygen saturation levels through the procedure. They eventually settled for $100,000.

Another child, this time a four-year-old girl, suffered a cardiac arrest in a similar dental incident. The girl survived the episode, but she will now suffer from permanent brain damage for the rest of her life. Her mother says she will never walk, talk, or eat on her own again. A general practitioner administered the girl's anesthesia. This case illuminates the wide and dangerous discrepancy between dental anesthesiology and medical anesthesiology.

Continue reading "LeeAnn Rimes Sues Dentist for Medical Malpractice " »