Louisville Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Indiana Medical Malpractice Law Slashes Verdict

Karl Truman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:07:00 GMT

A woman died of complications from a mechanical bowel obstruction that had perforated; the woman's estate blamed her death on the hospital fo rtemporarily misplacing a radiological film that would have revealed the seriousness of her condition and on her surgeon for failing to operate promptly.

The woman was admitted to the hospital ICU with severe abdominal pain. Her surgeon and attending physician were unaware that the hospital did an x-ray several days earlier that revealed a mechanical small bowel obstruction. This condition is considered a medical emergency that requires immediate surgery. However, the hospital misplaced the x-ray.

Her condition continued to deteriorate. She became septic, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and was placed on life support. Tragically, she died shortly thereafter.

The case was tried in Indianapolis, Indiana. The jury found in favor of the defendant doctor, but awarded damages against the hospital in the amount of $8,500,000.00. Under Indiana law, the court reduced the award to the statutory maximum of $1,250,000.00. The jury was not allowed to know about this statutory limit.

How would you feel if this happened to your wife, daughter or mother? Would you willingly agree that the state legislature should place an arbitrary legal limit on the value of your loved one's life?

The other interesting aspect of a case like this, that the jury is not allowed to know, is that the hospital is only responsible up to $250,000.00. So, regardless of how horrible the injury, or how reckless their behavior, that is the most they can be held accountable for. Above that, there is a state fund that is responsible for up to an additional $1,000,000.00 for the total of $1,250,000.00.

With such a limit of damages, what incentive does a doctor or hospital have to negotiate a reasonable settlement? Since doctors and hospitals win most medical malpractice trials anyway, they have the exact opposite incentive - make injured victims go to trial on every case. They have nothing to lose and the odds are in their favor to win anyway.

This is one of the effects of placing arbitrary caps on damages. Would you call this "fair" if it were your family member?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

$2.2 million verdict for medical mistake

Karl Truman — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:48:00 GMT

A $2.2 million damages verdict was obtained on behalf of a widower of a 68 year old woman in Marion County, Indiana. The case involved a woman with a history of a fatty liver requiring a liver transplant and leading to the development of heart disease. As a result of her condition, she underwent heart bypass surgery and valve replacement. While the surgery was a technical success, a surgical foam pad was inadvertently left inside the woman at the conclusion of the surgery. When the pad was discovered a month later, it had become stuck to her heart and multiple peroforations occurred when the pad was removed, resulting in a five-week-long, painful death from mulit-system organ failure.

Initially, liability was contested as the hospital and surgeon claimed the other was responsible for the pad's removal. After the decision of the medical review panel, liability was determined and the damages case was tried against the Patient's Compensation Fund. The primary dispute was over the value of the case, given the decedent's age of 68 and because she had a decreased life expectancy prior to the malpractice given her liver transplant, heart disease and other conditions.

The case was tried in Marion County in June 2009 and damages were determined to be $2.2 million. Under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, the judge was required to reduce the damages to the statutory cap of $1.25 million.

The case was tried by Tony Patterson of Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

An Example of Why Medical Malpractice Reform Does Not Work

Karl Truman — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:10:00 GMT

The idea of restricting a patient's right to sue and recover damages when harmed by medical negligence has been resurfacing as part of the healthcare debate. I found a great example of why this does not work and hurts patients.

Indiana has laws limiting a patient's right to sue for medical mistakes. I found this article Crushed By My Own Reform by Frank Cornelius. Here is an individual who helped pass the law in Indiana limiting damages to $500,000.00 (now $1.25 million). At the time, this was praised as a way to reduce healthcare costs and encourage physicians to stay in Indiana.

He wrote his article in 1994 from his wheelchair. From what began as a fairly routine and not life-threatening procedure, developed into a series of medical mistakes which left him on a respirator and less than two years to live.

His future medical costs were projected at $5 million, yet under the law he pushed to enact, his recovery was limited to $500,000.00.

He said it well:

Medical negligence cannot be reduced simply by restricting consumers’ legal rights. That will happen only when the medical industry begins to effectively police its own. I don’t expect to see that day.

Frank Cornelius decided to devote his remaining days towards trying to prevent other state legislatures from being duped into letting medical industry wrongdoers off the hook.

Karl Truman

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

VA Clinics to be Investigated for Exposing Veterans to HIV and Hepatitis

Karl Truman — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:37:00 GMT

The VA recommended more than 10,000 former VA patients in Miami, FL., Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Augusta, Ga., get follow-up blood checks for HIV and Hepatitis B and C due to improperly sterilized endoscopy equipment. Currently, 5 veterans have tested positive for HIV and 43 other VA patients have tested positive for hepatitis.

Bill Poovey of the AP reported that:

In Miami, a tube that was supposed to be cleaned after each colonoscopy was instead cleaned at the end of each day, affecting patients between May 2004 and March 2009. And in Augusta, the ENT scopes used for looking into the nose and throat weren't properly cleaned, affecting patients between January 2008 and November 2008.

It is unknown if the patients were infected as a result of the unsterilized equipment. The VA has stated that it will pay for treatment regardless of whether or not the patients were infected by the unsterilized equipment.

CNN reports the VA as stating:

It is reviewing procedures at other facilities. So far, it says, it has encountered no additional problems. In the meantime, the VA has brought in additional personnel to help with testing and counseling in Miami, Murfreesboro, and Augusta. It has also set up a toll-free number that VA patients and their families can call, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for additional information: 1-877-575-7256.

A Congressional Panel has been put together to question officials of the Department of Veteran Affairs.

CNN provided:

In a letter last month to Gen. Eric Shinseki, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, requested that the VA Office of Inspector General "begin an investigation into the potential problems of contamination; whether any patient has contracted an infection from unsterilized equipment; and, most importantly, how we can prevent such problems from happening again."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

Nevada Re-Evaluates Its Limits on Medical Malpractice Damages

Karl Truman — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:32:27 GMT

In 2004 Nevada passed a law that capped punitive damages to $350,000 in medical malpractice cases. The bill was part of the “Keep our Doctors in Nevada Act” in which supporters claimed limits on recovery were necessary in order to keep doctors in high specialties in the state.

Now, due to a hepatitis outbreak, as a result of unsanitary vaccination practices, Nevada has re-evaluated its stance on tort reform and is initiated the passing of AB495, which would eliminate the cap on non-economic damages.

The hepatitis outbreak resulted in 50,000 patients being notified that they were put at risk for contracting the disease. The AP reports that this is the largest patient notification in U.S. history.

Opponents of AB495 reiterate that the lifting the limit on non-economic damages will place doctors in the same precarious situation to either relocate their practices or face high insurance premiums.

Supporters of the bill contend that $350,000 does not adequately compensate victims of medical malpractice. For example, Cathy Bussewitz of the Associated Press noted:

Megan Gasper, 33, a mother of two children, told legislators she contracted hepatitis C after having two colonoscopies performed at the two clinics where the outbreak occurred, the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and the Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center.

"This has pretty much stolen a year of my life," Gasper said, fighting tears. "When you have to get up out of bed every day, and know that you have to take a medicine that will seriously affect your ability to play with your children, it's hard to give yourself a self-injection."

Former patients and family members told frightening stories of substandard care. Kevin Murray lost his daughter when doctors failed to notice the signs of meningitis. Michael Washington, who was the first patient to test positive for hepatitis C after the outbreak, said he would never be normal again.

To some supporters of the bill, these claims reinforce their beliefs that limits on non-economic caps decrease the quality of care patients will receive since doctors have limited liability for their mistakes.

While it’s clear that Congress intends for tort reform to reduce the amount of insurance premiums paid by doctors, there is much conflict as to whether capping “pain and suffering” damages is effective. In 2007, Public Citizen issued “The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax.” In this report, Public Citizen noted:

American Medical Association President Donald Palmisano told the 2004 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates that “what is driving this crisis are the out-of-sight awards some runaway juries are handing out in certain liability cases.” This assertion is incorrect on the facts – when adjusted for inflation, the median judgment grew only from $125,000 in 1991 to $139,100 in 2005, a mere $14,000 over 14 years. Such a modest increase hardly suggests that juries are irrational

In addition, it was further reported:

· The number of malpractice payments declined 15.4 percent between 1991 and 2005.

· Adjusted for inflation, the average annual payment for verdicts declined 8 percent between 1991 and 2005.

· Payments for million-dollar verdicts were less than 3 percent of all payments in 2005.

These are just sone of many discrepancies regarding tort reform. Even insurance companies seem to have difficulty providing consistent statistics that tort reform is effective.

For more facts on medical malpractice claims and tort reform click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

Tort Reform Arguments Fueld by Insurers, Tobacco Companies and Corporations

Karl Truman — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:00:00 GMT

A "tort" simply defined, is a civil wrong, where the injured party may be entitled to recover monetary damages. "Tort Reform" refers to proposed laws designed to curtail litigation and limit the amount of damages recoverable in a civil lawsuit.

Proponents for tort reform usually claim that it’s necessary because the plaintiffs’ bar unfairly burdens insurance companies with lawsuits, which in turn increase insurance premiums for policy holders. Another argument for tort reform is that it causes physicians to practice “defensive medicine,” which drives up the cost of healthcare.

These arguments have been fueled by supporters who have the most at stake, such as insurance and tobacco companies. These industries pay vast sums of money to help persuade people to believe that the plaintiffs’ bar is to blame for the flaws in the healthcare and insurance industries.

For example, in an article published in the AAJ, Stephanie Mencimer notes that

the campaign for tort “reform” is more than 30 years old, manifest in the efforts of insurers, tobacco companies, and corporate-funded think tanks and advocacy groups to ply reporters and the public with “fictitious or badly misleading stories that purport to show that the nation suffers from a crisis of frivolous litigation.

Thanks to the internet, vast quantities of information are available to consumers and it’s much easier to get both sides of an issue so long as a person is interested in thinking for themselves.

In addressing the issue of tort reform, an article in POLITICO, noted that:

Although the details have yet to be ironed out, the Obama Administration has admitted it will be discussing the issue of liability. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called for changes to the system, even as he acknowledged that research doesn't uniformly back up anecdotal claims from physicians that malpractice suits are driving up health care costs.

While the debate for tort reform is ongoing, the plaintiffs' bar it's hardly to blame for the increase in healthcare and insurance cost.

Plaintiff attorneys have been scapegoats for the flaws in the insurance and healthcare industries for decades. Filing frivolous lawsuits is not a common occurence nor is it an acceptable way to practice law among the profession. Contrary to what the Defense Bar and its clients would like to have people believe, plaintiff attorneys really do represent the most deserving victims, a job which we take very seriously.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

Medical Malpractice Reform

Robin Bara — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:02:04 GMT

President Obama declared in early March that Medical Malpractice Reform is being considered as part of the overall proposition to reform the healthcare industry. As part of the reform, President Obama proposes that punitive damages and pain and suffering awards be capped. Such damages are often referred to as non-economic recovery, and the debate on capping such awards has been an ongoing topic of debate on Capitol Hill.

In article by the American Bar Association reports that, in addition to setting caps on non-economic damages, the Obama administration is considering establishing "special health courts" and Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means to better facilitate settlement negotiations and allow for the malpractice party to offer its condolences to the aggrieved party.

The issue with creating legislation that caps non-economic recovery is that it defeats the purpose of awarding non-economic damages. By definition, putative damages are an equitable remedy awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The purpose of these awards is to prevent the plaintiffs from being under-compensated. Reducing the amount of economic recovery hinders the victims' rights to just compensation.

In viewing the reform into an economic context, reducing the amount on non-economic recovery forces the victims to accept less than they may actually deserve and provides little incentive for physicians to provide a high quality of care to patients.

While it is clear that the healthcare industry is in need of reform, capping non-economic damages is treating a symptom to a much larger problem and does little to nothing to resolve the problem itself.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robin Bara

Doctors Warn of New Drug-Resistant Infections

Karl Truman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:14:50 GMT

Doctors are concerned that a lesser known class of drug-resistant infections could soon pose a major health threat to hospital patients. Known as "gram-negative" bacteria, infections such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae are especially difficult to treat because of their ability to fight off even the most advanced antibiotics. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been blamed for the death of a Brazilian beauty queen earlier this year. Read the article in the LA Times

Regretably, after looking at several medical malpractice claims involving infections, a severe infection while at the hospital is generally considered an expected risk, so I have not been able to prove negligence.

Karl Truman

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

Student sues Ohio University for medical negligence

Karl Truman — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:02:39 GMT

The Columbus Dispatch reported that Molly Millsop, "a student, is suing Ohio University for medical negligence, alleging health-care workers failed to diagnose a case of flesh-eating bacteria that led to the loss of her right arm and shoulder." The suit alleges "that Millsop went to the Hudson Health Center on the Athens campus three times within 12 hours on Sept. 6, 2007, but a physician failed to detect she was suffering from necrotizing fasciitis."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karl Truman

Actor John Ritter's Doctors Cleared in Malpractice Suit

Jennifer Moore — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:39:06 GMT

The family of John Ritter brought suit against his cardiologist and radiologist for medical malpractice. Actor Ritter died in 2003 of a torn aorta. A jury cleared both the cardiologist and radiologist of any negligence. The family had previously settled with eight other medical providers. The family argued that the cardiologist should have ordered a chest x-ray which may have revealed a torn aorta.

During the trial, attorneys for the families sought to show that Lee rushed to a faulty diagnosis and failed to have a chest X-ray taken that would have revealed the torn aorta, resulting in surgery that would have saved him.
Testimony showed that an X-ray was ordered as soon as Ritter arrived at the emergency room but for unknown reasons it was never done. Lee was called in later in the evening after Ritter was already diagnosed with a heart attack.
Defense testimony characterized the aortic dissection as lethal and contended that even with surgery the outcome would have been the same.
Lotysch testified he told Ritter he had calcification in three coronary arteries and should consult other doctors. But in a related finding, the jury decided that Ritter's failure to pursue that medical consultation was not a cause of his death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jennifer Moore