Blog

Archive for the ‘Is it Medical Malpractice?’ Category

A Website That Exploits Doctors’ Fear Of Medical Malpractice Claims

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

We recently came upon a business called “Medical Justice” that has its own website and is apparently operated by a former practicing neurosurgeon that gave us pause and raised ethical and other questions when we read on its website that it “offers proactive services that protect physicians’ reputations and deter proponents of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.”

Our suspicions further deepened as we read that “Medical Justice” claims that it “harnesses the principles of medicine, law, and business to defeat dishonest plaintiffs, unethical medical malpractice attorneys, and unscrupulous expert witnesses, using three key objectives: Deter frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits…Warn proponents of medical malpractice lawsuits with a strategic Early Action Program…Enable members to take corrective legal action or pursue such action in Medical Justice’s name when requested and appropriate.”

The website further promises, “If a frivolous case proceeds to court and results in a win for the physician, it is reviewed by other Medical Justice members in the same field of practice to determine whether the medical testimony violated professional ethical standards. If the answer is yes, Medical Justice directly pursues sanctions in extralegal venues. This benefit inures not only to the member in question, but also to all members, by preventing unethical parties from causing future harm to others. Medical Justice will also, if warranted, allocate up to $100,000 to pursue a countersuit directly against the proponent of the lawsuit.”

We read the promise of “sanctions in extralegal venues” and the additional promise of ”up to $100,000 to pursue a countersuit directly against the proponent of the lawsuit” as thinly veiled threats against medical experts who may testify on behalf of medical malpractice victims.

Source

“Medical Justice” apparently has drawn the attention of others who question its tactics and its intentions. A website maintained as a joint effort of the Santa Clara University High Tech Law Institute and The Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law states, “Medical Justice sells contracts to doctors—we call them “anti-review contracts”— that either expressly prohibit patients’ online reviews or permit patients to post online reviews so long as doctors can remove them whenever they want. In exchange for these restrictions, the contracts promise patients purportedly greater privacy. However, this privacy promise is illusory, and the restrictions these contracts impose on online reviews are a bad deal for patients—and everyone else.”

Source

On November 29, 2011, the Center for Democracy & Technology, a public interest organization that advocates for free expression and privacy in communications technologies, filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Medical Justice, alleging that Medical Justice has violated the FTC Act by committing deceptive and unfair business practices by ”distributing form contracts for patients to sign that either prohibit patients from commenting online or posting reviews about the doctor, or assign a copyright interest in any online reviews to the doctor, so the doctor can get them removed from the web at his or her discretion. As a result, doctors can ban patients from warning others about problems they might have had, or have an unchecked veto power to remove reviews they think are unfair or inappropriate. If a patient doesn’t want to sign the contract, the doctor can refuse to give medical treatment.”

Source

Medical Justice, which has about 3,000 members who are doctors and dentists, advocated the use of the contracts that it described as its “vaccine for libel,” recommending that its members have their patients sign the contracts that originally provided that patients could not post online comments without the doctors’ consent. After revisions were made to the contracts over time, the latest version granted doctors copyright permission to remove posts under certain circumstances.

The FTC complaint alleged that the contracts misled patients into believing that the contracts were intended to protect the patients’ privacy and would act as a deterrence to people posing as patients and writing false reviews. However, the alleged deterrence effect made no sense because those posing as patients and posting false reviews would not have signed the contracts in the first place. The FTC complaint alleged that the contracts would have a deleterious effect on consumers as well as ratings websites and that the contracts removed consumers’ control over the reviews they uploaded to rating sites.

The day after the FTC complaint was filed, Medical Justice announced that it was “retiring” its “vaccine for libel” contracts.

Source

We believe that the only doctors who need to fear medical malpractice claims against them are those doctors who provide negligent, substandard care that falls below the level of care that similarly situated doctors would have provided under similar circumstances – if the doctors’ care was appropriate, then they have no basis to fear that a medical malpractice claim will be filed against them.

If you suspect that you or a family member have become the victim of medical malpractice, you owe it to yourself and your family to consult with a medical malpractice attorney regarding you possible medical malpractice claim.

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

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

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

Study: Improving Economy Associated With Rise In Nursing Home Deaths

Monday, April 16th, 2012

A recently published research study by a well-respected nonpartisan research group operating under a grant from the Social Security Administration found that during improving economic times when lower-paid nursing home staff seek and obtain better paying jobs elsewhere, there are additional deaths of people over 65 (especially for women over 65) and that overall mortality rates rise with the rising economy. Therefore, there is a basis for concluding that when the economy is expanding, nursing home staff are reduced and become scarce and that deaths among elderly residents in nursing homes rise as a result.

Prior research has shown that death rates in the United States rise during periods of low unemployment and fall as unemployment rates rise. The reason for such is believed to be that health is negatively effected and mortality is thereby increased during periods of economic growth when increasing employment rates may result in increased job-related stress, less time for leisure and physical activities, less attention to a good diet, etc.

The recent study found that for each one percent decrease in the unemployment rate, the mortality rate for men increased by one-quarter of one percent and the mortality rate for women increased by four-tenths of one percent with the increase being the same for women over 65 (women over 65 are typically not employed and therefore job-related causes for the increase in the death rate for women over 65 would not be an explanation for the increase in the death rate for this population).

In nursing homes, the rate is even greater and statistically significant: a 0.56% increase in deaths in nursing homes for every one percent decrease in the unemployment rate. And mortality increases in states with higher percentages of their populations who are in nursing homes.

The deaths of men and women over 65 accounted for seventy five percent of the additional deaths, with women in this age group accounting for fifty five percent of the additional deaths. The study also found that the changes in the death rates for people 65 and older were principally associated with changes in the employment of younger adults. Therefore, the researchers looked into the level of nursing home employment (in which most of the residents are elderly and there are more female residents than male residents since women tend to outlive men) to attempt to find the reason that more of the elderly die as unemployment is falling.

Prior research has shown that the ability of nursing homes to hire lower-paid staff such as nursing aides decreases as the economy improves as these lower-paid employees find higher-paying jobs in other areas of the economy (a one percent decrease in the unemployment rate equates to a three percent percent decrease in nursing home aides and more than two percent decrease in nurses).

Therefore, it appears that the research indicates that a greater scarcity of nursing home aides may have a direct and significant impact on nursing home residents, resulting in nursing home residents dying in greater numbers as the unemployment rate decreases.

Source

The research would support the common-sense requirement that nursing homes must maintain sufficient levels of care-giving staff in order to provide appropriate care to their nursing home residents. When nursing homes choose to reduce their staff or fail to employ sufficient staff for their residents, the residents suffer serious consequences as a direct result of the insufficient staffing levels.

If you or a loved one suffered injuries or death as a result of inadequate nursing home staffing and/or as a result of nursing home neglect, nursing home negligence, or nursing home abuse, you should promptly consult with a medical malpractice attorney to determine if you may have a medical malpractice claim against the nursing home for the inadequate or negligent care.

Click here to visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be able to investigate your possible claim against a nursing home or call us toll free at 800-295-3959.

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

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

Is This Medical Malpractice? When A Good Deed Results In Death

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

One of the saddest stories we recently heard regarding a possible medical malpractice incident occurred in May, 2010 in the operating room of a major transplant hospital in the United States when a living liver donor died on the operating room table while giving the gift of life to his brother-in-law who needed a liver transplant in order to survive, due to circumstances that raise the spectre of whether medical malpractice contributed to his death.

We are hesitant to use the term “organ donor” in describing the man who made the ultimate sacrifice in an attempt to help another human being in desperate need of a liver transplant because the phrase is too impersonal and too understated in the context of the altruistic compassion and utter selflessness of the man who tried to help save his brother-in-law on his wife’s 57th birthday. But we will use the term organ donor in referring to the man out of respect for the over 100,000 others in the United States who have donated kidneys, portions of livers, and other live organs that have saved lives and made the lives of organ recipients much better.

Did The Man Die Due To Medical Malpractice?

When the man was told that his brother-in-law was in dire straits due to his rapidly failing liver, he did not hesitate to step up to the plate to volunteer, without being asked, to be tested to see if he was a compatible liver donor. When the medical testing confirmed that he was a compatible living donor, he bravely took the next step by arranging to have a portion (60%) of his liver transplanted into his brother-in-law.

The donor was 56-years-old at the time of the transplant surgery and was believed by his wife to be in good health. Medical testing was done to confirm that the donor was a good candidate for the surgery and for the removal of a portion of his liver. As far as the donor’s wife knew, her husband was told that there was no reason why he could not undergo the surgery necessary to donate a part of his liver. Little did the wife know that a pre-operative EKG was abnormal (it showed that her husband may have had a previous heart attack) and what consideration was given to the abnormal EKG in the context of whether the transplant surgery should have proceeded.

The transplant team decided on using laparoscopic surgery in which the surgery is performed through three small incisions from which donors typically recover faster and with less pain than with the usual “open” surgery. A significant drawback from laparoscopic surgery is that the internal view is limited and therefore if excessive internal bleeding is encountered, it may be more difficult to determine and address the source of the bleeding.

That is what complicated the surgery on the liver donor in this case — a vein coming from his liver was partially torn during the laparoscopic surgery and then completed separated, causing serious bleeding. As the surgeons worked on the torn vein, other tears developed and other sources of bleeding were causing internal bleeding that the surgeons were unable to keep up with (a portable high-speed blood pump that could have helped was available but not brought into the operating room for some unexplained reason).

The transplant surgeons failed to activate the hospital’s “Massive Blood Transfusion Protocol” that may have helped provide the man with blood transfusions at a faster rate. The man died on the operating table two and a half hours after he first started to bleed from the torn vein, due to cardiac arrest caused by the excessive bleeding.

There have been more than 4,500 live liver donors involved in transplants in the United States over the last 25 years, including more than 200 at the same transplant center as where the man’s surgery was performed, with only three previous deaths of donors since 1999.

Source

The ability to save and improve lives through the transplantation of human organs is one of the greatest triumphs of modern medicine. Very few transplant donors ever suffer any complications from their surgery, let alone die due to surgery. One of the reasons for such success is due to the procedures and protocols established by the transplant hospitals to provide pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative methods to insure the best possible outcome for the organ donors and organ recipients.

While procedures and protocols may not necessarily establish the standard of care required of the transplant team, the established procedures and protocols are evidence of the standard of care. When the established procedures and protocols are not followed or enforced, dire consequences, such as the death of the organ donor or the organ recipient, may result.

If you, a family member, a loved one, or a friend suffered injuries or losses due to possible medical malpractice in a hospital, in a medical office or clinic, or at the hands of another medical provider, you should promptly seek the advice of a medical malpractice attorney to answer your medical malpractice questions and to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim.

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

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

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

Georgia Medical Malpractice Claim For Death Of Undocumented Immigrant

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

The surviving wife of an “undocumented” Mexican immigrant has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government for the death of her husband while he was in the custody of  the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The federal lawsuit claims that the U.S. government failed to provide proper medical care to the man, who died from myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) that the medical malpractice lawsuit alleges should have been timely and properly diagnosed, as well as timely and properly treated, while the man was detained.

The man had been arrested in North Carolina in January, 2009, for traffic violations (driving without a license and speeding). He was transferred to an ICE detention center in North Carolina where he was supposed to receive a physical examination at the time he arrived at the facility. The report of the physical examination was supposed to be reviewed by a physician who was required to sign-off on the report. The medical malpractice claim alleges that the physical examination report for the man was not reviewed by a physician and was not signed by a physician.

An investigative report by ICE allegedly confirms that the man’s physical examination report was not reviewed or signed by a physician and that the report indicated that the man was in good health. Other ICE records purportedly state that x-rays of the man were abnormal but were read as normal and were not reviewed by a physician. The man died in a hospital on March 11, 2009, allegedly from myocarditis.

ICE had denied the medical malpractice claim filed by the man’s family. As a result, the federal medical malpractice lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2012 in the federal district court in Georgia, seeking $1 million in damages.

Source

People who are in federal custody for alleged immigration violations should not be mistreated, including the failure to provide necessary medical care. ICE recognizes its responsibilities — a spokesman for ICE provided the following statement after the man’s medical malpractice claim was filed: [ICE]  “recognizes the importance of ensuring that all detainees receive timely and appropriate medical treatment. To ensure the highest quality health care, the ICE Health Service Corps medical facilities comply with applicable health care standards from the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the ICE National Detention Standards.

“Shortly after taking office, Secretary Napolitano issued an action directive initiating a comprehensive review of ICE’s detention system. Significant reforms have been made to the immigration detention system and health care management. ICE is committed to providing all detainees in our care with timely, safe, humane and appropriate treatment, which includes medical and mental health care. ICE has developed a system of service delivery and oversight to ensure that this occurs.”

Source

The outcome of the medical malpractice case filed as a result of the man’s death may not be known for years. The claim may ultimately be dismissed, settled, or tried in the federal court. Whatever the outcome, one must wonder whether the man would be alive today had he not been arrested for traffic violations in Georgia and then transferred to ICE detention.

If you, a family member, a friend. or someone you know have been injured as a result of possible medical negligence, the assistance of a medical malpractice attorney may be essential in investigating your possible medical malpractice claim and filing a medical malpractice case on your behalf, if appropriate.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing and able to represent you with regard to your possible medical malpractice claim.

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

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

Are Metal Hip Replacements Safe?

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

The world’s largest artificial joint registry, the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, recommended this month that the use of metal-on-metal hip replacements be stopped, based on a study of the data involving more than 400,000 hip replacements between 2003 and 2011 that included data on more than 31,000 metal-on-metal hip replacements.

The study found that about 6% of people with metal-on-metal hip replacements needed surgery to repair or replace the implants after only five years, compared to between 1.7% and 2.3% for people who had a ceramic or plastic hip replacement joint. Hip replacements are expected to last at least ten years.

Earlier this month, the British agency responsible for medical device safety warned that patients with metal-on-metal hip replacements should have yearly blood tests for metals seeping into their blood and that these patients should also have MRI scans to check for muscle damage if they have pain, swelling, or reduced movement in order to determine if the hip replacements need to be removed.

Source

The National Joint Registry of England and Wales reports that about 160,000 total hip and knee replacement surgeries are performed each year in about 400 hospitals in the UK. About two-thirds of the procedures are performed in National Health Service hospitals and the remainder are performed in hospitals not part of the National Health Service.

Hip Replacement Revision Rates

The National Joint Registry of England and Wales described the revision rates for hip replacements in its 8th Annual Report 2011. What follows are quotes from the Annual Report:

Overall revision rates were low: only 1.1% of primary hip replacements had been revised by one year after primary surgery rising to 2.3% by year three, 3.5% by year five, and 4.7% by year seven. However, there was substantial variation in revision rates according to prosthesis type with the lowest rates associated with cemented prostheses (3% at seven years) and the highest rates associated with resurfacing (11.8% at seven years) and stemmed metal-on-metal bearing surfaces (13.6% at seven years). There appears to be a sharp increase in the risk of revision at around six years after primary surgery for the metal-on-metal group although more data is needed to confirm this finding…

There was little substantive difference between the ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene and metal-on-polyethylene groups. However, the risk of revision for metal-on-metal and resurfacing prostheses was considerably higher than for other bearing surfaces. Metal-on-metal was close to the revision rate for resurfacing (also metal-on-metal) up to six years after surgery but then appears to overtake the resurfacing revision rate. This is because of a sharp increase in the risk of revision at around six years for the metal-on-metal group…

Patients with metal-on-metal bearing surfaces comprise a relatively small group of the total hip replacements considered here (7.3%, with resurfacing accounting for another 7.1%). However, some studies have raised concerns about metal-on-metal implants in terms of higher revision rates and poorer patient outcomes (related to pain and function) compared with other bearing surfaces. In particular, there are concerns about the possibility of metal debris damage to soft tissue surrounding the joint (metallosis) and the uncertain effects of any release of cobalt and chromium ions into the patient’s blood. Attention has tended to focus on whether these problems could be associated with the use of large diameter head sizes and on particular designs such as the ASR implants (the ASR XL Acetabular Hip System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System) which were voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer DePuy in August 2010…

Clearly, the ASR results are noticeably worse than other groups by two years post surgery…

This indicates that for the cohort we have been observing (those who had a primary hip replacement since 1st April 2003), the highest incidence of revision was for metal-on-metal hips with 1.73 revisions per 100 observed years. This is another way of saying that there has been approximately one revision per 58 years of use for metal-on-metal hips. This compares with one revision per 70 years for resurfacing hips, one revision per 106 years for uncemented hips, one per 152 years for hybrid hips and one every 204 years for cemented hips. Of course, these incidence rates are likely to change as the risk of revision increases over time…

Source

If you or a family member suffered unexpected complications or injuries as a result of hip replacement, knee replacement, or ankle replacement surgery in the U.S., a medical malpractice attorney may help you determine if you are entitled to compensation for your losses.

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

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

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

When Did Hip Replacement Manufacturer Know About Failures?

Monday, March 5th, 2012

In an article appearing in The New York Times on February 21, 2012, it was reported that the all-metal artificial hip replacement known as the DePuy ASR (articular surface replacement) manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which was implanted in 93,000 patients worldwide over eight years but was recalled in 2010, was referenced in an internal email by a DePuy Orthopaedics executive in August, 2009 that mentioned that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) refused to approve the hip replacement device in the U.S. because studies conducted by DePuy showed that it had failed prematurely in “significant” numbers of patients that required patients to undergo further surgery (“revisions”).

The version of the implant rejected by the FDA (the “resurfacing” version) was not sold in the United States but was sold in other countries; however, a version of the implant sold in the U.S. that was recalled at the same time was implanted in about 30,000 patients in the U.S.  Both the unapproved version and the version used in the United States had a common component: a solid metal cup that replaces a patient’s hip socket.

The executive’s email was written just days after the FDA confidentially advised the manufacturer that one version of the implant would not be approved for use in the U.S.  The email noted that the implant did not meet the FDA’s approval standards because the clinical studies showed a high rate of revisions. The email further cautioned that providing the FDA with more data may not change the FDA’s position and that it may take years to undertake new studies in order to have the FDA approve the device.

While there was nothing illegal about Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics, not disclosing the confidential communication from the FDA regarding its nonapproval of the DePuy ASR in the U.S. (which the FDA does not make public), DePuy Orthopaedics did not disclose the nonapproval by the FDA to doctors implanting the devices or to patients receiving them in the U.S.  Nonetheless, DePuy Orthopaedics routinely blamed the orthopedic surgeons who implanted the devices for the early failures of the devices, blaming the surgeons for failing to position one of the components of the implants correctly. There are about 5,000 pending lawsuits in the U.S. related to the implants.

Artificial hips are expected to last at least fifteen years before they need replacement. However, data regarding the DePuy ASR hip replacement that were available by 2008 showed failure rates after just a few years. Another disturbing issue with the DePuy ASR was the metal debris that it sheds as it wears, causing injuries to some patients.

Source

While the discovery of the executive’s email may be an embarrassment to DePuy Orthopaedics and to its parent, Johnson & Johnson, and may tarnish their respective reputations to some extent, the episode raises important issues when it comes to FDA approval of medical devices and patient safety.

While it is understandable that the FDA may wish to help protect the business interests of medical device manufacturers by not publicly disclosing nonapproval letters regarding medical devices, and manufacturers of such devices often would not voluntarily disclose such nonapproval of its devices to doctors or to the public, the public’s interests and the public’s right to know about potentially dangerous or ineffective devices must have precedence under such circumstances where similar versions of the medical devices are in use in the United States.

If you or a family member have been injured as a result of a defective medical device such as a defective hip implant, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

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

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

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

We’re Celebrating One Full Year Of Daily Blog Postings!

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Well, we have reached a significant milestone — one complete year of our daily blog postings (we started daily posting in our Blog on March 5, 2011 and have posted every day since). When we first started to blog, we thought that it might be difficult to find relevant, interesting information to discuss on a daily basis, but our concern was misplaced (fortunately). In fact, we have thoroughly enjoyed, learned from, and looked forward to researching  matters for our postings.

Without our constant research into medical malpractice issues and other medically-related matters, we would not have become aware of the facts behind the constant onslaught of attacks against medical malpractice victims’ rights and the increasing elevation of medical malpractice wrongdoers’ financial interest over their innocent victims’ right to be fully compensated for their permanent injuries, for their life-long and constant pain and suffering, and the unending devastating effect on their families and loved ones.

In the last six months alone, we have posted many blogs that have addressed critical issues regarding medical care and medical malpractice in the United States, including:

We discussed the West Virginia orthopedic surgeon who had 124 medical malpractice claims filed against him resulting from only 7 months of medical practice in a West Virginia hospital, which cost the hospital’s corporate owner approximately $100 million in medical malpractice payments (see our Blog posting for February 20, 2012).

We brought light to the fact that nearly 4.5 hospital acquired infections occur for every 100 hospital admissions in the United States each year, costing the healthcare system between $5.7 billion and $6.8 billion per year (figures for 2007). And that hospital acquired infections are among the leading causes of preventable death in the United States, effecting 1 in 20 hospitalized patients and accounting for 1.7 million infections and 99,000 deaths (figures for 2002). (See our Blog posting for February 28, 2012).

We tried to dispel misperceptions such as the belief that poor patients sue for medical malpractice more often than others (see our Blog posting for March 2, 2012).

We reported on the $285 million settlement of approximately 120 product liability lawsuits brought against a giant international pharmaceutical company for claims that it sold over-sized vials of generic propofol to endoscopy clinics in Nevada while allegedly knowing that the vials were being used for multiple patients that allowed the spread of hepatitis C and other blood-borne infections despite the markings on the vials that they be used for single-use only. (See the Blog posting for February 23, 2012).

We cited official statistics regarding medical malpractice claims in the United States (“One in three Americans have reported that they or a family member had been a victim of medical malpractice. One in five reported that a medical error caused serious health problems or death….a report released by the U.S. government in 2010 found that one in seven Medicare patients are injured during hospital stays and that adverse events contribute to 180,000 deaths each year, costing the U.S. government $4.4 billion per year. One survey found that 70% of patients who suffered from a medical error were not informed about the error. Studies have shown that most medical malpractice claims are meritorious and that 97% involved medical injury and 80% involved serious disability or death.”) See our Blog posting for September 19, 2011.

We provided additional statistics regarding medical malpractice in the United States: “An often-repeated statistic is that medical malpractice (preventable medical errors) in the United States causes approximately 98,000 deaths per year and is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Despite these statistics, there are very few medical malpractice claims filed relative to the number of potential claims. Research has found that the vast majority of medical malpractice claims filed are meritorious. Almost one-half of physicians admit that they have not reported their medical errors or incompetence. About six percent of physicians are responsible for almost sixty percent of medical malpractice claims in the United States.”

Further statistics regarding medical malpractice in the U.S. are: ”The costs of medical malpractice claims is less than two percent of all health care costs in the United States. Completely restricting medical malpractice claims would lower health care costs by less than one-half of one percent. The number of medical malpractice claims have remained relatively stable over the last several decades but medical malpractice insurance premiums charged by medical malpractice insurance companies during that time increased quickly, resulting in high premium surpluses enjoyed by the insurance companies. Health care costs have not been reduced in states that have enacted caps on damages in medical malpractice cases but hospitals and medical malpractice companies have enjoyed earnings in the tens of millions of dollars without reducing their charges to patients and physicians in those states. The number of physicians in the United States is increasing and outpacing the rate of population growth in the United States. There are twice as many physicians per 100,000 population in the United States now than in the 1960s. The ratio of physicians to 100,000 population is highest in those states that do not have caps on medical malpractice damages. Two-thirds of physicians who have had ten or more medical malpractice payments have never been subject to disciplinary action (almost one-half of hospitals have never reported a disciplinary action to the National Practitioner Data Bank).” From our Blog posting for September 18, 2011.

We have discussed many drug issues as well, such as:

– a warning regarding a counterfeit version of the cancer medication Avastin (Blog posting on February 21, 2012);

–  the abuse of prescription painkillers  (“The sale of prescription painkillers in the United States has more than tripled since 1999. Over 36,000 people died from drug overdoses in the United States in 2008, which included over 20,000 who died from prescription drug overdoses.” Blog posting on February 26, 2012);

– the safety of generic versions of brand-name drugs (see our Blog posting on February 13, 2012);

– companies that overcharge for drugs (“A recently filed federal lawsuit claims that the largest drugstore chain, Walgreens, and a generic drug manufacturer, Par Pharmaceuticals Cos., overcharged insurance companies, union health and welfare funds, and self-insured employers for generic versions of Prozac, Zantac, and generic versions of other common prescription medications manufactured by Par by providing and billing for higher-priced capsules of the drugs rather than the tablets prescribed by physicians.” Our Blog posting for January 16, 2012);

– critical drug shortages in the United States (“The GAO reported that drug shortages have increased each year from 2006 through 2010, with a record number of drug shortages in 2010 and the pace of drug shortages in 2011 that is expected to surpass 2010. There were a total of 1,190 drug shortages reported from January 1, 2001 through June 20, 2011, and 65% of the shortages involved drugs that were in short supply more than once. The average drug shortage lasts more than 9 months (286 days).” As reported in our December 17, 2011 Blog posting);

–  additional statistics regarding drug shortages in the U.S.: ”The shortage of sterile injectables represented 74% of the drug shortages during 2010: 54% of the shortages in sterile injectables during 2010 were due to contamination, particulates, and impurities; 21% were due to delays or manufacturing capacities; 11% due to discontinuation; 5% due to raw materials issues; 4% due to an increase in demand due to another shortage; 3% due to the loss of a manufacturing site; and, 2% due to component problems or shortages. Only 7 manufacturers make up a large portion of the manufacturers of sterile injectables, which are often less attractive economically to produce.” As reported in our October 1, 12011 Blog posting;

– the manner in which large drug manufacturers are preventing lower cost generic drugs from becoming available to the public (“The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has reported that name-brand drug manufacturers will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars over a 10 year period by paying generic drug manufacturers to delay their introduction of lower-cost generic alternatives to brand-name drugs. The FTC found that for the period from October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011 (Fiscal Year 2011), drug companies entered into 28 potential pay-for-delay deals (there were a record 31 such deals in the prior fiscal year). The deals involved 25 different name-brand pharmaceutical products with combined U.S. annual sales greater than $9 billion.” See our Blog posting for October 27, 2011).

We noted research that found that most medical malpractice events go unreported (“A new report regarding a study of Medicare patients who were injured in hospitals found that only one in seven hospital errors were reported.”) See our Blog posting for January 14, 2012).

We reported on the egregious failure to discipline doctors who commit medical malpractice in the United States (“…the Medical Board’s failure to discipline 710 California doctors who were subject to discipline for wrongdoing by California hospitals and other health care organizations between September 1990 and December 31, 2009…102 of the 710 doctors had been determined by peer reviewers to be an immediate threat to the health or safety of patients…35% of the 710 doctors were repeat offenders…Of the 220 doctors in the United States found to be an immediate threat to health or safety of patients, almost half were California doctors.”) Read our Blog for January 3, 2012.

We brought to light the fact that medical malpractice insurance companies enjoy huge profits while at the same time raising the premiums they charge doctors and complaining about “frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits” (“The largest medical malpractice insurance company for medical malpractice claims against physicians and surgeons in the United States is The Doctors Company. The Doctors Company had 71,572 members, $4,060,651,000 in assets, and $1,228,237,000 in member surplus for 2010. The Doctors Company is so profitable that in 2011, it announced a $23 million dividend for its members. Since 1976, it has paid over $207 million in dividends, including over $100 million in the last five years alone. The Doctors Company reports that it pays damages in only 18% of the medical malpractice claims made against its members.”) Read our Blog for November 13, 2011.

We cited a report in our November 14, 2011 Blog that found that “Caps on noneconomic damages do not have any effect on the medical malpractice insurance premiums charged doctors. (In 2009, the average medical malpractice insurance premium was 1.8 times what it had been in 2001, both in states with caps and in states without caps.) Medical malpractice companies in all states in the United States have experienced increased profits. Medical malpractice companies in states that have caps (limits) on the amount that medical malpractice victims can recover experienced increasing profits at an even higher rate (24% higher) than the medical malpractice companies in states without caps (if medical malpractice insurance companies pay out less, they keep more profits). And the rate at which profits are increasing is greater in states with caps than states without caps.”

We reviewed the statistics regarding the effect of medical malpractice claims and the effect of caps (limits) on non-economic damages on doctors in the United States (“How have medical malpractice claims really affected doctors? For one thing, doctors are not packing their medical bags and becoming taxi drivers. A survey of high-risk medical specialists found that 43% stated that they would restrict or eliminate services because of medical malpractice claims but only 3% actually did what they said they would do. In 2009, there were a record 972,376 doctors in the United States, which was nearly 18,000 more than in 2008. In 2009, there were 317 doctors for every 100,000 in population – a record proportion. Has the imposition of caps (limits) on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases by some states resulted in more doctors practicing in those states than in states that don’t have the caps? The number of doctors per 100,000 population is 21% higher in those states without caps (349) than those states with caps (288). The average medical malpractice insurance premium is higher in those states with caps than for those states without caps (the average rate of profit for medical malpractice insurance companies in those states with caps is 25% higher than for those in states without caps). Recent increases in medical malpractice premiums were based on diminishing investment values and lower interest rates as opposed to medical malpractice claims payments – there is little if any correlation between medical malpractice payments and medical malpractice premiums.”) Read our September 20, 2011 Blog posting.

We invite you to visit our Blog by clicking here, where you can read today’s daily blog posting, sign up for our daily blog postings to be sent automatically to your email every day, and/or to search by word or phrase our database of blog postings to find the information that you need or that you are seeking.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of medical malpractice in any state of the United States, the prompt advice of a medical malpractice attorney is essential to protecting your rights.

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

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

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

Is My Cancer Drug Avastin A Fake?

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety alert on February 20, 2012 regarding a counterfeit (fake) cancer medication that may have entered the U.S. from overseas that does not contain the required active ingredient. The only FDA-approved version of the cancer drug Avastin is marketed by a company called Genentech, which is part of the larger drug company Roche. (Roche markets Avastin for use outside of the United States.)

The FDA issued 19 letters to medical practices in the United States, warning them that they may have purchased the unapproved, counterfeit Avastin from a source outside of the United States. The unapproved Avastin was purchased by the medical practices from a foreign supplier known as Quality Specialty Products or Montana Health Care Solutions. The Tennessee company Volunteer Distribution is a distributor for Quality Specialty Products.

The counterfeit Avastin has been confirmed to not contain the active ingredient of Avastin, which is bevacizumab. Therefore, patients who receive the counterfeit Avastin are not receiving the medication that they were prescribed and are not receiving the benefit of the real Avastin.

Avastin is an injectable cancer medication used to treat various forms of cancer. Avastin is packaged in vials. The labels on the counterfeit vials contain the Roche logo whereas the FDA-approved Genentech vials do not. The counterfeit vials may contain the batch numbers that start with B6010, B6011, or B86017 (the FDA-approved Genentech vials have a 6-digit numeric batch number and expiration dates expressed in a 3-letter month and 4-digit year, such as JAN 2014).

The FDA-approved version of Avastin is not currently in short supply in the United States.

Source

What Is Avastin Used For?

Avastin (bevacizumab) is a cancer drug that is in a class of medicines known as antiangiogenic agents that work by stopping the formation of blood vessels to tumors that may slow the tumor’s growth and stop the spread of the tumor. Avastin is used in the treatment of colon and rectal cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, certain lung cancers, and a type of brain cancer known as glioblastoma that has already been treated with other cancer medications. Avastin is also used in combination with another drug to treat renal cell carcinoma that has already spread to other parts of the body.

Avastin was used in the past to treat breast cancer patients but the FDA determined that its risks in use for breast cancer did not justify the benefit in most cases. (See our blog posting for November 21, 2011 entitled, “FDA Withdraws Approval Of Avastin For Use In Treating Metastatic Breast Cancer”)

Avastin is administered slowly into a vein once every 14 days to treat colon cancer, cancer of the rectum, renal cell cancer, or glioblastoma, and once every 3 weeks to treat certain lung cancers. The first dose is given over a period of about 90 minutes to check for reactions to the medication and subsequent doses are usually given over 30 to 60 minutes.

Source

Drug shortages are a continuing and worsening problem in the United States (see our blog posting for October 1, 2011 entitled, “Drug Shortages In The U.S.”; our blog posting for November 3, 2011 entitled, “Drug Shortages: Get Your Drugs While You Still Can!”; and, our blog posting for December 17, 2011 entitled, “Drug Shortages Are Getting Even Worse!”).

Unscrupulous drug manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors see a potential to earn outrageous profits by either stockpiling drugs subject to shortages or by producing/providing counterfeit versions of drugs that are either in short supply or intended to be substituted for the brand name versions that are exceedingly expensive.

Price gouging hurts patients who cannot afford their necessary and life-extending medications. Counterfeit drugs either do not benefit patients or harm patients who do not receive their required medications. We believe that the price gougers and the counterfeiters should be required to pay civil fines and restitution in amounts greater than their profits from their wrongdoing and that they should also be subjected to criminal prosecution and sentenced to long prison terms.

If you or a loved one have been injured by a drug, the advice of a medical malpractice attorney is critical in determining your legal rights and whether you have a viable claim for compensation.

Click here to visit our website  or telephone us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be able to investigate your possible claim and file a claim on your behalf, if appropriate.

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

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

Maryland Medical Malpractice Case: From Medical Heroes To Medical Villains

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

In a medical malpractice case decided on February 10, 2012 by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest appellate court), the Court of Appeals (“Court”) upheld a Maryland medical malpractice jury verdict in the amount of $3.6 million in favor of the plaintiff as a result of the severe and permanent birth injuries sustained by a newborn during labor and delivery.

What makes this case even more interesting is that the defendant hospital was praised by all involved for the care it had provided to the pregnant woman in delaying the premature birth of her son for three weeks, which greatly increased his chance of survival. Unfortunately, the subsequent medical care provided to the pregnant woman by the hospital during labor and delivery was found by the medical malpractice jury to have fallen below the required standard of care, resulting in the fetus being without enough oxygen and causing his life-long disabilities.

The Facts Of This Case

The woman was 23-years-old when she became pregnant with her first child in March, 2002. Her expected due date was determined to be December 24, 2002. She received routine prenatal care at one hospital and then switched to another hospital (the defendant in her medical malpractice lawsuit).

She was 23 weeks pregnant when she was seen for her first appointment at the second hospital on August 30, 2002. She was determined at that time to have cervical shortening and was sent to Labor and Delivery for further evaluation, at which time a physical examination showed her cervix was prematurely dilated to 4 centimeters and 100% effaced (that is, it was shortened) and that her membranes were bulging.

She was admitted into the hospital to attempt to extend her pregnancy as long as possible in order to give her fetus the best possible chance of survival (the vast majority of babies born at 23 weeks die whereas babies born at 26 weeks in hospitals such as the one where the woman was admitted have a death rate of about 18% and two out of three of them have no significant deficits). The hospital’s successful efforts to extend the woman’s pregnancy by three weeks from 23 weeks to 26 week was critical to her baby’s survival.

What Happened Next?

On September 19, 2002, a sonogram found that the umbilical cord had prolapsed [a condition where the umbilical cord has descended into the cervix and beneath the fetus] and was within a few millimeters of the vagina, making her an “extreme risk” for PPROM [preterm, premature, rupture of membranes]. The specialist who performed the sonogram strongly worded in his report that he recommended continuous monitoring of the woman’s condition and that they be ready for a stat [within ten minutes] cesarean section “at all times” because the woman’s condition could deteriorate to PPROM at any time.

The situation was dangerous because the location of the umbilical cord within the cervix that was below the lowest part of the fetus’ body created a dangerous condition where the cord could be squeezed shut by labor contractions that would cut off the blood flow to the fetus.

That night, the woman had symptoms consistent with an acute cord prolapse that required the hospital to perform a stat (within 10 minutes) cesarean section, but there was a delay of 40 minutes in performing the cesarean section. There was also a claim that the cesarean section should have been performed some six hours earlier, when the woman showed signs of a serious infection in her uterus. In either case, the medical malpractice claim alleged that had the baby been delivered earlier, as required by the standard of care, the baby would not have suffered his severe deficits.

The baby was blue when he was born. He was not breathing and his body was flaccid with low and unstable blood pressure and reduced blood volume. The newborn had to be intubated, resuscitated, transfused twice, and given medications to raise and stabilize his blood pressure. He had to spend two months in the neonatal intensive care unit of the hospital.

The negligent delay in delivery caused the baby to suffer developmental delays, including not walking until he was two and a half years old and not using full sentences until he was four and a half years old, due to the lack of oxygen to his brain caused by the cord prolapse that would have been avoided had the baby been delivered earlier, as required by the standard of care.

Source

If your baby suffered injuries during pregnancy, labor, or delivery, you and your baby may be entitled to compensation for the injuries, expenses, and losses if medical malpractice caused or contributed to the situation.

Click here for our website  so that we can connect you to medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be able to assist you in investigating your possible claim and file a medical malpractice claim on behalf of you and your baby, if appropriate. You may also call us toll free at 800-295-3959.

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

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

Did Medical Malpractice Kill Whitney Houston?

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

While speculation continues to swirl with regard to what caused Whitney Houston’s recent death, with little accurate information being disclosed by the authorities and official statements warning that it will take weeks before the official cause of death is known (after toxicology results are made available and reported), there has been recent speculation that Whitney Houston had consumed the prescription medication Xanax along  with alcohol that may have led to her death by slowing her heart rate and/or causing her to have a heart attack.

What Is Xanax?

Xanax is the brand-name of a prescription medication containing alprazolam and is typically used to treat panic disorder. Alprazolam is in a class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which are central nervous system depressants used to produce sedation, to induce sleep, to relieve anxiety and muscle spasms, and to prevent seizures.

What Are Benzodiazepines?

Benzodiazepines, including Xanax, are subject to abuse because of the “high” and the loss of inhibition that they can provide. As the U. S. Drug Enforcement Agency has noted, abusers of Xanax and similar drugs often obtain them by getting prescriptions from several doctors, by forging prescriptions, or by buying diverted drugs “on the street.” Adolescents and young adults are among the most frequent abusers of benzodiazepines. Source

What Warnings Are Associated With Xanax?

The official warnings for Xanax include the following: Because of its CNS [central nervous system] depressant effects, patients receiving Xanax should be cautioned against engaging in hazardous occupations or activities requiring complete mental alertness such as operating machinery or driving a motor vehicle. For the same reason, patients should be cautioned about simultaneous ingestion of alcohol [a central nervous system depressant] and other CNS depressant drugs during treatment with Xanax. Source (page 7).

Did Medical Malpractice Kill Whitney Houston?

Two matters that have not been publicly resolved at the present time are how and where did Whitney Houston obtain Xanax? Other questions regarding Whitney Houston’s death include: was the Xanax she consumed (assuming that she did in fact consume Xanax shortly before her death) from a prescription that she had obtained and had filled at a pharmacy? How much Xanax was consumed by Whitney Houston and at what time in relation to her death? Did Whitney Houston also consume alcohol — if so, how much and when did she consume the alcohol in relation to taking Xanax and in relation to the time of her death?

The answers to these and other relevant questions surrounding Whitney Houston’s death may help determine if medical malpractice may have played a role in her death.

What Is Medical Malpractice?

Medical malpractice is generally defined as the failure of a medical provider to provide that level of care that a reasonably competent medical provider would have provided under the same or similar circumstances in the same or similar community.

One or more of Whitney Houston’s medical providers may have committed medical malpractice if they knew or should have known that she was not an appropriate candidate for being prescribed Xanax (for medical or other reasons known to them); that she had a history of abusing Xanax or similar drugs without addressing and monitoring Whitney Houston for present abuse of such drugs; that she had a history of taking Xanax with other depressants such as alcohol that she was continuing to take; and/or if they knew or should have known that Whitney Houston was obtaining Xanax from other sources at the same time that they were prescribing Xanax for her (assuming that Whitney Houston was obtaining Xanax from other sources, which is presently unknown to the public).

While all of this is speculation or conjecture at the present time because of the lack of reliable information in the public domain, we would not be surprised if news reports tying Whitney Houston’s death to medical malpractice increase in the near future as further information about the circumstances of her death become known (especially after the toxicology results are made public).

While we presently have no knowledge whether medical malpractice caused or contributed to Whitney Houston’s death, and we are saddened by her passing, her reported past history of substance abuse should serve as a warning to everyone about the dangers of such behavior that affect not only the substance abusers but their families, friends, and fans alike.

Our daily blog  at MedicalMalpracticeLawyers.com provides useful and interesting information regarding a vast variety of medical malpractice issues and our website  provides assistance in connecting with medical malpractice lawyers in your local area who may be able to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim and file a medical malpractice claim on your behalf, if appropriate. If you prefer, you may contact us at our toll free telephone number 800-295-3959.

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

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