Blog

Archive for the ‘Michigan Medical Malpractice’ Category

Michigan Medical Malpractice Verdict For Brain Damage During Surgery

Sunday, April 8th, 2012

On March 30, 2012, a Michigan medical malpractice jury returned a verdict in the amount of $1.23 million in favor of the family of a 66 year old woman who suffered severe brain injury due to lack of oxygen to her brain during surgery in 2008. The medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against an anesthesiologist and a local hospital, but the hospital was dismissed from the medical malpractice case before trial.

Trial had begun on March 21, 2012 and ended with the medical malpractice jury’s finding after three days of deliberations that the anesthesiologist committed medical malpractice and that the medical malpractice was the cause of the woman’s injuries. The damages awarded included $34,274 in economic damages and $1.2 in noneconomic damages (mental suffering, mental anguish, etc.) to the woman’s surviving son.

What Happened During Surgery?

On August 11, 2008, the woman entered the hospital to have surgery to remove her thyroid and parathyroid glands in her neck. Because the surgery involved the administration of general anesthesia that makes it impossible to breath without assistance, the woman needed to be intubated (endotracheal intubation involves the placement of a breathing tube through the mouth or nose into the trachea (the windpipe) to open the airway to provide oxygen, anesthesia, and/or medication, to remove blockages from the airway, to provide protection to a patient’s lungs under certain circumstances, and/or to provide a better view of the patient’s upper airway).

The anesthesiologist allegedly failed to observe that the breathing tube had moved during the surgery, preventing the woman from breathing, and allegedly failed to treat the woman’s dangerously low blood pressure, which resulted in the lack of oxygen to the woman’s brain. The woman never awoke after her surgery — she died eleven days later. Medical testing determined that the woman had suffered a devastating brain injury due to lack of oxygen during her surgery. The woman died from her brain injury, which was confirmed by an autopsy.

Source

When you enter a hospital or outpatient surgical center for elective or necessary surgery and general anesthesia is used, you are totally at the mercy and subject to the training, experience, and competence of the medical personnel who must provide the necessary medical care and medical monitoring to insure that you receive the necessary oxygen and medical care during and after the surgical procedure and that you wake up after the surgery without suffering injuries during the surgery.

While injuries or death may occur during surgery without the cause being medical malpractice, the cause of surgical injuries or death may be due to medical negligence. Because the patient is often unconscious and totally unaware of what is occurring during surgery (especially if general anesthesia is used), the patient and the patient’s family will probably have no idea of what occurred during the surgery that caused the injuries or death. That’s when the assistance of a medical malpractice attorney may be essential to investigate and determine the cause(s) of the surgical patient’s “bad outcome” and to determine if medical malpractice may have occurred.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your local area who may be able to help you if you or a loved one may have become the victim of medical malpractice.

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

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

Did A Generic Version Of A Name-Brand Drug Cause A Man’s Death?

Monday, February 13th, 2012

Generic versions of name-brand prescription drugs are supposed to be “just as good” and just as effective as the name-brand drugs for which they are substituted. Generic drugs (“generics”) are often preferred by health insurance companies and by many patients because they tend to cost much less than their name-brand counterparts. Many generics look different than the name-brand drugs but are usually taken in the same manner. Most people cannot tell any difference between generics and the name-brand drugs that they take.

But the safety of generics are sometimes questioned. For example, an epilepsy patient in Michigan was given a generic version of his epilepsy medication. Two days later, the patient died from a seizure. According to the Epilepsy Foundation, deaths due to seizures after being switched to a generic version of an epilepsy medication are not unique.

The Epilepsy Foundation had conducted a survey from 2006 to 2009 that found that more than half of 1,085 patients had reported adverse consequences from a switch in their medication to a generic version (59% reported worsening seizures, 49% reported more serious side effects from their medication, and some families reported deaths of patients).

To investigate the issue, a two-year research study conducted by the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy that is funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and scheduled to be concluded in 2013 is testing 32 epilepsy patients with histories of seizures to determine if the name-brand and generic version of the epilepsy medication lamotrigine (for which there are 16 generic versions) give patients the same blood levels of the medication. At present, the study has entered clinical trials in which patients are being monitored for two and a half months during their 14 visits to the clinic.

The FDA approval process for generics requires bioequivalence studies in healthy humans who are given single doses of drugs to assure that the generics provide the same therapeutic and safety profiles as the brand-name drugs. If they do and the FDA approves the generic versions, the generics are considered interchangeable with the brand-name drugs.

The potential issue with epilepsy generics may involve the narrow range of effectiveness of epilepsy medications that only work if properly administered. Because the FDA approval process is not done in a clinical setting, the bioequivalence is not the same and the FDA guidelines may not be sufficiently accurate. If the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy study finds a difference when the study is completed, additional studies would be justified.

Source: University of Maryland Maryland Magazine, 2012 Research & Scholarship

If your pharmacy is intending to fill your prescribed brand-name medication with a generic version of the medication, you should discuss the substitution with your prescribing medical provider to insure that you are receiving the medication that is intended. Don’t assume that your prescribing doctor is OK with a generic version — some doctors will specifically instruct pharmacies to provide the brand-name medication and not fill the prescription with a generic version. When in doubt, discuss the issue with the prescribing doctor before accepting and taking the generic version.

If you have had a bad reaction or serious side effect from a prescribed or over-the-counter medication, you may wish to discuss your legal rights with a medical malpractice attorney.

Visit our website  or telephone us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your local area who may be willing and able to assist you in investigating your potential claim for compensation for your injuries and losses.

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

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

Michigan Medical Malpractice Leads To Broken Neck

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

A 90-year-old World War II vet who had Alzheimer’s disease and poor balance was supposed to never be left unattended where he could possibly fall. Unfortunately, a privately contracted nursing aide negligently left the man sitting on the edge of his bed when she left his room to obtain a piece of equipment used to transfer him from his bed to his wheelchair. When the nursing aide returned to the man’s room, she found him on the floor, with his neck broken.

The man had to undergo surgery to place a screw in his neck to stabilize his cervical bones. His family filed a medical malpractice claim on his behalf against the negligent nursing assistant, the private agency that employed her, and the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans (the facility where the man had broken his neck).

The controversy escalated recently when the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans (“home’) announced that the facility’s fourth floor was being closed that would result in the reduction of 90 skilled nursing beds and that more than a dozen union employees were being laid off, all in an effort to cut costs due to the state reducing funding to the home in the amount of $4.2 million in anticipation of privatizing the home.

The state also intends to replace 170 union nursing aides in the home with non-union nursing aides, such as the one allegedly responsible for the man’s broken neck. The state has alleged that it would save $18,000 per day by substituting non-union for union nursing aides at the home (the state would pay $15 per hour to private companies to supply non-union nursing aides instead of $15 to $20 per hour that the state currently pays the union nursing aides along with expensive health insurance, pension, and overtime pay benefits). The intended layoffs were blocked by a restraining order issued by a judge on September 30, 2011, which the state has appealed.

Many of the residents of the home are concerned about the quality of the care that they will receive after the home is privatized because, they argue, the union nursing aides provide a higher quality of care to the residents because they have been employed at the home for many years and know the patients and the patients’ needs and habits whereas the contract nursing aides are rarely at the home for any length of time and they come and go often. The state, and some others, argue that the quality of care may actually increase with contracted nursing aides because the non-union nursing aides are easier to replace when they “mess up.”

Source

It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the issue of quality of medical care from the money necessary to provide an appropriate level of medical care. Health care is expensive. Medical tests and medical procedures are expensive. Medical care is a people-intensive endeavor, which makes it expensive. In times of tight fiscal budgets, both privately and publicly, those in charge of the financial decisions need to find areas where expenses can be reduced or eliminated with the least effect on quality (and quantity) of medical care. The choices are difficult — some people will be able to accept the reduction in medical services while others will feel that their health and well-being will be negatively affected by the proposed cut-backs and changes. When the level of medical care is reduced, certain people will be more affected than others.

When financial decisions result in medical injuries, the advice of a medical malpractice attorney may be essential in determining if the injuries you suffered resulted from medical malpractice.

Click here to visit our website  or call us toll free 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your local area who may be able to assist you in investigating your possible medical malpractice claim and file a medical malpractice 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!

Michigan Medical Malpractice Verdict For Bowel Injury During D & C

Sunday, January 8th, 2012

A 29-year-old Michigan woman received a $2.5 million medical malpractice jury verdict during early December, 2011, as a result of a simple, routine medical procedure that was negligently performed.

The woman had suffered the miscarriage of her 14-week-old fetus in 2007. As a result of the miscarriage, she needed to undergo a procedure known as a dilation and curettage (commonly referred to as a “D & C”). She thought that her obstetrician/gynecologist was going to perform the D&C but it was a hospital resident who dilated her cervix and her uterus was then perforated. While attempting to remove the fetal remains by using ring forceps inserted through the perforated uterus, a section of bowel was unintentionally grabbed and her rectum and bowel were torn.

The woman’s bowel injuries required her to have an ileostomy, which involves surgically creating an opening through the skin through which a section of the small intestine (the ileum) is brought to the surface so that intestinal waste passes into an external bag. The woman had to use the ileostomy bag for three months. Her permanent injuries included the loss of a portion of her bowel and rectum. She has also suffered permanent alteration in her bowel pattern along with pain, suffering, and scarring.

Source

This Michigan medical malpractice case raises important considerations and concerns. It is often acknowledged that doctors must have opportunities to practice on patients in order to gain experience so that they can become competent in completing medical procedures. Most of the newly graduated medical doctors gain the necessary experience in “teaching hospitals,” which are typically associated with medical schools throughout the U.S. It is understood and accepted that new doctors need to gain the necessary experience to become competent practitioners by performing the procedures under the supervision and guidance of more experienced doctors. The supervising doctors need to provide a sufficient level of supervision and direction to insure patient safety but at the same time allow the new doctors to attempt the procedures without their supervisors taking over the entire procedures.

The Balancing Act

As part of the required informed consent discussion between patients and their doctors, it is common for the informed consent forms signed by patients to state matter-of-factly that medical personnel other than the specifically named doctor may perform part of the procedure or otherwise participate in the procedure. These other participants often include residents-in-training who may actually do the cutting and manipulate surgical instruments during critical portions of the surgery. Patients are often not told ahead of time what portions of the medical procedure will be completed entirely by the named medical provider or which portions will be completed by other, unidentified medical providers (or how closely the less-experienced doctors will be supervised).

Let’s be honest: if you or your child were undergoing a medical procedure, whether it be major emergency surgery or a relatively minor procedure (such as the D & C that the Michigan woman had), wouldn’t you want only the surgeon or other medical provider you selected, who has the most practical experience and medical training, perform all aspects of the procedure for the greatest likelihood of the best possible outcome and the smallest possibility of suffering complications from the procedure? Why should you have to accept the services of a less-qualified or less-experienced doctor providing your necessary medical care?

And in this day and age when so-called medical malpractice tort reforms limit the amounts that you can receive in compensation if the negligence of your medical provider caused you to be seriously and permanently injured, isn’t it even more important that you should able to select your own medical providers and reject other, unnamed medical providers to participate in your medical care?

If you, a family member, or a friend have been injured due to possible medical malpractice, the advice of a medical malpractice attorney is essential.  Visit our website  or telephone us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with local medical malpractice lawyers who may be able to assist you in investigating your potential medical malpractice claim 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, and LinkedIn as well!

Today’s 300th Consecutive Daily Blog Posting For MedicalMalpracticeLawyers.com

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Today, MedicalMalpracticeLawyers.com is proud to celebrate its 300th consecutive daily blog posting. Over the course of 299 postings, we have explored numerous medical malpractice topics, including states’ medical malpractice laws, states’ statistics regarding medical malpractice claims, results of medical malpractice jury verdicts in various states, and relevant and timely medical information useful to our readers.

Our medical malpractice research over the last 10 months has revealed the constant assault on the rights of medical malpractice victims to receive fair and adequate compensation for their losses that has drastically, unfairly, and indiscriminately reduced the compensation received by them for their permanent, painful, and debilitating injuries and losses.

Our blog has examined the well-financed and highly-organized efforts of the health care industry promoting “tort reform” legislation drafted on its behalf by politically-connected, highly-paid lobbyists who employ public fear tactics (for example, telling patients that their doctors will need to give up their medical practices due to too high medical malpractice insurance premiums or preaching the often-recited but rarely-supported mantra about “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits) to wage a war that they inappropriately call ”tort reform” (“reform” implies that something was wrong to begin with). Their high-powered tactics are intended to elevate the financial interests of the very few doctors, hospitals, and other medical care providers who fail to provide the medical care that their peers have established as the bare minimum required level of medical care that should have been provided under the circumstances, over the long-established legal and moral rights of the innocent victims of negligence to be fairly and adequately compensated for their injuries and losses caused solely by the wrongdoing of others.

We have tried to bring to light the processes of certain federal agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that affect the health of our citizens, such as the federal drug-approval process that can be influenced by political considerations and the financial power held by massive drug manufacturers. We have discussed the objective findings of studies undertaken by independent federal government organizations such as the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that were relevant to medical malpractice issues, to help our readers determine for themselves the unbiased, honest information that will help them form their own opinions on medical malpractice issues relevant to their lives.

While our name, MedicalMalpracticeLawyers.com, and our website  are dedicated to helping the innocent victims of medical malpractice be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in their local area throughout the United States who may be able and willing to investigate their possible medical malpractice claims for them and represent them in their medical malpractice case, if appropriate, we have always provided the source of our information and the link to our source in our blogs so that our readers can read for themselves the original source information.

MedicalMalpracticeLawyers.com will continue to seek out and explore interesting and useful medical malpractice information for our future blogs. If you have information or a request for information regarding medical malpractice issues important to you, please contact us with your information or your request so that we can provide the information to our blog readers.

We wish all of you the best of health, happiness, and enjoyment of life for the New Year!

Please visit our website  or call us toll free (800-295-3959) if we can assist you.

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

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

Michigan Medical Malpractice Major Mistake Means Millions

Saturday, November 26th, 2011

On December 1, 1995, a newborn was delivered at a Michigan hospital weighing 10 pounds, 12 ounces (yes, you read that correctly). The delivering doctors failed to recognize that the baby was so large that a cesarean section delivery would be necessary. Instead, the doctors used Pitocin, which causes the uterus to contract in order to assist in progressing a vaginal delivery. The powerful contractions forced the huge baby through the birth canal, causing the baby’s clavicle to fracture and the baby to suffer a brain hemorrhage. The baby had seizures and was not breathing when delivered, and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (permanent brain damage due to lack of oxygen and bleeding in the brain).

The resulting medical malpractice claim alleged that the hospital and the doctors involved with the delivery were negligent by failing to recommend and provide delivery by cesarean section instead of a vaginal delivery, by failing to prevent the baby from suffering the trauma during the vagina delivery, by failing to prevent the baby from suffering a fractured clavicle during birth, by failing to prevent the baby from suffering central nervous system injuries including cerebral palsy and permanent brain injuries, and by failing to provide competent and appropriate medical care involving the delivery. The medical malpractice suit also claimed that the hospital failed to provide proper prenatal care including estimating fetal weight.

The hospital and doctors’ defense blamed the baby’s problems on a genetic condition.

The Michigan jury who heard the medical malpractice case brought on behalf of the severely and permanently injured child who will need constant, around-the-clock care for the rest of her life (the parents were not parties to the medical malpractice lawsuit — a conservator brought the malpractice claims on behalf of the child) determined that the hospital and doctors were negligent and that their negligence caused the child’s injuries. The jury awarded substantial compensatory damages to the child to pay for her future needs.

Source

Had a medical malpractice case not been brought on behalf of the injured child to cover the costs of her life-long medical needs, the exorbitant costs of the necessary future medical and daily care probably would have been paid by federal or state resources (that is, our tax dollars). Instead, because our society values and establishes personal responsibility for those who negligently injure others, the medical malpractice insurance companies who charged and received insurance premiums for medical malpractice insurance coverage for the hospital and the doctors will be responsible to pay the damages awarded by the impartial jury (however, the defendants have indicated that they intend to appeal the jury’s decision).

Tort reformers who promote caps (limits) on the amounts that negligent hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers would have to pay when they provide substandard (or worse) medical care want to shift the burden of paying for necessary care for the innocent victims of medical malpractice from the responsible wrongdoers to the already overburdened taxpayers. Does this seem fair or right to you?

When medical malpractice mistakes cause innocent patients to become unfortunate victims burdened by debilitating injuries and the substantial loss of their enjoyment of life through no fault of their own, it is time to investigate whether a medical malpractice claim is appropriate.

Visit our website or call us on our toll free line (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be able to help you with your medical malpractice claim.

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

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