Blog

Archive for the ‘Surgical Medical Malpractice’ Category

Maryland Stent Doctor’s License Remains Revoked

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

A Maryland cardiologist whose license to practice medicine in Maryland had been revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians (“Board”) had appealed the Board’s license revocation to the courts, where a judge denied his appeal on May 7, 2012. The Board had revoked the doctor’s medical license in July 2011 after finding that the doctor had engaged in unprofessional conduct, willfully made a false medical report, grossly over utilized health care services, violated the standard of care, and failed to keep adequate medical records with regard to his patients.

Before he got in trouble for implanting stents in cardiac patients without the patients having the need for the stents, the well-known cardiologist practiced in a Baltimore-area hospital beginning in 2008 until the hospital suspended him in July, 2009 for performing the unnecessary stent procedures. The doctor’s tenure at the hospital resulted in the hospital’s cardiology department enjoying national attention. As a result of the stents controversy, the hospital ended up paying the federal government $22 million in November, 2010 in order to to settle a Medicare fraud investigation.

As a result of its own investigation, the hospital sent out letters to 600 of the doctor’s patients in 2010, advising them that their stent procedures done by the doctor may have been unnecessary. Hundreds of the doctor’s former cardiac patients filed medical malpractice cases against the doctor and the hospital as a result.

The hospital’s fortunes declined to such a degree after the scandal that the hospital sought to sell itself to a larger, regional medical system. The medical system recently entered into a letter of intent with the hospital to purchase and incorporate the hospital into its long-list of facilities in the State of Maryland.

Source:  The Daily Record, May 9, 2012.

What’s A Stent?

A stent is a small mesh tube made of metal or fabric (fabric stents are used in larger arteries) implanted in arteries that are too narrow or weak. Stents may or may not be coated with medicine (drug-eluting stents are coated with a slow-release medicine intended to prevent the artery from becoming blocked again). Stents are implanted during a medical procedure known as an angioplasty that restores blood flow through the narrowed or blocked arteries by supporting the inner walls of arteries. Stents may also be used in weak arteries to prevent the arteries from bursting while also increasing blood flow.

Source

The Risks Of Stents

While stents may help improve the quality of life of patients and extend their lives under appropriate circumstances, angioplasty and stents come with known risks including bleeding at the site where the catheter was inserted, blood vessel damage due to the catheter, irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias), kidney damage due to the dye that is used during the procedure, an allergic reaction to the dye, infection, restenosis (excess tissue growth within the treated portion of the artery that leads to narrowing or blockage of the artery), and blood clots at the stent site that can lead to a heart attack or stroke (approximately 1% to 2% of stent patients develop a blood clot at the stent site, which risk is greatest during the first few months after the stent was placed; this risk is often addressed by the doctor prescribing aspirin and/or anti-clotting medicines for a period of at least one month after a stent procedure; coated stents may increase the risk of developing blood clots but appear to not increase the chance of a heart attack or stroke).

Source

If you had a bad outcome as a result of angioplasty or suffered a complication with a stent, medical malpractice may be a cause of your injuries and losses. A medical malpractice attorney may help investigate your situation for you to determine if you may have a valid claim for medical malpractice.

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 assist you with your 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!

Surgical Fires

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

The last place you would expect to suffer burns from a fire would be while lying on a table in an operating room. But that is just what happened to a New York woman who was undergoing a Cesarean-section delivery of her baby on March 12, 2010. While she was under the influence of local anesthesia with her view obstructed by a surgical curtain, the mother-to-be smelled something burning and could see smoke. Her obstetrician who was performing the surgery noticed a flame coming from the woman’s left side and patted the flame to extinguish it, telling his patient that there had been “a little fire” but not to worry.

The woman gave birth to a healthy baby but she suffered a 5 by 7 inches area of third degree burn on her left side where an alcohol-based antiseptic had been used to prepare her for surgery. The antiseptic, known as DuraPrep, was manufactured by the large manufacturing company, 3M Company. One month before the woman’s surgery, 3M Company, at the direction of the FDA, had issued a new warning to hospitals regarding DuraPrep’ s flammability and instructed hospitals on how to prevent fires, which the surgical staff providing care to the woman was unaware of.

The woman has filed a medical malpractice case against her obstetrician and the hospital where her surgery occurred, alleging that they failed to follow the recommendations from 3M Company regarding use of DuraPrep. The woman had to have plastic surgery for her burn injury and the area that was burned constantly feels numb and feels like it will tear open.

The obstetrician had used DuraPrep for 20 years before the woman’s surgery, without any fire incidents. The hospital stopped using DuraPrep for a period of time but reinstated its use with procedures in place to prevent fires.

The fire evidently started when the obstetrician was using an electrical cautery tool that may have caused a spark that ignited the fumes from the DuraPrep that was not allowed to dry prior to the procedure (3M Company instructed that DuraPrep must be allowed to dry completely before being exposed to a flammable source). A fire would also be possible if the DuraPrep soaks into the patient’s gown or into surgical drapes or somehow pools around the patient (the woman’s anesthesiologist testified during a deposition in the medical malpractice case that the anesthesiologist had noticed that the woman’s gown was wet with what could only have been DuraPrep, after the fire).

Of the 50 million surgeries performed each year in the United States, there are only between 400 and 600 surgical fires involving patients, with only 4% of those fires involving skin preparation solutions such as DuraPrep.

Source

Surgical fires are so rare that when they do occur, an investigation into the incident by a medical malpractice attorney may help determine if the cause of the fire and the resulting injuries to the patient were due to medical malpractice.

If you or a loved one have been injured due to a surgical fire or other medical incident that may have been the result of medical negligence, 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 lawsuit 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!

South Carolina Medical Malpractice Verdict For Death After Surgery

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

On March 9, 2012, after a one-week trial before a South Carolina medical malpractice jury, the surviving husband of a woman who died in November, 2007 just three weeks after surgery, received a medical malpractice verdict in his favor in the amount of $2.4 million. The medical malpractice claim alleged that the woman had gynecological surgery during which her bowel was perforated and the perforation was not treated properly or timely, leading to her death.

The medical malpractice defendants claimed that the risk of bowel perforation during the surgery is a known risk and that the diagnosis and treatment of the woman’s bowel perforation were timely and proper. The medical malpractice jury evidently did not agree with the defendants and found against them.

Source

“Known Risk” Of Treatment Versus Medical Malpractice

One of the most common medical malpractice defenses put forth by medical malpractice defendants is that the “bad outcome” complained of in the medical malpractice claim is a known risk of the treatment that the patient was made aware of and assumed the risk of suffering.

Medical providers are required to obtain “informed consent” from the patient before performing medical procedures, during which the medical provider explains to the patient the proposed medical procedure and all known risks of the procedure and alternatives to the proposed procedure that a reasonable patient would want and expect to know under similar circumstances.

While there is a certain amount of risk associated with all medical treatment, and bad medical outcomes may and do occur without medical negligence being a cause of the bad outcome, it is important to recognize that if substandard medical care was a cause of the bad outcome, then medical malpractice has occurred for which a medical malpractice claim may be made.

As an example of the above, it is a known risk that anyone occupying a motor vehicle being operated on the public roadways is exposed to the risk of becoming involved in a motor vehicle collision. However, if the collision was caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle (such as crossing over the double yellow lines separating traffic moving in opposite directions), then the injured occupants of the non-negligent motor vehicle may bring a negligence claim against the negligent driver.

In the medical malpractice lawsuit filed by the surviving husband in South Carolina, while it may be a known risk that the particular gynecological surgery performed on the man’s wife involved a risk of perforating the bowel during surgery, the cause of the perforation may still be due to medical malpractice (that is, the breach of the standard of care by the surgeon).

The South Carolina medical malpractice jury that heard the testimony and considered the evidence during the trial from both the medical malpractice plaintiff and the medical malpractice defendants determined that the medical malpractice defendants breached the standard of care and that the breach was a proximate cause of the woman’s injuries and death (and her surviving spouse’s losses as a result).

If medical malpractice may have been a cause of your injuries and losses, then it may be beneficial to consult with a local medical malpractice attorney to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you.

Click here to visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who be able to assist you with your medical malpractice claim or telephone 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!

Texas Medical Malpractice Claim Based On Surgeon’s Disability

Friday, April 13th, 2012

A Texas woman has recently filed a medical malpractice claim against her former surgeon, claiming that the surgeon was dealing with his cancer at the time of her surgery that led to the surgeon’s failure to perform her surgery properly due to his alleged physical disability from the cancer and its treatment. In particular, the woman claims that during her spine surgery on January 12, 2010, the surgeon placed the wrong-sized plate and screws in her spine and that the surgeon was exhausted and fragile immediately after the surgery when the surgeon spoke with the woman’s family. The surgeon died one week after the woman’s surgery.

The woman had to undergo corrective surgery to replace the wrong-sized plate and screws that her cancer-stricken surgeon placed in her spine. The medical malpractice case filed by the woman on March 27, 2012 named her former surgeon’s estate as a medical malpractice defendant.

Source

The woman’s medical malpractice lawsuit raises important issues and competing interests regarding medical caregivers and their patients. While medical providers such as surgeons have a right to privacy regarding their personal lives and personal matters, their patients have a right to know all relevant information regarding their medical care, including information regarding any physical or mental disabilities of their medical providers that may have an effect on their medical care or on their decision to stay with their present medical providers or seek medical treatment elsewhere.

And while medical providers may have an interest in keeping their drug addiction or alcohol addiction private and secret from their patients while they seek treatment for their addictions, we suspect that most patients would want to know, at the very least, about their medical care providers’ addictions and how the addictions might affect their ability to provide competent and necessary medical care.

If your medical provider had a serious infectious medical condition such as HIV or hepatitis, would you want to know that information and how would that information affect your decision to be treated by that medical provider?

If your surgeon on the day of your surgery is pre-occupied by his just-discovered spouse’s infidelity, do you think you have the right to know that information so that you can re-schedule your surgery or find another surgeon?

If your medical provider feels that she is coming down with the flu at the time of your appointment with her, would you expect that she would advise you of such before examining you up close and personal?

Medical decisions are often critical decisions that can have long-term or permanent serious consequences. You expect and deserve that each of your medical providers is “on top of his game” when treating you and making medical decisions on your behalf. Is it inappropriate to inquire of your health care provider if there is anything going on in her personal life that may have any affect on her decision-making ability and/or the medical care that she may provide to you?

If you have become the victim of possible medical malpractice, you should seek the advice of a medical malpractice attorney who may be able to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you and represent you with regard to your claim, if appropriate.

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 assist you with your 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!

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!

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!

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!

The Impact Of Anesthesia Medical Malpractice On Practitioners

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

In an article published in the March, 2012 issue of the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, the results of a survey sent to 1,200 randomly selected members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, of which 659 completed and returned the survey, found that 84% of the respondents had been involved in at least one unanticipated death or serious injury of a patient during surgery during their careers.

The results of this survey do not address the specifics of the unanticipated catastrophic events so we are unable to determine how many of the events were due to substandard medical care (medical malpractice) and how many were not due to medical negligence. Nonetheless, the survey results shed some light on the emotional impact that unanticipated medical events have on the medical practitioners who are involved in patient care.

The reported emotional impact on these anesthesiologists from their unanticipated events included feelings of guilt, anxiety, and the reliving of the events (over 70% reported such issues). The vast majority of the survey respondents also reported that they needed time to emotionally recover from the event (88%), with 19% reporting that they never fully recovered.

The emotional impact on some was so severe that 12% considered changing their careers due to the event. Sixty seven percent of the respondents felt that their ability to continue to provide patient care was compromised during the immediate 4 hours after the event but only 7% of them were offered time off.

Source

We must never forget that medical providers are human beings with emotional needs and emotional responses to unusual or unanticipated events. Not all “bad outcomes” from medical care are due to medical malpractice but the effect on people’s lives may be the same — painful and permanent injuries that last a lifetime, which may be shortened due to the medical mistakes. It is when the medical provider breached the standard of care (that is, committed medical malpractice) that the injured may seek and obtain compensation from their negligent medical providers for their losses.

If you or a family member may have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, the services of a medical malpractice attorney may be essential in investigating your possible medical malpractice claim and explaining to you your legal rights in the matter.

If you believe that you may be the victim of medical malpractice, click here to visit our website  to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your local area who may be willing to investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and bring a medical malpractice case on your behalf, if appropriate. If you prefer, 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!

Maryland Orthopedic Surgeon Hit With Medical Malpractice Verdict

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

On February 21, 2012, a medical malpractice jury in a conservative Maryland county determined that a Maryland orthopedic surgeon was responsible for the permanent injuries suffered by his former patient because the orthopedic surgeon allegedly failed to properly monitor and evaluate his patient’s post-operative care.

After a one-week trial, the medical malpractice jury awarded the surgeon’s former patient $1 million for his pain and suffering (which will be reduced to $650,000 under Maryland’s cap for non-economic damages that was in effect at the time of the alleged medical malpractice) and $350,000 for the man’s economic losses.

The man was a snowboarder who had fallen from a ski lift that resulted in a fracture of his tibia and fibula in his left leg. The orthopedic surgeon operated on the man two days later, during which he inserted a plate and screws to repair the fracture. About six weeks later, during the first follow up appointment after the surgery, the orthopedic surgeon fitted the man with a brace and advised him to use crutches. Two weeks later, the surgeon instructed the man to stop using the brace at night and that he could return to work about a week later.

One month later, during the next follow up appointment, the orthopedic surgeon fitted the man with a new brace. At the next follow up appointment three weeks later, the orthopedic surgeon instructed the man that he could increase his physical activities.

About two months after his last visit to his orthopedic surgeon, the man experienced pain in his left leg and two days later sought a second-opinion from another orthopedic surgeon. The second orthopedic surgeon ordered x-rays that indicated that the tibia fracture was not healing. Subsequent medical tests found that two of the screws placed by the first orthopedic surgeon were not solidly anchored. The second orthopedic surgeon placed the man in a walking boot.

The man alleged that as a result of substandard medical care by his first orthopedic surgeon, his left leg turns inward, he continues to have pain in his left leg, and he can only put weight on the outside of his left foot. He cannot climb steps and he cannot walk more than fifteen feet without using a walker or scooter.

The man filed his medical malpractice case against his first orthopedic surgeon, claiming that the orthopedic surgeon should have monitored him more frequently and should have ordered x-rays and CT scans during his follow up treatment to assess the positioning of the plate and screws and to assess and monitor his healing.

The medical malpractice case is captioned Richard Martinez v. Zia A. Zakai, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No.: 03-C-10009470.

Surgeons are not only required to perform surgery in a manner that meets the applicable standard of care, they are also required to provide proper follow up care to their patients after surgery. If a surgeon fails to meet the standard of care while performing surgery or when providing follow up care after surgery, the surgeon may be held responsible for the injuries and losses that result from his negligent medical care.

Medical malpractice attorneys can provide an essential service to possible medical malpractice victims by investigating whether the medical care rendered (or the medical care not provided) met the applicable standard of care required of the medical providers.

Please visit our website by clicking here  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 represent you in your 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!

Las Vegas Medical Malpractice Claim For Surgery On The Wrong Knee

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Of all of the medical malpractice claims filed throughout the United States each year, it continues to astound us that surgeons are still being sued for medical malpractice based on claims that they operated on the wrong body part.

The simplest surgical decision occurs at the beginning of the operation: should I operate on the right side or on the left side of the patient?

Modern hospital protocols call for a formal “time out” in the operating room before the surgery starts, during which all of the operating room personnel stop what they are doing and confirm with one another the patient’s identification, the operative procedure to be performed, and the body part to be operated on (for example, “this is John Smith, date of birth xxxx, we are performing an ACL repair, and the surgery is on his left shoulder”). Hospitals also require that the surgical site be marked by using initials, the word “Yes,” or by a line representing the proposed incision — no other marks are allowed on the patient’s body (nonetheless, one doctor undergoing his own surgery reported that he wrote “wrong side” on one leg so that his surgeon would know that his surgery was to be performed on his other leg).

Maryland Wrong Knee Surgery

A Maryland medical malpractice lawyer was recently surprised to learn that the defendant orthopedic surgeon in a wrongful death medical malpractice case was sued just one year earlier for operating on another patient’s wrong knee (the defendant orthopedic surgeon arrogantly testified during his deposition that the patient’s “good knee” was found to have a condition that would have required surgery in the future anyway).

Las Vegas Wrong Knee Surgery

In Las Vegas, Nevada, a 54-year-old man was scheduled to have surgery on his right knee to clean out some cartilage. When he awoke after the surgery, he was surprised (and dismayed) to find that the bandages were placed on his left knee. His surgeon evidently realized shortly after the surgery that he had operated on the man’s wrong knee (the same surgeon had operated on the man’s left knee the previous year) and asked his patient, who was still under the effects of anesthesia from the original surgery, if he wanted surgery on his right (correct) knee at that time, to which the man responded, “Sure, why not?”  The surgeon then operated on his right knee.

Adding insult to injury, the surgeon and anesthesiologist joked that the man received two surgeries for the price of one (all joking aside, the surgeon had the audacity to bill his patient’s health insurance company for both surgeries!).

As a result of the two knee surgeries done at the same time (one of which was unnecessary), the man had to use a walker and was out of work for almost two months. And his recovery time from the surgery was twice as long. The man filed a medical malpractice claim against both his surgeon and the hospital, which blamed each other for the “mistake.”

Source

Even though it seems clear that operating on the wrong side of the body is medical malpractice, some negligent surgeons and the hospitals where the wrong site surgeries occurred still fight the medical malpractice claims as well as question the value of the unnecessary injuries caused to the innocent victims of the medical negligence.

If you or a loved one have been victimized by surgery performed on the wrong side or at the wrong site on your body, you should seek legal advice from a medical malpractice attorney at once.

Click here  to be forwarded to our website to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing and able to investigate your 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!