The Underlying Facts Of This Medical Malpractice Case

On August 10, 2008, the 36-weeks-pregnant expectant mother went to the local hospital with complaints of abdominal pain. An ultrasound done at that time using allegedly outdated and unmaintained equipment could not detect fetal cardiac activity. Further testing was ordered but it took more than one hour for a confirming ultrasound to be performed. The pregnant woman underwent an emergency cesarean section delivery of her baby, which was born lethargic and hypotonic at the time of birth.

The baby received emergency medical transport for further treatment at a larger, better equipped Philadelphia hospital. However, it was alleged that the newborn’s endotracheal tube became clotted with blood during the emergency medical transfer that the neonatologist who accompanied the baby during the transport negligently failed to monitor that resulted in compromising the baby’s respiratory status. As a result, the baby was in poor respiratory condition upon arrival at the Philadelphia hospital.

The baby sustained a permanent but allegedly preventable hypoxic brain injury resulting in spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy.

The defendant obstetrician reportedly maintained throughout the medical malpractice litigation that he had performed the ultrasound properly and that he was certain that the baby had died in the womb but then miraculously came back to life 81 minutes later.

Source

The Philadelphia medical malpractice jury verdict may seem extraordinarily high until you consider the enormous costs of the child’s future medical expenses during her entire lifetime, the child’s and her parents’ huge emotional pain and suffering associated with a lifetime of “what ifs” and the loss of what the child may have achieved had her treatment during labor, delivery, and immediately after birth been handled appropriately and timely.

The miraculous birth of a child is a warmly anticipated but anxious time for the expecting parents. Many parents-to-be hold their breaths for the entire pregnancy until a healthy and happy newborn is delivered into their waiting arms. Only then do the parents enjoy some relief until they step into the next phase of parenthood, which lasts a lifetime. 

When the birthing process is negligently performed or monitored by the health care providers upon whom the expecting parents must fully and completely rely, the consequences may be insurmountable for the parents and their baby. The enormous costs associated with providing for the unanticipated needs of the child must be incurred either by the innocent parents or by the health care providers whose negligent care resulted in the terrible outcome. Who should be responsible for such losses and expenses that should have and could have been avoided  — the parents who were promised that they and their baby would receive competent and necessary care or the health care providers who were in the sole position of avoiding the bad outcome?

If you have suffered the emotional pain and incurred the devastating expenses associated with medical negligence that resulted in birth injuries, the prompt advice from a medical malpractice attorney in your local area may help you decide if you wish to bring a medical malpractice claim against the responsible medical providers.

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 a medical malpractice claim and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

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

The researchers found a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for birth defects for babies who were conceived as a result of fertility treatments. The study involved both frozen and fresh embryos that resulted in pregnancies.

What Are Some Of The Techniques Used In Fertility Treatments?

The procedure known as “I.V.F.” (in vitro fertilization) involves multiple eggs being fertilized in a solution containing sperm after which the fertilized eggs are then implanted (some or all) into the woman. The procedure known as “ICSI” (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) involves a single sperm being injected into a single egg. The procedure known as ”GIFT” (gamete intrafallopian transfer) involves transferring the eggs and sperm to the woman’s fallopian tubes before the eggs are fertilized.

The study found that the risk of birth defects varied according to which technique was used and whether the embryos used were fresh or frozen. Overall (for all techniques), there was a 28% greater risk for birth defects involving heart, muscle, urogenital, and gastrointestinal defects, as well as an increased risk for cerebral palsy.

Notably, ICSI (the most common technique presently being used) had an increased risk of birth defects when fresh embryos were used but the risk was not increased if frozen embryos were used. For I.V.F., there was no significant difference in the risk for birth defects whether fresh or frozen embryos were used. The incidence of birth defects was 32% less likely when I.V.F. was used compared to ICSI.

The risks for stillbirth, low birth-weight, and delivery prior to 32 weeks were greater for women who had any fertility treatment when compared to the spontaneous conception women. For women who had spontaneous conception after previous fertility treatments, there was a 25% greater risk for birth defects.

What Conclusions May Be Drawn From This Study?

Infertility alone increases the risk for birth defects. However, a cycle of a single fresh embryo transfer using I.V.F. followed by transfer of a frozen embryo, if necessary, does not result in a significant additional risk of birth defects when compared to spontaneous conception.

Source

If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, it is imperative that you sit down with your health care providers to thoroughly discuss your medical situation, the options for care and treatment that are available to you, the risks and benefits associated with the options as they relate to you, their recommendations regarding your care and treatment (and their reasons for their recommendations), and any concerns or questions you may have regarding your current and future medical care and treatment. Other than hoping that competent health care providers are providing competent medical care at all times, the best means for avoiding a medical malpractice incident is a well-informed and pro-active patient participating in her own care and treatment decisions.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of medical negligence, a medical malpractice attorney may be able to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you and advise you regarding your legal rights and responsibilites in the matter.

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 possible medical malpractice claim and to 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!

The year 2011 had the fewest number of jury verdicts when compared to prior years. More than 70% of the jury verdicts in 2011 were defense verdicts. For each of the last six years, including 2011, the number of non-jury verdicts in medical malpractice cases was in the single digits.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court uses the calendar years 2000 through 2002 as the “base years” for comparing medical malpractice case filings per year. There was a 44.1% decrease in the number of medical malpractice cases filed in Pennsylvania in 2011 when compared to the base years (the medical malpractice case filings for Philadelphia, which is the judicial district with the largest caseload in Pennsylvania, decreased by more than 65%).

The probable explanation for the significant drop in medical malpractice case filings after 2002 (the last of the base years) is that just after the base years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made two significant rule changes that had a significant impact on the number of medical malpractice cases filed after the changes. One rule change required that medical malpractice attorneys obtain a certificate of merit from a medical professional that establishes that the medical procedure in the underlying the case fell outside the acceptable professional standard of care. The other rule change required that medical malpractice cases be filed only in the county where the medical malpractice allegedly occurred.

Source

What do the numbers mean? Well, it does not mean that there is less medical malpractice occurring in Pennsylvania or that physicians and other health care providers in Pennsylvania are now providing a better quality of care when compared to 2002 and in prior years.

What the numbers do mean is that the legal hoops that medical malpractice lawyers must jump through in order to obtain justice for their medical malpractice victims are higher and more numerous since the changes in the rules. While some “frivolous” medical malpractice claims may not have been filed after the changes to the rules, it is much more likely that the changes to the rules have resulted in a much greater number of valid medical malpractice claims not having been filed and medical malpractice victims and their families being left out in the cold. 

Who do the changes to the rules benefit most? The answer is that medical providers who commit medical malpractice that harms their patients will benefit most from the changes to the rules that make it more costly to file valid medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania.

If you or a family member are the victim of medical malpractice in Pennsylvania or in another state in the United States, you owe it to yourself and your family to contact a medical malpractice attorney to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you.  

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 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!

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration had investigated the company’s practices and procedures and found that the company sometimes dispensed drugs without prescriptions or without properly written prescriptions. Some of the improperly filled medication orders failed to state the name of the drug, the strength of the drug, the quantity of the drug, and/or the dose of the drug. The issue involved how the pharmacy managers communicated with the prescribing doctors at the nursing homes regarding the controlled medications.

The settlement with the federal government recognizes the obligation of pharmacies to receive signed prescriptions containing all of the required contents of prescriptions for controlled substances or to speak directly to the prescribers in emergency situations. The investigation had found that it was not an uncommon practice for pharmacies to dispense medications to nursing homes under the instructions of the nursing home staff who did not have the authority to prescribe controlled substances and without the patients’ doctors being involved in the process.

The federal government’s investigation did not involve allegations that the drugs received from the pharmacies were diverted to people other than the appropriate nursing home residents and the investigation did not involve the nurses or others who gave the medications to the nursing home residents.

Source

Because many of the residents in nursing homes are taking multiple medications for their medical and other conditions, and all of the nursing home residents who take multiple medications must be closely, carefully, and constantly monitored regarding the effects of their medications, it is imperative that the residents’ physicians are made fully aware of their patients’ medical conditions, changes in their medical conditions, and the medications and other therapies being provided to their patients. Medical mistakes involving the care of nursing home residents and medical errors involving the medications that nursing home residents rely on can result in serious or deadly consequences for the  residents.

Failure to follow procedures and protocols in nursing homes and sloppy record-keeping regarding the care and medications provided to nursing home residents are often cited as the basis for medical malpractice claims brought against nursing homes when residents suffer unanticipated and serious outcomes in nursing homes.

If you or a loved one suffered injury or death as a result of nursing home negligence, the prompt advice from a local medical malpractice attorney may be essential in protecting your legal 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 able to investigate a possible nursing home 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!

What Are Some Of The Statistics Regarding New HIV Infections In The U.S.?

New HIV infections in the United States have remained at about 50,000 per year for the past decade. Men represent 75% of new HIV infections. The highest incidence of new HIV infections is in black men (8 times higher than in the white population). Hispanics and Latinos have an incidence rate 3 times higher than in the white population. Men having anal sex with men represent between 56% and 61% of new HIV infections in the United States. The increase in the number of new HIV infections was 38% between 2006 and 2009 for men who had sex with men in the 13 to 29-year-old age group, mainly due to a 48% increase among young black men who had sex with men in that age group. Condoms, when used correctly, are more than 90% effective in preventing HIV infection.

The manufacturer of Truvada, Gilead Science, had provided data from trials that found that men who had sex with men who took Truvada daily had a 44% reduction in the incidence of HIV over 1.2 years of follow-up when compared with placebo. However, almost 50% of the study participants had no detectable level of Truvada when tested, which may mean that they were not taking Truvada regularly.

The Committee expressed the following concerns regarding Truvada use in prevention of new HIV infections: that healthy people who take Truvada for prevention of HIV will suffer harm if they do become infected with HIV but do not change from the single-dose regimen for prevention to a three-drug combination of antiretroviral medications for treatment; that people who continue to use the single-dose regimen after acquiring HIV will lead to the development of Truvada-resistant viral strains; and, the increased risk for adverse effects such as kidney damage resulting from the Truvada regimen.

In light of its concerns, the Committee made recommendations regarding Gilead Science’s proposed risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) that usually only occur when the FDA has concerns regarding a drug’s toxicity. The proposed REMS includes mailings to approximately 200,000 health care providers; a medication guide for uninfected people; voluntary training for primary care prescribers, infectious disease specialists, emergency medicine physicians, obstetricians and gynecologists, and addiction specialists regarding the importance of strictly adhering to the daily dosing regimen and regular HIV testing; safety brochures for both prescribers and individuals; and, a wallet card for individuals taking Truvada for HIV prevention. However, the REMS does not require participation in the educational program by the prescriber or patient before taking Truvada and it does not require a negative HIV test before a patient receives a 30-day supply of Truvada.

The cost of the daily Truvada regimen would be $13,000 per year.

Source

If you or a loved one have been injured due to medical negligence, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and damages. Medical malpractice attorneys may be able 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 may be able to assist you with your possible medical malpractice case.

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

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

The Plaintiffs’ Allegations

In particular, the physicians challenged the dominating influence that the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) has on the way the “relative value units” (a major component of the fee structure) are calculated. They argued that certain medical specialties are disproportionately represented on the RUC and therefore primary care physicians, like the six physicians in this case, are undercompensated under the PFS. They also argued that there is over-use of unnecessary medical procedures by RUC-favored specialists that results in major harm to the national health care system and negatively affects health care spending due to the over-reliance on RUC in formulating the PFS.

In Simple Terms, What Are The Plaintiffs Claiming?

In short, the argument was that the medical specialists on the Committee have undue influence in determining who gets paid what by Medicare, and that they tend to protect their own specialists’ financial interests at the expense of others, such as primary care physicians.

What Were The Plaintiffs Seeking?

The Plaintiffs wanted the Maryland federal judge to find and declare that Medicare was violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) because the RUC’s influence is so dominating in the process that it is actually acting as a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) and therefore subject to the provisions of FACA, and was violating FACA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Judge’s Discussion Of The Relevant Medicare Law And The Plaintiffs’ Claims

The Maryland federal judge stated in his written opinion as follows:

Medicare, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, is a federal health insurance program for the aged and disabled. This action relates to Part B of Medicare, a voluntary supplemental insurance program that covers payments for physician’s services and other healthcare services…Fees paid to physicians who elect to participate in the program are capped by the annual PFS which sets the fees for hundreds of types of specific services. Payment amounts under the PFS are calculated by multiplying (1) the relative value of a service; (2) the conversion factor for the particular year; and (3) the geographic adjustment factor applicable to the locality in which the service was provided…This case relates to the determination of the first component, the relative value of a service, which is calculated by combining three subcomponents, each of which is measured in terms of relative value units (“RVUs”). The three subcomponents are (1) the work component; (2) the practice expense component; and (3) the malpractice component…

The RVUs are revised each year by CMS. According to the Complaint, RUC has met each year since 1991 to “debate relative values based upon input from surveys distributed to specialty societies.” …RUC then makes recommendations to the Secretary of HHS. Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Secretary rejects some of those recommendations,…Plaintiffs assert that most RUC recommendations are routinely adopted into the final PFS.

Accepting as true that RUC plays a major role in the formation of the PFS and also accepting as true that this role unfairly skews the PFS toward certain medical professions and procedures, the Court, nonetheless, finds that Congress has precluded courts from reviewing, not only the final relative values and RVUs, but also the method by which those values and units are generated. Section 1395w-4(i)(1) of Section 42 of the United States Code provides: There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1395ff of this title or otherwise of–(A) the determination of the adjusted historical payment basis (as defined in subsection (a)(2)(D)(i) of this section), (B) the determination of relative values and relative value units under subsection (c) of this section, including adjustments under subsections (c)(2)(F), (c)(2)(H), and (c)(2)(I) of this section and section 13515(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, (C) the determination of conversion factors under subsection (d) of this section, including without limitation a prospective redetermination of the sustainable growth rates for any or all previous fiscal years, (D) the establishment of geographic adjustment factors under subsection (e) of this section, and (E) the establishment of the system for the coding of physicians’ services under this section.

Therefore, the Maryland federal judge concluded, “the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-4(i)(1). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.”

You can read the Judge’s Memorandum opinion by clicking here.

We can relate to the primary care physicians’ concern and allegations stated in their federal lawsuit that a small but powerful group of medical specialists were unfairly and with undue influence dictating how much they were being compensated for the services they provided to their patients. In a very similar manner, we are concerned that a small but powerful group (that is, lobbyists for the health care industry) is unfairly and with undue influence dictating how much victims of medical malpractice may receive in compensation for their injuries and losses because of arbitrary caps that many states have placed on the amount of noneconomic damages that they can recover as a result of the lobbyists’ efforts.

If you or a loved one were injured as a result of medical malpractice, you may be entitled to monetary compensation for your injuries and losses. The prompt advice from a local medical malpractice attorney may help you decide if you want to proceed with a 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 willing and able to investigate your possible medical malpractice claim for you 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!

Side effects of using Accutane may include dryness of the skin and mucous membranes, photophobia, muscle and joint pain, insomnia, lethargy, visual disturbances, hearing deficiencies, headache, nausea, malaise, drowsiness, amnesia, hallucinations, behavioral disorders, seizures, psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, suicide ideation, suicide attempt, and suicide.

Source

Studies of the generic version of Accutane (isotretinoin) have also linked its use to a serious risk of birth defects and to bowel disorders such as inflammatory bowel diseases, including ulcerative colitis. According to preliminary research evidence presented to the American College of Gastroenterology in January, 2009, the risk of being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis in isotretinoin users was more than four times greater than in the general population, and patients who had filled four or more prescriptions for Accutane had a risk of inflammatory bowel disease that was more than 2.5 times greater than in the general population.

A New Jersey Accutane Lawsuit

A New Jersey woman who had used Accutane for six months in 1998 allegedly developed inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis) six weeks after she stopped taking Accutane. She alleged in her lawsuit that she would not have taken Accutane had she been made aware of the possible side effects. The jury hearing her case decided that the woman was entitled to $2 million in damages because Hoffman-La Roche failed to adequately warn her about the risks of taking Accutane, including developing ulcerative colitis.  Hoffman-La Roche was dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict and appealed its decision. A judge recently upheld the jury’s verdict.

Source

Accutane (isotretinoin) is a vitamin A derivative belonging to the retinoid class of medicines, which are used to treat skin conditions. The manner in which Accutane works is not known but it is believed to act on the sebaceous glands that produce oil/wax to reduce sebum excretion, which may indirectly reduce bacterial activity associated with acne and thereby improve acne. To read more from the manufacturer about Accutane, click here.

If you have been injured as a result of taking Accutane or another drug in the United States, you may be entitled to compensation for your losses and injuries. A medical malpractice attorney versed in such claims may be able to assist you with your possible drug 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 a drug claim.

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

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

Here’s A Possible Example

The large medical device manufacturer Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”) earned billions of dollars from its spinal bone graft product called Infuse. Early studies of Infuse were authored by individuals who earned between $1 million to $23 million annually in royalties, consulting fees, and in other compensation from Medtronic. Those early studies may have played down the risks of Infuse and played up the benefits of Infuse.

In June, 2011, an examination of the data that were used to gain approval of Infuse ten years earlier found that the evidence of the benefits of Infuse over the existing alternatives for most patients was questionable. Furthermore, a review of other published research found that the risk of complications from Infuse (which include cancer and male sterility) was 10 to 15 times higher than reported in the 13 industry-sponsored studies. Medtronic has subsequently paid researchers at Yale University to review the data and the results of that review are pending.

Source

Did the financial interests of the authors of the industry-sponsored studies deliberately or unintentionally affect the results of those studies? What effects have the results of the early studies had on patient treatment and patient outcomes that may have been different if alternative treatments had been used?

Many people hold medical researchers in high esteem, believing that they are on the same plane as Florence Nightingale (the nineteenth century English nurse who selflessly and tirelessly tended to battlefield wounded during the Crimean War without regard to her own safety). Some medical researchers may be working tirelessly and selflessly without regard to financial renumeration to help find treatments and cures for medical scourges that inflict terrible pain and debilitation on their victims. To all of those medical researchers who fit in this category, we solute and praise you for your efforts, compassion, and concern that often go unnoticed and unrewarded by the general public.

However, to those medical researchers and their employers for whom the financial incentive is a major driving force behind their research efforts, we ask them to stop and re-focus their attention and efforts on the medical good that they can potentially provide in their communities and to humanity in general. There is nothing wrong with being financially rewarded for one’s dedication and passion for medical research, but if the siren call of the Almighty Dollar resides in the consciousness or unconsciousness of medical researchers, their research results, findings, and conclusions may be deliberately or unintentionally skewed, resulting in possible harm suffered by those they intended to help. After all, we are all only human.

If you or a loved one may have been injured or suffered losses or other harm as a result of medical malpractice (also known as medical negligence), you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, suffering, and losses. The prompt advice from a medical malpractice attorney in your local area may be of assistance to you in deciding whether you have a valid claim for medical malpractice and whether you should proceed with filing a medical malpractice claim.

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 willing and able to assist you with your medical malpractice case.

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

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

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!

The medical  malpractice reform measure would have softened the requirement regarding certifying medical experts in medical malpractice cases filed in Connecticut to allow a ”qualified” medical expert as an alternative to a medical expert in a “similar” health care field to provide the necessary written report regarding the medical malpractice defendant’s deviation from the standard of care. Under the current Connecticut medical malpractice law, the requirement for a certifying medical expert is higher than for a medical expert who testifies during a medical malpractice trial. For a more detailed explanation of Connecticut’s current law and the proposed changes to the medical malpractice law that failed on May 3, 2012, see our blog for April 29, 2012.

The doctor/legislator was successful in employing scare and fear tactics to defeat the medical malpractice amendment that would benefit all victims of medical malpractice in Connecticut. The doctor/legislator told his colleagues that the flow of medical specialists into Connecticut would slow and that current Connecticut medical professionals would either retire or move away from Connecticut if the amendment was passed. Instead of demanding that the issue of threatened harm to the medical profession in  Connecticut be studied to determine if there was any basis for the concern, enough of the Connecticut House members caved in to “the sky is falling” argument and threw medical malpractice claimants’ interests “under the bus.”

Source

When will ordinary citizens in communities throughout our country finally rise up and demand that their elected representatives represent them and everyone equally, without granting special rights and special benefits to powerful special interest groups such as doctors, which result in harm to everyone else? When will our elected officials stop pandering to special interest groups that heavily lobby them for unjustified special treatment? When will medical professionals realize that they and their interests are not above or superior to the interests of all others and that they are not entitled to special treatment not available to others? What will it take (and from whom) to lower medical professionals from their self-installed pedestals and relieve them from their self-indulgent, high-and-mighty, better-than-thou egos and attitudes that harm their communities?

Do not let your state’s elected representatives legislate away your legal rights and your family’s financial interests when health care providers push for medical malpractice “reform” under the threat that they will give up their medical practices if they do not receive the special treatment they demand. Call their bluff — they will not sacrifice their own financial interests by abandoning their lucrative medical businesses.

Stand up for your rights before medical malpractice lays you down!

If you or a family member have become a medical malpractice victim in Connecticut or in another state in the U.S., the prompt advice from a medical malpractice attorney in your state is important to learn about and protect your legal rights.

Click here to visit our website or call us toll free at 800-295-3959 to be connected with local medical malpractice lawyers 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, Google+, and LinkedIn as well!