New Hampshire Personal Injury Blog - Medical Malpractice

The Real Victims of the Medical Malpractice Battle are the Injured Patients

Rob Curtiss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:33:59 GMT

It is no great revelation that doctors and lawyers have long been at odds over the issue of medical negligence lawsuits. Many doctors blame lawsuits and ultimately lawyers for their rising malpractice premiums. Many lawyers accuse medical associations of leveling unfair criticism at the legal profession. They believe this disingenuous criticism is responsible for perpetuating stereotypes of lawyers as greedy and dishonest. Some doctors have gone so far as to threaten that they will deny treatment to lawyers in all but emergency situations.

Lost in all this rancor, are patients who are the victims of medical negligence. Physician's organizations seem to want doctors to police themselves. But there are obvious problems with allowing doctors to decide what constitutes a compensable mistake and what does not. So attorneys like me will go on fighting for a patient's right to have a jury decide the merits of their medical negligence claim. Hopefully the medical and legal professional will be able to put aside their animosity and concentrate on taking care of the medical system's victims.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

Doctor's Failure to Admit Medical Errors - Who is to Blame?

Rob Curtiss — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:40:34 GMT

In the past several years, many articles have been written about the overwhelming failure of medical professionals to admit errors made in the course of their practice. Many people blame trial lawyers for this phenomenon. The assumption that underlies this position is that doctors would be forthright about their mistakes if they weren't faced with the specter of being sued.

I can think of at least three other reasons that doctors won't admit errors to their patients. One is that physicians are just people and there are a certain percentage of people in all professions who can't accept responsibility for errors. This particular character flaw is certainly not unique to doctors but neither are they immune from it.

Another reason is that the medical profession is still invested in having young doctors work ungodly hours, often one hundred hours a week and more. It is common sense that anyone working under these conditions will make mental and/or physical mistakes. Yet some doctors seem to believe that being honest about medical errors would be an indictment of the system they all came up through.

Finally, hospital risk management departments and insurance companies obviously play a role in this phenomenon. These entities have an interest in avoiding litigation as well as patient complaints. So it is not surprising that they discourage doctors from admitting negligence. For more on this topic see: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51414

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

Medical Malpractice in New Hampshire

Ed Van Dorn — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:44:08 GMT

Two years ago, under pressure from the medical and insurance industries and despite efforts by consumer groups, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law requiring all medical malpractice claims to be screened by an allegedly "neutral panel" before the claim could be heard in court. The insurance and medical groups argued that it would provide an efficient, time and cost saving method of disposing of claims. After two years the opposite has proven true.

On Sunday the Maine Sunday Telegram ran an article by the Associated Press reporting that a study of the 131 medical malpractice cases in New Hampshire since passage of the law shows that only 8 of therm have actually gone through the screening process. How can this in any way be fair to medical malpractice victims? Supporters of the law, namely the medical and insurance industries say that the problems are due to "growing pains". Yet one third of the 31 other states that have passed similar laws have since repealed them, according to an independent Pew Charitable Trust study. According to the Sunday Telegram article:

New Hampshire and Maine are among perhaps 16 states with similar screening-panel laws, according to research by the American Medical Association. But a 2003 study found the laws had been repealed or invalidated in roughly one-third of the 31 states that had adopted them. The study, by University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Catherine Struve, was part of the Pew Charitable Trusts's project on medical liability.

Notice that the New Hampshire law was passed after it was repealed by one third of the states that already tried it. Clearly, the unfair screening panel law was a grab by the medical and insurance industries to get some payback for the handsome campaign contributions they give to key New Hampshire legislators. No other explanation makes sense.

Well, enough is enough and its time that the pendulum start swinging back to restore the rights of aveage citizens against big business and the medical industry. I have been representing medical malpractice victims for over 25 years and I have seen first hand how negligence in the medical industry can destroy lives and families. This bogus law was designed simply to put even more obstacles in the way of the average person's ability to legally fight big medicine and big business and it ought to be repealed.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Van Dorn

Medical Malpractice Cases Rarely Have Quick Resolutions

Rob Curtiss — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:48:58 GMT

I often get calls from people who believe they have been the victims of medical negligence. Often these individuals will tell me that they don't want to launch a full scale malpractice suit. Rather, they only want the doctor or hospital to admit the mistake and to pay for their medical treatment related to the malpractice in the future.

Unfortunately, these cases rarely resolve so easily. Hospitals and physicians usually will not admit any wrongdoing. In fact, a lawsuit is almost always necessary if people are to achieve any justice in a medical malpractice case. The bottom line is that any victim of medical negligence needs to do some serious reflecting before getting involved in a case because most of them do not resolve easily.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

Medical Malpractice Means Negligence

Rob Curtiss — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:01:56 GMT

Many people think that a doctor only commits malpractice if he or she is reckless or deliberately inattentive in their treatment of a patient. Actually malpractice simply means negligence, it is the medical equivalent of failing to stop at a stop sign and causing an accident. Just as drivers have a duty to be reasonably careful when driving, doctors have a duty to be reasonably careful when treating their patients. If doctors fail in this duty, they have committed malpractice. The focus is then on the injuries the patient has suffered as a result of the negligence and getting him/her compensation for those injuries. Our firm is dedicated to helping victims of medical malpractice throughout New England.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

Weis Medical Malpractice Lawsuit in Spotlight

Ed Van Dorn — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:22:46 GMT

Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis tried to keep his gastric bypass surgery hidden from the public, but something went wrong when he had the operation five years ago. Now Weis' medical malpractice suit against Massachusetts General is getting national attention.

Weis, 50, who declined a request for an interview, described himself in the book as "a dumb ass" for submitting to the weight loss surgery.
A court-authorized medical malpractice tribunal found in 2004 that Weis had presented enough evidence for the case to proceed toward trial. The Mass. General surgeons are expected to argue that the care and treatment they rendered Weis met or exceeded the accepted standards at the time for a qualified average physician -- a key standard of proof in a medical malpractice case.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in Suffolk Superior Court next month.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Van Dorn

Doctor Facing Over 100 Malpractice Suits Testifies

Christina Cole — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:40:35 GMT

Former Putnam General Hospital doctor at the center of over 100 medical malpractice lawsuits testified Friday that he doesn't have a fixed address and has not worked since early November and lost his tax records when his accountant's office was burnt down.

Christopher Wallace Martin, previously known as John A. King changed his name in April and his former name was used during Friday's hour long hearing. Eagloski ordered him to appear in court after he failed to comply with a May order requiring him to show financial, tax and residential records in the lawsuits.

Martin practiced at Putnam General for six months in 2003. 110 former patients or their survivors have since sued Kin, the hospital and HCA inc., its former parent company alleging malpractice such as botched and unnecessary surgeries.

The hospital suspended Martin and his privileges in May 2003. Later he surrendered his license with the state Board of Osteopathy and left West Virginia. Martin testified that he has lived in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee since his Mountain State Stint. Most recently he provided medical service for Urgent Care Corp. in Alabama.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole