Virginia Personal Injury Blog - Medical Malpractice

Database of Medical Malpractice Unavailable to the Public

Paul Thomson — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:13:24 GMT

Tulsa World reported that there is a national database of medical malpractice data that the public is unable to fully access. The database is maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and includes about 460,000 records of malpractice lawsuits. However, the public can only view the lawsuit's allegations and the patient's health, while the remaining information is only open to hospitals, managed care organizations, and state licensing agencies.

The American Medical Association believes the information should remain private because it is unreliable. Supposedly, data is often submitted late and some of the information is untrue or misleading. The AMA argues that it is a flawed program. However, many individuals believe that this is just a way to protect doctors. The information should be available to the public because people have a right to know if their physician has been involved in a medical malpractice claim. Medical professionals need to be held accountable and potential patients should not be kept in the dark. If the patient is able to obtain this information he or she can then question their doctor about it and make an informed decision as to whether they wish to remain under the doctor’s care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

Corruption in Psychiatric Healthcare

Paul Thomson — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:00:00 GMT

The Chicago Tribune reported startling ties between psychiatrist Dr. Michael Reinstein and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The doctor, worth about a half million dollars to the drug maker, did research on the antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. Dr. Reinstein claimed his research found the best-selling drug had the pleasant side effect of decreased appetite, resulting in patient weight loss, despite the fact that Seroquel and similar drugs have been linked to weight gain and diabetes.

Communication between the two parties is even shadier than the unusual research conclusions. Dr. Reinstein, who also did promotional tours for AstraZeneca, is said to have made demands for his expenses to be covered and to have made threats to prescribe his patients to a competitor if his wishes were not fulfilled. AstraZeneca officials who were skeptical of Reinstein's research findings were hushed by others in power due to the doctor's importance as a customer. Both Reinstein and the company have denied making such statements, however, records of spending reveal that AstraZeneca paid the doctor $490,000 over ten years. While it is not uncommon for companies to pay researchers, this amount is excessive and also should be disclosed to the public.

AstraZeneca and Reinstein broke ties in 2008 for unknown reasons, but regardless, patients' lives were changed. Several individuals are quoted in the article who have gained excessive weight and been diagnosed with diabetes since taking Seroquel prescribed by Dr. Reinstein. It is unacceptable for doctors and drug companies to disregard their patients' well-being in order to make a profit. Corporate and individual greed does not have a place in our healthcare system!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

Hospitals Rarely Disclose Adverse Events to Patients

Paul Thomson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:30:00 GMT

Medpage Today reported that hospitals rarely give their patients explanations when they experience adverse effects of treatment. A survey revealed that over sixty percent of the time, patients do not receive explanations for adverse events. However, when patients were told about adverse events, they were twice as likely to rate the quality of care highly. About 31% of the events were preventable; and some 40% of the effects were related to medications started during the hospital stay. The physician review also determined that three quarter of the effects were severe.

Disclosure was associated positively with favorable patient impressions of the hospital care they received.

This is because an increased level of communication can lead to greater trust from the patient, an more positive perception of care, and possibly even a lower risk of malpractice. Dr Wachter in an editorial stated that the study "adds to the accumulating evidence that disclosure is not only ethically correct but, if done well, can lead to higher levels of patients’ trust, increased perceptions of quality and perhaps even lower malpractice risk." Hopefully, studies like these will provide physicians the confidence to start fulfilling their ethical duties and advising patients of adverse events and effects.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

Hospital sanctioned for serious surgical errors

John Cooper — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:40:26 GMT

A Rhode Island hospital is expected to pay $150,000 in fines after a surgeon operated on the wrong part of the body – not for the first time.

Rhode Island Hospital in Providence is the only hospital in the state to receive such fines, The Associated Press reported recently.

Surgeons were to have operated on two fingers belonging to the same patient, The AP reported. Instead, “both operations were performed on the same finger.”

The hospital was directed to install surveillance cameras in all of its operating rooms by David Gifford, Rhode Island’s health director.

The move after a pattern of conduct emerged at Rhode Island Hospital, the teaching hospital for Brown University’s Alpert Medical Center. In 2007, three patients had brain operations – but surgeons operated on the wrong part of the brain.

The hospital’s chief executive officer, Timothy Babineau, said in a statement that “the hospital was committed to reducing medical errors and had been taking steps to improve patient safety.”

According to the AP, standard surgical procedures were not followed – the finger to be operated on was not marked ahead of time, and surgeons did not stop to double-check that they were operating in the right place.

“Under protocols adopted in the medical field, the surgery site should have been marked and the surgical team should have taken a timeout before cutting to ensure they were operating on the right patient, the right part of the patient's body and doing the correct procedure, the AP said.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers.

(MM)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Cooper

Fire in the operating room, more dangerous than you can imagine

Ben Glass — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:59:00 GMT

The Supreme Court of Virginia has recently upheld a verdict against an Alexandria Virginia surgeon in a case that highlights the danger known to the medical profession.

Rita Talbert went to Alexandria Hospital for simple thyroid surgery in 2005. This was to be an outpatient surgery. During the surgery oxygen was ignited in a flash fire erupted in the operating room. Ms. Talbert was severely burned, has had to undergo many surgeries and, according to published reports, has incurred medical bills in excess of $500,000.

The hospital and the anesthesiologists settle the case before trial for a total of $710,000. Virginia's damages for malpractice cases occurring in 2005 at $1.75 million.

Debra Hutchins MD, the surgeon, according to published reports, refused to settle the case.

And Alexandria jury awarded Ms. Talbert $4 million as full compensation for her injuries. The verdict was reduced to Virginia's cap on damages and that further reduced for the amounts she had previously received and settlement.

Dr. Hutchins appealed the verdict and raised several issues however the Supreme Court of Virginia throughout the appeal ruling that it had not been filed on time.

Operating room fires occur hundreds of times a year with many of the injuries resulting in serious, disfiguring burns. The risk of injury can be reduced when the surgeon and the anesthesiology team communicate well and titrate the amount of oxygen being used at the time an instrument such as a cautery is being "fired up."

Here is another report on this terrifying ordeal which an Alexandria jury felt was the result of carelessness.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ben Glass

Virginia Board of Medicine Reprimands Doctor after Lawsuit-A Case That DID Make a Difference

Ben Glass — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:45:47 GMT

The Virginia Board of Medicine has issued a formal reprimand to a doctor who has now promised to refer to a specialist any patient who has complaints of rectal bleeding.

In a case handled by our office several years ago, a Virginia jury awarded $1 million to a patient whose complaints of rectal bleeding and abdominal discomfort went were diagnosed as hemmorhoids for years.

According to the Board of Medicine's order, Alan Joshua, MD has "read additional literature" about colo-rectal cancer and no longer performs flexible sigmoidoscopy or anoscopy on patients with rectal bleeding. Instead, he refers them to colo-rectal surgeons for evaluation.

At trial, specialists testified that had this patient been seen by a specialist earlier, he could have avoided massive rectal surgery that left him injured for life.

The Board of Medicine's Order Reprimanding Dr. Joshua and making Virgina safer is here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ben Glass

Post-LASIK Problems Underplayed and Unreported

Paul Thomson — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:24:29 GMT

Aggressive marketing has made the well known vision correction surgery known as LASIK surgery (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis) a $2 billion industry, with it coming under fire for overstating the benefits of the surgery and downplaying its risks. As many as 75,000 patients a year are estimated to have lasting post operative problems including poorer vision and even blindness! Even more alarming is that the FDA has recorded only a tiny fraction of these problems. From 1998 to 2008, the agency admitted that it had received only 140 reports of post operative problems!!! Clearly, these problems are not getting recorded effectively.

The FDA issued reminders on the need to record adverse results to clinics offering the surgery after they discovered that many did not have systems to do so. Poor results include dry eye, poorer vision, halos, glare, and sometimes blindness. Not only is there insufficient data to confirm the estimated 75,000 patients experiencing these results, but the existence of such complications is often downplayed by marketing schemes.

This has led three federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, Defense Department, and National Eye Institute, to develop a plan outlined in this article. The plan starts with the FDA creating a website for patients to report results, followed by the Defense Dept. measuring how many active-duty military patients had poor results, and ending with a larger study of patients to determine how many had postoperative problems. The plan will end in 2012 and officials hope this more accurate data will help improve the surgery in the future.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

Congress One Step Closer to Killing Feres Doctrine

Michael Phelan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:55:37 GMT

The Feres Doctrine is a legal precedent from a 1950 United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that service members injured in the course of their duties are prohibited from suing the government or any government employee. This Doctrine is the reason why military operating rooms are more dangerous than private operating rooms. For example, the incidence of foreign objects such as sponges, towels, or instruments being left inside the bodies of surgical patients has gone way down to negligible numbers in private hospitals. The reason is because in response to medical malpractice lawsuits, hospitals and surgical staffs instituted standard operationg procedures to count the sponges, towels, and instruments prior to the procedure and before closing the surgical incision. This simple solution has not been adopted in many military hospitals, and, not surprisingly, the problem persists in military operating rooms. The brave men and women who serve our country are the ones who suffer as a result.

The good news is that Representative Maurice Hinchey and Senator Charles Schumer have each sponsored bills to pass the Military Medical Accountability Act which would permit service members to sue the government in certain cases of medical malpractice. The Hinchey Bill was approved on October 7th by the House Judiciary Committee, and would legislatively overturn Feres v. United States. Hinchey named his bill the Carmelo Rodriquez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009 after the late Sgt. Rodriquez, a marine who served in Iraq and died in 2007 at the age of 29 after a series of extraordinary mistakes and misdiagnoses made by military medical personnel.

Sgt. Rodriquez had a bleeding melanoma which the military doctors continuously misdiagnosed as a birth mark or wart. The one military doctor who correctly diagnosed the melanoma failed to tell Rodriquez the diagnosis or refer him to a cancer specialists. As the skin cancer worsened, Rodriquez's family was unable to get his medical reocrds from the military to give to private doctors for a second opinion. The family went to Rep. Hinchey for help, but it was too late. Sgt. Rodriquez had gone from 190 lbs. to less than 80 lbs.

This bill needs to pass so that our troops have the same rights that we all have under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution to a trial by jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Feres Doctrine on Chopping Block After House Panel Vote

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:17:00 GMT

I have long advocated for the overturning of the Feres Doctrine, a nearly 60-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling that bars active-duty military personnel from receiving compensation for injuries they suffer due to medical malpractice. The rule denies basic protections and protections to the very people who have done the most to earn those rights and protections and guarantee them for other Americans through their service to the country.

So I was pleased to see the members of the U.S. House of Representative Judiciary Committee earlier this week sent legislation that would invalidate the Feres Doctrine to the full House for a vote. According to an Air Force Times report, the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act is named after a Marine Corps sergeant who died at 29 of melanoma after military doctors withheld their diagnosis from him for 10 years. Like every other active-duty military member since 1950, neither Rodriguez nor his family could seek justice once the gross malpractice of the military doctors came to light.

The bill to overturn the Feres Doctrine may face tough opposition in the Senate, according to the Air Force Times, but at least federal legislators are beginning to recognize the injustice the rule perpetuates. As a member of law practice dedicated to representing victims of medical malpractice, I know how devastating errors and negligence by doctors, nurses, surgeons and pharmacists can be. I hope military members will soon no longer be left to suffer the consequences of medical malpractice without relief.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton is a law firm which focuses on injury and accident law and our attorneys have experience handling medical malpractice cases. Check out our case results to see for yourself. In addition, check out our FREE special reports on the Top 10 Tips from a Medical Malpractice Insider and the top 5 surgical errors you must know about. Our primary office in based in Virginia Beach, Virginia (VA) and we also have a North Carolina (NC) law office. Our lawyers hold licenses in NC, SC, WV, KY and DC. We are ready to talk to you by phone right now—we provide free initial confidential injury case consultations, so call us toll free at 1-800-752-0042. Our injury attorneys also host an extensive injury law video library on Youtube . Furthermore, our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard and Norfolk Injuryboard as a pro bono public information service.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Virginia Tort Reform Fund Victim of Alleged Fraud

Ben Glass — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:24:19 GMT

About 20 years ago Virginia enacted some of the nation's worst tort reform laws for children injured at birth. This law, which protects doctors and hospitals who elect to participate in it, prevents any lawsuit from being filed on behalf of children who have suffered devastating neurological injuries at birth.

The first real horror of the fund is that neither the doctor nor the hospital are required to tell the patient they participate, so a woman's free and rational choice to choose a doctor is impaired because she doesn't have all of the information she would need.

A second horror is that the fund has been chronically underfunded so that families who do apply for benefits from the fund are constantly made to jump through enormous hoops just to get the benefits the state is providing.

Now a federal grand jury had indicted a Richmond woman for allegedly siphoning off $800,000 from the fund

This case will be interesting to watch. How, exactly, does something like this happen. Unfortunately, this is one of the problems of a government run healtcare system. Under a true tort system that allowed injured infants to recover for medical malpractice this never would have happened.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ben Glass