San Diego County Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice - Most Popular

Survivor Raises Awareness of Hospital-Acquired Infections, California Malpractice Laws

Walton Barber, LLP — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:20:12 GMT

Alicia Cole entered a Los Angeles area hospital to have fibroids removed, a relatively simple procedure. What was supposed to be a one-day stay in the hospital, turned into a five-month fight for survival after she acquired a hosptial-born necrotizing fasciitis, the flesh-eating bacteria.

Like thousands of other patients in American hospitals, Ms. Cole became a victim of the saddest of all ironies. It was the hospital that made her sick, not the other way around.

After recovering, she decided to take action and raise awareness about this growing epidemic (since hospitals are not required to disclose infection rates). In her compelling YouTube video, Ms. Cole tells not only her own story of survival, but puts a human face on another injustice faced by California victims of medical malpractice, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975.

MICRA, as the law is known, creates a number of hurdles victims of malpractice must face to get their day in court, then arbitrarily limits the amount they can recover. Few Californians are aware of this onerous law, which virtually removes from the hands of juries the ability to render justice in legitimate malpractice cases, and unfairly victimizes children who are injured by malpractice. Kudos to Ms. Cole for having the courage to stand up and call for reform of the MICRA laws.

For more facts about MICRA, and compelling stories of injustice, visit the Consumer Attorneys of California information page.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Walton Barber, LLP

Product Liability: Bayer Stops Sales Of Trasylol Due To Risk Of Death

Scott Barber — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:01:20 GMT

Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. has suspended sales of Trasylol, a drug used to control bleeding during heart surgery, after pressure by the FDA. The suspension of sales of Trasylol is due to a Canadian study which may have found an increased risk of death associated with the drug's use. The FDA and Bayer are examining the study which was stopped before its expected conclusion.

Trasylol appeares to increase the risk for death compared to two other antifibrinolytic drugs used in the study. Antifibrinolytic drugs are used to slow the breakdown of blood clots and subsequent excessive bleeding. The Canadian study was stopped prematurely when researchers noticed the increased risk of death. The preliminary data from this terminated study also suggested that fewer patients receiving the drug experienced serious bleeding events.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Barber

Doctors Don't Tattle Tale

Randy Walton — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:23:07 GMT

A new survey shows that even though doctors believe that incompetent or impaired colleagues should be reported to the appropriate authorities, most don't.

In a survey of more that 1,600 physicians by the Annals of Internal Medicine, 45% said they did not always report an incompetent colleague, even though nearly every respondent said the should. Nearly half said they did not report at least one serious medical error they were personally aware of.

"We found large gaps between physicians' espoused attitudes and what they do in actual practice," said Eric Campbell, the lead author and an assistant professor at Massachusetts General Hospital's Institute for Health Policy.
"Failing to report incompetent physicians and allowing them to practice will have an impact on the welfare of patients," Campbell added. "It's clearly something that people should be aware of."

The survey was conducted between 11/03 and 6/04 through a center at Columbia University.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Walton

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Settled for $1.6 Million

Randy Walton — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:48:05 GMT

An Illinois hospital and one of its doctors have settled a malpractice lawsuit for $1.6 million. The suit was filed after an infant died of severe constipation.

Will County Circuit Judge Gerald Kinney approved the settlement Wednesday, more than three years after Shequetta Wilson filed the suit.
Her son, Noah Wilson, was 5 months old when he died Sept. 26, 2002, of septic shock from untreated constipation, said Michael Schostok, her attorney.

Under California law, this settlement may have been reduced under MICRA, which unfairly limits injured parties' recovery for medical malpractice.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Walton

Iowa Woman Awarded $13.5 Million in Cerebral Palsy Case

Shannon Weidemann — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:41:19 GMT

A woman that gave birth in 2003 has sued the hospital where she gave birth for medical malpractice because she believes they did not properly monitor her son during labor. The boy ended up having cerebral palsy. The jury in the case agreed and awarded the woman $13.5 Million. The boy was born at Broadlawns Medical Center.

As doctors prepared to perform a c-section on Deb Gardner, she says they stopped monitoring her baby's heartbeat. She says a spinal anesthetic caused her blood pressure to drop, which cut off oxygen to the baby. Finally, she says doctors did not realize there was a problem and took their time performing the c-section.

Cerebral palsy is a condition with no cure. It is usually caused due to lack of oxygen to the brain during labor and childbirth. The hospital has decided it will appeal the decision.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Report: FDA Fails To Monitor Clinical Trials

Scott Barber — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:49:01 GMT

A report by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, Daniel R. Levinson, assails the FDA for failing to ensure the health of patients in clinical trials. According to the report, the FDA could not accurately determine how many trials were being conducted, audited less than 1% of all testing sites and, when an audit found problems, supervisors downgraded the findings 68% of the time.

"In many ways, rats and mice get greater protection as research subjects in the United States than do humans," said Arthur L. Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Animal research centers have to register with the federal government, keep track of subject numbers, have unannounced spot inspections and address problems speedily or risk closing, none of which is true in human research, Mr. Caplan said.

It logically follows that allowing trials to not follow federal guidelines and to report incorrect data could result in the mistreatment of patients participating in trials and perhaps later product liability lawsuits against drug manufacturers if ineffective or dangerous medications are approved for general prescription.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Barber

Effects of Medical Malpractice Caps Doubtful

Randy Walton — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:25:25 GMT

Texas is seeing the greatest influx of medical doctors it has seen in a very long time. At last count, the state has climbed to 42nd in the U.S. rankings of physician's per capita, up from a raking of 48 in 2001.

Some attribute the growth to a voter approved constitutional amendment, proposition 12, which was narrowly approved by voters in 2003. Under the new law, any pain and suffering damages received by a victim of medical malpractice cannot exceed $250,000, and economic losses in a wrongful death case are capped at $1.6 million. California has similar medical malpractice caps.

The purported purpose of the caps, in both California and Texas, was to reduce the damages awards, and thus the malpractice insurance premiums that doctors and insurance companies claimed were driving them out of the state. Serious questions remain whether it has worked, or whether it has simply served as a way to protect insurance companies from high payouts.

But there are those who are skeptical about the caps on malpractice.
"We've lost our system of legal accountability, said N. Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, a consumer advocacy group. "Just having more doctors doesn't make patients safer. It remains to be seen who is coming to our state."
Demian McElhinny, 33, a former hospice pharmacy technician in El Paso, recently settled claims against a neurological surgeon for spinal surgery that left him disabled and his family impoverished; he said he emerged with "pennies on the dollar." His wife, Kelly, found work as a school bus driver, he said, while "I'm at home being a housewife to my two boys."
Mr. McElhinny's surgeon, Dr. Paul Henry Cho, later admitted to the medical board that he was addicted to a narcotic cough syrup and had written fraudulent prescriptions. Dr. Cho's license to prescribe drugs was suspended, although it was soon restored, and he moved from El Paso to a hospital in Fort Worth. He did not return a call to his office, and his lawyer declined to comment.
Paula Sweeney, a leading Dallas liability lawyer and a past president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, said, "A lot of legislators are aware they went too far in '03."

There is an ongoing debate whether malpractice caps work to lower insurance premiums for health care providers. I am one who believes that caps have not had their intended effect, and have served only to prevent juries from fully compensating legitimate victims of medical malpractice.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Randy Walton