Cherry Hill, New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Doctor Mistakes – How much do Electronic Systems Help?

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:05:57 GMT

President Obama has made electronic medical records central to US health care reform, promising $1.2 billion of assistance to doctors and hospitals in switching from paper to electronic records.

(Can you imagine any other major business succeeding today without an electronic record-keeping system? It's really, really ridiculous that the e-switch hasn't happened yet in most of this country's hospitals and doctors' offices.)

One major reason to switch to electronic records is to help doctors keep track of test results in an effort to avoid medical errors. But study results released this week show that doctors sometimes ignore even electronic warnings concerning abnormal test results. Doctors in the study failed to follow up on almost eight percent of the e-alerts they received about an abnormal x-ray, mammogram, CT scan, MRI, and other imaging tests, even when the results demanded immediate medical attention. The conditions of nearly all of the patients whose results were ignored ended up getting worse as a result.

"Just the fact that you can use technology to deliver a piece of information from the radiologist to a doctor doesn't mean it will be taken care of," said Dr. Hardeep Singh of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, whose study appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"The electronic health record system is a huge improvement from previous paper-based systems, but it is not perfect," Singh said in a telephone interview. -kcrg

Electronic systems will allow doctors to share patients' medical records, communicate information about proven treatments, and send test results reminders. Many Veterans Affairs medical centers (one of which was the subject of the study) have been using the systems for nearly a decade.

If neglecting to follow up on eight percent of abnormal test results is a "huge improvement" over the status quo, just how bad is the status quo?

If you have had an experience with an ignored abnormal test result or any other medical mistake, we want to hear the truth from you! Please post your story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Time to End Anti-Military Feres Doctrine and Let Our Soldiers Sue for Malpractice.

Mike Ferrara — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:44:02 GMT

Because of a 1950 Supreme Court ruling called the Feres Doctrine, active-duty military personnel and their families are prohibited from suing the federal government for injuries unrelated specifically to military service. Practically, this means that military personnel, unlike every other US citizen, can’t sue the federal government for medical malpractice.

Last March, we wrote about Sgt. Carmelo Rodriguez, a Marine who died at 29 from skin cancer that military doctors failed to diagnose for almost nine years. Because of the Feres Doctrine, his family was not allowed to pursue an otherwise meritorious malpractice case.

Now, 20-year-old Airman Colton Read is fighting for his life after a doctor at the David Grant USAF Medical Center on Travis Air Force Base in Northern California accidentally nicked his aorta during a laparoscopic gallbladder surgery, ultimately resulting in amputation of both Read’s legs as well as other life-threatening complications. Since the accident, Read has undergone several surgeries, but remains in critical condition.

Legally, there is nothing Read’s family can do. The Feres doctrine prevents them from seeking compensation for this soldier’s injuries, which are the fault of the operating doctor and unrelated to Read’s military service.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., is sponsoring a bill that essentially would overturn the Feres Doctrine, a legal precedent that would prevent Read or his family from suing the hospital and the doctors involved in his care. The bill would give military members the right to sue for medical malpractice.

"As people come to focus on this and understand [the bill], they would say it's completely reasonable," Hinchey said.

Hinchey said he is aware of what happened to Read, and he said the case appears similar to others he has heard about while drafting and pushing the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009. MARK NORRIS / The Dallas Morning News

The act, named in honor of Sgt. Carmelo Rodriguez, would allow for medical malpractice to be considered in cases where injuries were not sustained in combat. Introduced by Hinchey in 2008, the act has since been approved, and is currently pending before the entire committee.

It is time for the Feres Doctrine to end. Our honorable servicemen and women deserve quality health care for the sacrifices they make, and compensation when their health is needlessly jeopardized by medical malpractice. We can’t let one more family lose a child, brother or sister to military medical negligence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Huge Medical Malpractice Study: Liability Should Not be More Limited.

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:50:12 GMT

Americans for Insurance Reform released a study earlier this week showing that in recent years, doctor premiums and medical malpractice claims have overwhelmingly dropped, while the profits of the medical malpractice insurance industry have soared. Significantly, the study concludes that placing further limits on the liability of negligent doctors and unsafe hospitals would be unjustifiable, and would put almost no dent in our country’s health care costs.

AIR’s report, True Risk: Medical Liability, Malpractice Insurance and Health Care, is by Gillian Cassell-Stiga and Joanne Doroshow of the Center for Justice & Democracy, and actuary J. Robert Hunter, who is Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), former Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas, and former Federal Insurance Administrator under Presidents Carter and Ford.

In describing the study’s findings, Hunter said, “Thirty years of inflation-adjusted data show that medical malpractice premiums are the lowest they have been in this entire period. This is in no small part due to the fact that claims have fallen like a rock, down 45 percent since 2000. The periodic premium spikes we see in the data are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income. Since prices have not declined as much as claims have, medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years. -AIR

The findings apply equally to states that have placed major tort restrictions on victims of medical malpractice and to states that have not.

The study adds that because medical malpractice premiums amount to less than 0.5% of overall health care costs, with medical malpractice claims amounting to 0.2% (yes, these are tiny decimals) of health care costs, limiting liability any more will simply not have a significant effect on these health care costs. “If Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit,” it says, “including all legitimate cases, as part of health care reform, overall health care costs would hardly change, but the costs of medical error and hospital-induced injury would remain and someone else would have to pay.”

All of this only confirms the position we’ve been taking, which is that removing or further limiting medical liability would mean robbing patients of the only meaningful check and balance they have on the impossible monstrosity of a system that American health care has become. Limiting liability is not a way to save the country money, and it’s not fair for patients who are wrongfully injured or who lose their lives due to negligence.

Read AIR’s full study here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Marine, 29, Died of Skin Cancer due to Military Medical Malpractice – Family Not Allowed to Sue. Time to End Anti-Military Feres Doctrine

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:58:12 GMT

Last week, the Feres Doctrine came once again into the spotlight when the family of Sgt. Carmelo Rodriguez, a Marine who died at 29 from skin cancer that went undiagnosed by military doctors for nearly nine years, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

"Carmelo wanted his story to be heard, even if his life couldn't be saved. He wanted to ensure that what happened to him would not happen to another service member," Ivette Rodriguez [Carmelo’s sister] said.

With help from Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., Rodriguez is asking for a law to reverse a 59-year-old Supreme Court decision and give her family and other members of the military the ability to sue the government for medical malpractice. -Alex Hering, Kansas City InfoZine

In 1997, when Rodriguez enlisted in the Marines, his medical examination revealed melanoma on his left buttock. The military doctor neither informed Rodriguez nor referred him to a specialist. Over the next eight years, the melanoma grew and spread until, while serving in Iraq, Rodriguez asked for military doctors to examine it again. This time, they told him it was a wart, and recommended that he seek further care upon returning to the US. By the time a non-military doctor saw him, Rodriguez’s condition had developed into stage 3 malignant melanoma, which, despite three surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy, killed him 18 months later. Rodriguez died holding the hand of his 7-year-old son.

Rep. Hinchey introduced the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009 to reverse the ruling and give families and service members the ability to hold the military accountable for "negligent" medical care.

"In the opinion of the subcommittee, how could it be possible that, of all Americans, members of the military and their families are left no recourse in the face of such medical negligence?" Hinchey asked the committee.

He said that, because of the shortfall of doctors, nurses and other health care staff, it is the military's responsibility to have doctors who are trained in non-combat injuries, such as skin cancer. Hinchey referred to 10 military families who shared in the same fruitless battle as the Rodriguez family.

Near the end of the hearing, Ivette Rodriguez reminded the committee that the person who misdiagnosed her brother continues to work.

"I hear a lot of suing and guilt and blame," Rodriguez said. "That's not why my family is here. We are here for the military to be accountable. Every day, my brother is not here with us."

Hopefully, the Obama Department of Justice will work to end the totally unfair Feres Doctrine. Congress has yet to vote on the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009. Please contact your Senators and Representatives to voice your support for this crucial legislation. Our honorable servicemen and women deserve quality health care for the sacrifices they make for us. We can’t let one more family lose a child, brother or sister to military medical negligence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Hospitals are Still Neglecting to Report Serious Mistakes - Are Medical Malpractice Lawsuits the Public’s Only Hope?

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:12:19 GMT

Despite laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania requiring hospitals to report major medical errors, unanticipated complications, and near misses to stage agencies for the purpose of reducing medical mistakes, experts say that hospitals in both states are neglecting to report these kinds of incidents.

In 2007, major medical errors in Pennsylvania included accidentally leaving surgical equipment inside two separate patients at Fox Chase Cancer Center. At Abington Memorial Hospital in 2005, a woman recovering from hip surgery developed open bed sores after being left lying on a bedpan for several hours. In a total violation of state law, none of these incidents was reported by the hospitals responsible.

These individual reporting failures are indicative of a larger trend across Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In 2007, 5 out of the 80 hospitals in New Jersey neglected to report a single preventable medical error to state agencies. Similarly, a handful of Pennsylvania hospitals reported no serious events and no near misses that could have hurt patients.

To put this in perspective, James Conway, a quality expert at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass., says that on average, 100 patient medical charts document about 40 instances of patient harm.

When we compare these statistics to the ones coming in from hospitals, it becomes apparent that underreporting is both pervasive and profound.

"Anybody that is supposed to report close calls and has zero reports is clueless," said James Bagian, head of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for Patient Safety. "Management is asleep at the switch and just waiting until they kill someone." -Josh Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer

On the consumer level, patients have no way of knowing how well local hospitals are performing. State agencies do not release reports from individual hospitals regarding their rate of medical errors. Oftentimes, it is not until the health department cites a hospital for violating state laws that the public even hears of the hospital’s failing.

Since 2003, though the health department has cited four hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania for failing to report serious medical errors, none of these hospitals has been fined.

In the current climate of sloppy enforcement, medical malpractice lawsuits may be one of the only ways to make certain that hospitals and doctors are held responsible for serious patient harm.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Fatal Hospital Errors - New Jersey Reports 71 Percent Increase

Mike Ferrara — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:29:43 GMT

The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services has announced the results of its third annual Patient Safety Act report, which show that in 2007, a full 72 New Jersey hospital patients died as a result of preventable medical errors.

This figure represents a 30% from 2006 figures—a potentially disturbing finding, considering the deliberate effort New Jersey has been taking in recent years to reduce the number of medical errors (particularly “never events”—errors so egregious, they should absolutely never happen) in its hospitals.

Officials are saying that the increase may be due to more widespread reporting of error-related deaths, since the 2004 Patient Safety Act requires that New Jersey hospitals report every serious accident, as well as every serious surgical or medical error made by their staff. Since the 2004 Act, the number of total reported preventable errors has increased every year, peaking last year at 456.

Despite the mandate, data suggests that NJ hospitals are still vastly under-reporting their medical errors and accidents—which inevitably deters the implementation of effective preventative and corrective measures, ultimately leading to more errors and accordingly, to more of the medical malpractice lawsuits that those without the facts are citing as the greatest financial problem in the health care system.

Lawsuits are not the problem. They happen after the problem, because there’s a problem, to help fix the problem.

If you would like a free consultation by an experienced New Jersey attorney to tell you whether or not you have a meritorious medical malpractice case, contact New Jersey medical malpractice attorney Michael A. Ferrara, Jr. at mferrara@ferraralawfirm.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Confused by Preemption in Wyeth v. Levine? Listen to the Experts.

Camryn Hansen — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:55:52 GMT

This week, as the US Supreme Court hears the case of Wyeth v. Levine, centered around the FDA’s continued approval of the Wyeth migraine drug Phenergan for intravenous use via the IV push method, despite the drug’s tendency to cause gangrene when administered using this particular method (this is what happened to plaintiff Diana Levine), attorneys all over the country are keeping a keen eye on the discussion surrounding issues of preemption.

Ultimately, the question the Supreme Court will decide is whether or not Wyeth should be liable for Levine’s gangrene and subsequent arm amputation because the company knew of the risks of gangrene from the IV push method, and nevertheless marketed the drug to be used this way. Along the road to this final decision, however, are the many questions surrounding the FDA’s role in the approval and labeling of Phenergan. The FDA has ostensibly known about the drug’s gangrene risks for many years, and despite the over 50 amputations that have resulted from the IV push method of administration, has continued to approve the drug for IV push use, including only a mild warning on the label to advise doctors of the risk. (Because Wyeth has never been remiss in reporting incidents of gangrene from Phenergan via IV push, this is not the kind of Merck/Vioxx-type case in which a drug company deliberately withheld risks from the FDA.)

Given that a Vermont court awarded $7.4 million in damages to Levine on the basis of her argument that Phenergan’s label did not adequately address the gangrene risks, and the Supreme Court may find that the FDA, not Wyeth, is ultimately responsible for the nature of the labeling—having decided after risk-benefit analyses that the risk of gangrene was not sufficient to ban the IV push method of Phenergan—the apparent contradiction between state and federal law must be resolved. If the Supreme Court sides with Wyeth, the preemption victory will certainly take states’ rights down a notch. But since we will soon have a new president in the White House who will likely appoint new justices to the Supreme Court, will any kind of preemption decision made now just be overturned later?

To answer these questions and provide an in-depth analysis of the preemption matter at hand, Mike Ferrara of the Ferrara Law Firm and James Beck of Dechert LLP met on the Legal Talk Network this week to discuss the potential impact of Wyeth v. Levine on the future of our legal landscape. Click here to listen to their commentary online, or visit the Ferrara Law Firm.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Woman Gets Back Surgery - Wakes Up To Find Tatoo Below Panty Line - Doctor Unapologetic

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:04:49 GMT

A New Jersey woman has filed suit against an orthopedic surgeon who thought it was appropriate to place a removable tatoo on her while she was under anethesia. The doctor, Steven Kirshner, M.D. has offices in Marlton and Lumberton, New Jersey.

The red rose tatoo was placed below the panty line on the abdomen of Elizabeth Mateo of Pennsauken, N.J. on April 28, 2008. She had back surgery for a herniated disc at Virtua Hospital. The doctor is quoted as saying that he placed the removable tatoo because it was his intention to make the patient "feel better".

Arthur Caplan, M.D. Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, said if the facts are true, the doctor was out of bounds. In addition to the lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, a complaint has been filed with the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. An alleged former employee of Dr. Kirshner has placed an entry on the blog, phillyburbs.com, contending that she also was a victim of Dr. Kirshner's unwelcomed touches.

Early reaction to the case has been mixed with some feeling that Ms. Mateo should not have filed suit. Others feel the suit is meritorious because of the sensitive location the rose tatoo was placed without Ms Mateo's consent. Both sides agree, however, that the doctor was wrong and should be held accountable for his actions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Minnesota Hospital Admits Taking Out Good Kidney By Mistake - Where Are Those Who Want Caps on Med Mal Cases Now?

Mike Ferrara — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:50:32 GMT

Methodist Hospital in Minnesota is where the latest medical malpractice horror story took place. They took out the good kidney of a cancer patient by mistake. The hospital said we are going public with what happened because "it's the right thing to do". No. The right thing to do is for the hospitals in Minnesota and elsewhere to stop killing and maiming innocent persons. According to a study done at Harvard, there are over 80.000 medical malpractice deaths each year. All avoidable. Instead of leading a rallying cry to weed out bad doctors and bad hospitals, the Bush Administration, and many Republicans, want to restrict victim's right to sue in medical malpractice cases. They have it all backwards. It should be easier to sue to hold wrongdoers personally responsible for the harms that they cause. The sinister cry for caps and "tort reform" are just big business' way of hurting the little guy. Haven't we had it with enough Enron's, Global Crossing's and Bear Stearn's of the world? Isn't it time someone stood up for the victim? We have to expose the truth - something the Chamber of Commerce, the insurance industry and their well paid lobbyists don't want. Tort reform and medical malpractice caps aren't the answer. The answer is getting rid of bad doctors who cause these harms and holding those who cause the harms to be personally reponsible to their victims. A civil justice system by and for the people can demand no less. The entire story as reported by the AP follows:

ST. LOUIS PARK, Minn.--Doctors at Methodist Hospital made a mistake when they removed a cancer patient's only healthy kidney, hospital officials said Monday.
An executive with Park Nicollet Health Services, which operates the suburban hospital, said it was making the error public because it's the right thing to do.

"This is a tragic error on our part and we accept full responsibility for this," said Dr. Samuel Carlson, chief medical officer for Park Nicollet.

Surgeons removed the patient's healthy kidney last week, believing it had a cancerous tumor. But the crucial error happened several weeks earlier when the kidney on the wrong side was identified on the patient's medical charts as potentially cancerous, Carlson said.

"The discovery that this was the wrong kidney was made the next day when the pathologist examined the material and found no evidence of any malignancy," Carlson said.

Hospital officials apologized to the patient and family, and "are working closely with them to support them in every way we can," he said.

The patient has chosen to remain at Methodist for follow-up care. Because of privacy laws and the family's request, Park Nicollet was not releasing other details about the patient, not even if the error involved a man or woman, adult or child.

The surgeon involved voluntarily stepped aside from any treatment of patients while the hospital conducts a "root cause analysis." No other staff member has been removed from duty.
Carlson said new procedures were put into place Monday requiring the surgical team to verify sites using diagnostic imaging before an operation begins.

Hospital officials would not say what treatment the patient is now getting or discuss what effect the error may have on the patient's chances of recovery. But they said that when a patient has only one kidney that may be cancerous, you either try to save it and beat the cancer, or you have to remove it and start dialysis or consider a transplant. In some cases, Carlson said, cancer could make someone ineligible for a transplant.

Carlson said many hospital staffers were taking it hard. It had been a point of pride at Methodist Hospital that Gov. Tim Pawlenty came to it four years ago to sign a bill requiring that hospital errors to be reported to the state.

Twenty-four wrong-site surgeries were reported to the Minnesota Department of Health between October 2006 and October 2007. Two were at Methodist, but Carlson said they were relatively minor compared with last week's error: a needle biopsy on the wrong lung, and a diagnostic exam of the wrong bronchial tube.

Kathleen Harder, a University of Minnesota researcher, said medical errors of this magnitude are rare but do happen.

"They remove the wrong ovary, take off the wrong leg," she said. Many hospitals have stepped up efforts to catch errors in the operating room. But as in this case, she noted, the problem can occur long before the operation begins. "It's wrong in the chart ... and that sets it up for a train wreck."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Vioxx Deadline Passes - 85% Settlement Figure Expected to be Reached

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:02:11 GMT

The historic $4.85B Vioxx settlement by Merck (NYSE: MRK) Is one step closer to a final resolution. One of the requirements of the settlement was the at least 85% of the approximately 55,000 persons suing Merck had to agree to the settlement. The deadline to enroll all clients who desired to participate in the settlement was Febrary 29, 2008. Early reports indicate that the 85% figure will be easily met. Those that do not enroll in the settlement will have their cases listed for trial in either Atlantic City, NJ, New Orleans, or, perhaps whatever state they orginally filed their suits. Most cases not filed in NJ were filed in many different states, but were all moved to the United States District Court in New Orleans and were presided over by Judge Fallon. The judge there may send those cases not in the settlment back to the home states of the plaintiffs. Merck has promised that the first checks will be sent to clients on a rolling basis beginning in August, 2008. Of course, Merck does not admit any responsibility for the heart attacks, strokes, and deaths caused by the now disgraced and withdrawn pain killer drug, Vioxx.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara