Attorney Blog

Hospital Staff Fails to Diagnose Patient with Deep Vein Thrombosis; Patient Dies!

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:00:00 EST

This case makes me angry because there were multiple mistakes done by the treating physician and hospital staff. An out-of-state hospital had a young musician come into with severe pains in his calf that were incredibly painful. He went to his general practitioner and staff looked at his sore calf which had been bothering him already for days. A doctor then evaluated his calf and diagnosed it as a muscle injury then scheduled blood tests to check for clots.

As the pain got worse, the patient checked into a hospital and was again evaluated and told it was a soft tissue injury. The hospital did not, however, check for blood clots like the general practitioner did.

A few days later the general practitioner’s blood test came back. The doctor said that everything looked normal. However, there were scores that were more than double the upper level of normal for certain indicates of blood clots. But the doctor just missed it!

Days later, the patient dies and as a result of a pulmonary embolism—a result from deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”). DVT is a very dangerous condition that results from a blood clot and commonly affects the leg veins. The symptoms—besides pain—are a swelling of the affected limb, warmness, and redness which make diagnosis easier. If DVT is not diagnosed quickly enough, it can cause the clot to dislodge and travel to the lungs—which is called a pulmonary embolism—and cause serious health consequences which are commonly fatal.

But what I really like in this case is what the victim’s family said—something to nullify the aggressive tort reform seeking to limit large awards to patients and their families. The family said that “[w]e have not sought to punish anyone as it won't bring [the patient] back, but we hoped something positive could come out of this such as training for the doctors concerned and education for staff to prevent further deaths. Sadly the trusts will not acknowledge the mistakes made and I fear nothing has changed.”

What do you think?! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds Top Cause of Hospital Infection Outbreaks; the Norovirus!

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:00:00 EST

I always find very interesting studies regarding hospital infections and outbreaks, and what is actually causing them. A new study published in the American Journal of Infection Control Outbreaks has just been released this month. It studied over 800 hospitals with about thirty-five percent of them reporting at least one infectious outbreak over the two-year period.

The result? Only four different culprits were responsible for over sixty-percent of the outbreaks! At 18.2% of the time it was the Norovirus. In all gastroenteritis outbreaks around the world, the Norovirus is reasonable for ninety-percent of them! And may be responsible for fifty-percent of all foodbourne outbreaks too. It is transferred through focally contaminated food or water, by person-to-person contact, and via aeorsolization of the virus (essentially putting the virus into the area; turning it up into the air) and the subsequent contamination on the surfaces which are in contact with patient and hospital staff who can transmit the virus.

In fact, I have written plenty of posts relating to the contamination of hospital curtains and hospital employee uniforms. These are prime “filters” of air as staff dart in and out of the hospital which will capture the virus, and then be in contact with the actual staff or patients and cause a dangerous transmission of the virus.

Not a surprise, staph infections were also very high at 17.5%. In addition to commonly resulting in food poisoning, these infections cause localized skin infections, boils, sweat/gland infections, and—too a lesser extent—gastroenteritis. Staph infections are particularly dangerous because they can be found almost anywhere, particularly on human skin, and evolve very quickly and become resistant to antibiotics.

The next was Acinetobacter spp at 13.7%, which is notorious in hospitals on moist and dry surfaces. These infections can cause life-threatening infections in weakened patients, and still uncomfortable skin and wound infections in healthy and strong individuals.

The last found in the study was C. difficile at 10.3 percent. This is a particularly nasty strain which can cause serious inflammation of the colon, diarrhea, and other digestive complications.

Even more shockingly were that forty-percent of the outbreaks were in surgical units—places where we expect for things to be the absolute cleanest. One of the researchers was quoted saying that "[a]n infection prevention and control program and its staff should be prepared for all aspects of an outbreak investigation through written policies and procedures as well as communication with internal and external partners."

But what do you think?! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Stenting Follow-up; Mortality, Stents, and Physicians--a Correlation?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:00:00 EST

A new study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found shocking and significant data relating to the mortality rate of a neck stenting procedure. As it is, this procedure is controversial. But now, there is a clear predictor to death. In fact, one group had a 1.4-percent change of dying within thirty days after the procedure, while the other group was as high as 2.4-percent. While that does not sound like a large percentage increase, over the 25,000 procedures recorded—and many more done in the United States—that is a large amount of people who die in the second group as opposed to the first group. But what is the difference in the two groups?

The physician! Of course there is some correlation with the physician performing the operation. But it actually has nothing to do with medical school or training, but actually an even similar correlation; the number of times this year the physician had done the procedure. For physicians performing at least twenty-four of these neck stents per year had the lowest mortality rate, while physicians doing six or less a year had the higher mortality rate. Moral of the story—go to the doctor with the most procedures performed per year!

But what is a neck stent anyway? It is actually called carotid stenting. A doctor will clean out the cholesterol buildups in the major carotid arteries in the neck which supply the brain with oxygen-rich blood. These buildups are known to be a major cause of strokes, but a misstep in cleaning could produce a stroke immediately. That is because as the operating physician cleans the buildup and adds the stent—a small metal mesh tube to prop the vessel open—if part of a cholesterol deposit breaks off it could go right into the blood stream and into the smaller vessels closer to the brain. This will result in a much more dangerous buildup that, if it blocks that vessel, will cause a stroke. Generally, the danger period after this procedure is within thirty days after the operation.

Obviously, this could lead to medical malpractice liability. And if you know of someone about to receive a stent—whether or not it is in the neck—PLEASE make sure to check the doctor’s “patient load.” See how many procedures he or she is performing, particularly the procedure you are having. The more of them a year, statistically the better off you will be.

But if you know someone who has please make sure to give me a call! Liability to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit might be as short as two and a half years! The clock is ticking and please make sure to exercise your full rights affordable to you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Stent or Surgery? What Should A Patient Elect to Open a Clogged Neck Artery?!

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:00:00 EST

A recent study performed by researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore has answered the dangerous question surrounding clogged neck arteries and the appropriate treatment. That is, should a patient elect for a stenting procedure or for surgery. The answer: doesn’t matter!
While this sounds not conclusive and possibly even not helpful, it really is. The study shows that either option is just as effective. Researchers found that stenting or surgery will keep the arteries clear for at least two years following the procedure, and therefore helping to prevent a stroke.

The neck arteries, called carotid arteries, are very power and important arteries. Blockages here really spell disaster for a patient, and they are quite complicated for doctors to operate on. However, the only cause about ten percent of all strokes. However, unlike coronary arteries—the arteries on the outside of the heart providing it oxygen to continue pumping with just ferocity—which re-block about twenty-percent of the time, carotid arteries re-block at a quite smaller percentage (less than one percent!!).

So which should you get? Well, you should listen to your doctor’s recommendation. The more damage there is to the artery or the more blocked the artery, the more likely a surgery is appropriate. This manner also happens to be a little bit cheaper as well. However, it is significantly more invasive. On the other hand, stenting is a lot less invasive and is a significantly better option for elderly patients. Moreover, stenting also lowers the risks of heart attacks relative to surgery.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New York Jury Awards $3 million in Newborn Cerebral Palsy Case

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

Marlayna Kineke, now almost 18 years old, has a very different life today than she should have. She suffers from cerebral palsy and other major health issues all resulting from a doctor’s negligence during her birth. On January 28^th, 2012, a Warren County jury (Lake George) found that the OB/GYN “deviated from the acceptable standard of care” which was a “substantial factor” in Marlayna’s injuries. They awarded her $3 million dollars in damages to be put into a trust for her care for the rest of her life.

According to testimony at trial, what happened was the OB/GYN was called to the hospital at about 5 a.m. the morning of the birth for an emergency Cesarean section. However, the doctor did not arrive until 7 a.m. and the surgery began at 8:14 a.m. Plaintiff argued that this is what caused the brain injury, because the baby was suffering from fetal hypoxia (also known as intrauterine hypoxia). This is when the baby rapidly losses oxygen before birth, and is very hard to detect even with the most advanced medical equipment. Too long of a deprivation leads to permanent and irreversible brain injury.

The hospital records showed that it was this delay, because the umbilical cord was compressed, which caused the hypoxia. Further, this would have been alleviated if the doctor did not unnecessarily delay the survey by three to four hours. There was no significant justification for the delay other than the C-section may have caused complications to the mother, who was severely obese. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleged that the doctor was one of two who should have been at the hospital and should not have left; it is unclear if these two doctors were on call as the OB/GYNs for the night or not.

I hate cases like this. Particularly when there are excuses on top of excuses regarding the mistreatment of the patient. Attorney Greg Mills, who represented the patient, acknowledged that $3 million “sounds like a lot of money, but it has to pay for her care for the rest of her life.” This is why I cringe when people attack the tort reform and these high payouts. You are JUST harming the victims of medical malpractice if you have caps on recoveries!!! This should serve as a strong lesson to this OB/GYN and others to stay sharp and ever vigilant on their duties as a physician. Particularly because the doctor’s medical malpractice insurance will cover about $2 million, which means he will be liable to pay the other $1 million out of his own pocket!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Albany Medical Center Implants First Patient With Long-Term Heart Pump in Capital Region

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

So I recently posted about a world-wide medical breakthrough in Turkey with a triple limb transplant and a face transplant. Now I am discussing a regional breakthrough right here at Albany Medical Center.

According to a press release by Albany Medical Center publicized yesterday—January 25, 2012—heart surgeon Dr. Stuart Miller implanted the Capital Region’s first long-term heart pump into a patient. This is the same implanted device implanted into former Vice President Dick Cheney. Albany Medical Center said that the device, called the HeartMate II, is a mechanical heart pump that is incredibly sophisticated. It is a life-extending therapy for patients who are suffering from very serious and advanced stages of heart failure. In fact, this is used to treat end-stage heart failure because it is the only left ventricular assisted device approved by the FDA.

Basically, that means it pumps blood to the rest of the body when the heart can no longer do so. It attaches to the heart—it is not a replacement for the heart—and helps to push blood throughout the body. It so follows that this is an alternative to a heart transplant which costs more money and can take YEARS on the waiting lift.

I’m glad to see this technology and great medical advancements coming to the capital region! What do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Going to Surgery Soon? Study Says Eat Protein-free!

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

An interesting new study published in the medical journal Science and Translational Medicine made a SURPRISING finding. Usually the night before a surgery the doctor will tell you to not eat or drink anything. But this study found out that you should not only prepare the night before, but even WEEKS before a surgery! The result actually LOWERED the risk of complications from the surgery. These complications include heart attacks and strokes—major and very, VERY dangerous complications in surgery.

The study used mice and fed them a protein-free diet in the weeks before an operation. The researchers hypothesized that the stress of an operation on the body was adversely affected by protein in the body. The researches had two groups of mice. The first had a protein-free diet for up to two weeks before the surgery, and the other group ate normally. Then—in a humane manner—the researchers operated on the mice in such a way that put stress on the kidneys, liver, and overall body of the mice. This stress was simulated as being more than a usual surgery would cause to an individual.

Shockingly, forty-percent of the mice who ate normally DIED after this surgery. However, ALL of the mice on the protein-free diet survived!! One of the researchers remarked that “[s]urgery, by its nature, is traumatic to the body . . . . With changes to the diet, we’re getting the body ready for an acute stress like surgery. If we can do that, the complications might be less severe or there might be fewer complications.” Moreover, the researchers admitted that humans have a much more complex body system than mice. However, new studies are needed to see if this is completely transferable to humans but researchers are hopeful.

This study also shows that people should alter their diet PRIOR to surgery to make sure they lower their risks of complications. In fact, this suggests actually that prior to a surgery, if everything on mice is the same for humans, that the best diet for a person before a surgery would be protein-free—ideally vegan!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Cosmetic Surgeon Sued; Not Your Average Case! But it Exposed Important Lessons!

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

I came across a quite interesting medical malpractice claim regarding an out-of-state doctor and patient. Normally, I would avoid a topic such as this but it teaches and answers a few question. So I will not go into the facts too detailed, but will gloss over the basics and fill in the lessons.

The case is by a female patient who consented to a breast implant surgery for one size, but the doctor gave her much larger size then she consent to. In fact, it was noted as “ridiculous.” So what can we learn?

First, clients commonly ask: Can you sue a doctor for ELECTIVE surgery such as cosmetic surgery? Answer: ABSOLUTELY! It does not have to just be an emergency surgery or one to correct a health issue. In fact, elective surgeries such as cosmetic surgery are often easier to work with because there will be no claim by the doctor that it was an “emergency” or “life threatening” situation; both of these mitigate the liability of the doctor and make it harder to collect on them.

Second, even if you CONSENT to a surgery, and even a specific TYPE of surgery, it still doesn’t give the doctor free reign! The best example is in the seminal case we all read first thing in law school during torts; Mohr v. Williams. In this case, the patient went to the doctor with an earache and hearing problems. The doctor examined both ears and thought the right ear was the problem which required surgery. The doctor explained the surgery to the patient with the risks, benefits, and alternatives—like a good doctor ALWAYS HAS to do—and the patient consented to surgery on the right ear. On the day of the surgery, the patient confirmed again and consented that she wanted to go through with this surgery. So the doctor properly anesthetized her for the surgery and evaluated her right ear. However, the right ear didn’t look so bad anymore. He looked at the left ear, and realized it was REALLY bad and needed to be operated on—but NOT an emergency situation. However, the doctor did not want to have to wait until the patient awoke, get her consent, and then put her under again out of fear the heavy medications would cause complications for her.

So the doctor carried out the surgery on the patient’s left ear and, since she was under anesthesia, could not get that consent from her. When the patient awoke and found out her left ear was operated on and not her right, she sued claiming the doctor had no consent to do this. And the court agreed! In fact, the doctor was liable for a battery against the patient because it was an 1) intentional act, 2) it was direct, physical contact, 3) causing harmful or offensive contact, and 4) without consent or authority of law to do so. While this sounds hostile and just aggressive going after the patient, think about the policy implications? What if it were her hands—if you are right-handed and you agree to surgery on your left hand so it doesn’t affect your dominate hand, but the doctor operates on your right hand, isn’t that going to cause more problems for you? Isn’t that more of an inconvenience? What if you have strong eyesight in your right eye and so-so in your left so you consent to a surgery there, but the doctor does your strong eye—isn’t that a problem? What if her hearing is better in her left than her right, but the doctor performed the surgery there instead—isn’t this also a problem and inconvenience? This case has strong intent and consent implications for doctors and other medical staff, but also shows the policy line here that doctors must recognize!

Third, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH! Especially cosmetic surgery where you have AMPLE time to go over the credentials of the doctor! This doctor has actually LOST his license in one state for “sexual misconduct” with a patient, and has been accused other times of having intercourse with a patient. These are all red flags! You need to research your doctor’s name online, through medical rating websites, and even asking others in the field. If this patient did this, she clearly would have avoided this doctor.

So please—AGAIN—always make sure you check your doctor’s credentials, know EXACTLY what you are consenting to, and when in doubt if you have a claim always err on the save side and talk to a trained attorney (whether it is an emergency or elective surgery!).

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Medicine the Amazing: Turkish Doctors Perform Two Miraculous Procedures in One Day

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

Sometimes I like to take a step back and just look at something going on in the law or medicine and recognize the achievement, the advancement, and the downright remarkable events occurring in both. This weekend, Turkish doctors performed some truly incredible procedures all in the same day in the same hospital!

An immediate question would be why are they doing both of these operations with the same staff who undoubtedly is exhausted from the first operation and now has to do a second. Essentially, aren’t they spreading themselves too thin? While that may be true, the reason is quite simple. A forty-five year old man had passed away and he had elected to be a complete donor. Moreover, his tissue and blood were the “universal” type which increased the chances that he would be a successful donor to many other people.

The first procedure was a face transplant on a nineteen-year-old boy. The boy was severely burned when he was about six weeks old. Obviously when he was born, there had never been a face transplant before so that was out of the question. Moreover, his doctors likely wanted him to be older anyway for this surgery to lower his risks of complications and so his body had a chance to grow. When the world’s first transplant was completed in 2005, and subsequently more in the years following, this gave him hope and he opted for this radical surgery. The first face transplant in the United States was in 2008. The surgery performed by the Turkish doctors is a great success so far, and marks the country’s first face transplant and the world’s twentieth one overall.

The second procedure was a triple limb transplant on a thirty-four-year-old man. This is the first time in the entire world that a triple limb transplant has been performed! The team of doctors attached two arms and one leg to the patient from the same forty-five-year-old man. The man has lost his arms and leg when he was just eleven years old. He had been trying to scare away birds with an iron rod, but he hit a power line and was severely electrocuted. Previously, doctors had performed a double arm transplant in Germany in 2008, and a double leg transplant in Spain last year. So this is quite a fair feat to be doing a double operation, let alone a triple!

Of course for both surgeries there is a high risk of infection. Doctors at the hospital did mention to reporters that everything looks great for both individuals, however there is a critical ten-to-fifteen day period right not to ensure both patients remain healthy. Infection is a very dangerous risk normally, particularly with a face transplant and a triple limb transplant; the occurrence is multiplied!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds Common Factors of Good Primary Care; Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Discusses

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

An interesting study was just released this week from the University of California, Davis finding several key factors of high-quality primary care. As a result of these factors, patients of those primary care physicians who exhibit these have a lower risk of death! The first factor is that the physician holds evening and weekend office hours, thus creating greater availability and accessibility for his or her patients.

The second factor is comprehensiveness of the physician and his or her treatment of the patient. This includes providing preventive care and the depth of that service, referrals to other health care professionals, and care for new health issues immediately—whether or not they may need immediate attention.

The third factor is patient-centeredness. This is also something I have discussed in a few blog posts because it is also quite obvious how beneficial this can be for a patient. This key factor means that the physicians are listening and seeking a patient’s advice when deciding on treatment; it is a form a patient empowerment.

The study looked at over 52,000 patients ranging from 18 to 90 during a six year study. Factors such as age, current health, and some others were leveled out and adjusted to create uniformity. Applying these three factors of quality primary care yielded a significantly lower risk of death for the patients then other features or just not having them.

I think this was an interesting study and it is something we can really “test” out our physicians to see if they meet or exceed these features. I would be interested to see if there was a counter-survey that physicians who significantly LACK in these three areas have more incidents of medical malpractice; or at least medical malpractice lawsuits. I know for a fact that those physicians who fail to adequately communicate with their patients generally have a higher rate of lawsuit against them.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Hospital Staff Fails to Diagnosis Patient with Perforated Bowel; Patient Dies Before Staff Realizes What's Happening!

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

In an out-of-state case, a patient’s family has sued a hospital and its staff—doctors and nurses—in a case where a sixty-seven year old man died under their “care.” Shockingly, this patient had gone to the hospital for a simple urinary tract infection and was under expert care which should have realized the classic symptoms he was exhibited. Moreover, they became manifest WHILE he was in the hospital being treated!

According to the patient’s family, what happened was that the patient was being treated when his condition slowly deteriorated and became worse as time when on. The treating physician had initially said that as the patient’s condition improves, he could go home the very next day. The doctor then left the hospital. His family realized and kept contacting the hospital staff regarding the patient’s condition as it became to get much worse, particularly when the symptoms became very obvious. For example, the patient’s abdomen was increasingly becoming so distended that it the patient started to have trouble breathing. The nursing staff continued to shake off the family’s concerns until around 3 am when they called the physician—now for the first time—for an evaluation. When he was examined by that physician, they realized that something was seriously wrong and immediately transferred him to the intensive care unit. However, he died shorted before 5 am after being transferred.

The defense is arguing that the staff and doctor did not deviate from the standard of care that a competent physician in the locality would have rendered. Moreover, the defense argues that because the patient was always suffering from multiple sclerosis, that it was much more difficult for the staff to diagnosis the complications and a reasonable physician or nurse in that situation would have treated him the same.

But I’m not sure I buy it. Again, this case is about to go to trial as the jury was just picked so everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, if these symptoms and allegations are proven to be true, it would be quite obvious that the hospital is liable for the patient’s death. The plaintiff’s attorney told the jury that the entire hospital staff is “equally responsible for what occurred here. There’s no way to compensate; we can’t bring him back. But we want you to decide what’s fair for what this family has gone through.”

With the tort reform still looming, this is a significant issue because there really is no way to compensate the victims here. Another surgery cannot be done to reverse the errors. Reimbursing the victims for the botched treatment still doesn’t restore them whole. The only way is with money, and likely a lot of money. Moreover, this staff cannot be allowed to just walk on this without paying a hefty price. Ultimately, the hospital and doctor will likely be his hardest with this lawsuit and I hope this causes them to think twice when a patient’s condition is slowly deteriorating—especially when the patient’s family realized something was wrong!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Hospital Billing Horrors; Patient Mistakenly Receives $44 Million Overcharge!

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

We all know that health care costs a lot of money and it is only increasing. But one hospital patient who was treated for pneumonia got the shock of a lifetime. When he opened his bill, it was $44 million! Obviously this was in error, and the billing firm took responsibility for the error. The firm noted that some patients actually receive bills with invoice numbers that are accidently substituted for the amount due, which is what happened here.

So this brings up the great question, how much are we overpaying for the smaller errors? You know, those errors we probably would not notice because they are not so salient. This doesn’t just apply to hospital billing though. I know I have caught mistakes on my credit card statement before with double billing or even some waiter/waitress who felt entitled to add themselves an extra tip. But is this a problem with hospitals as well.

According to the FBI, YES! They report that health care fraud costs Americans $60 billion per year! The US Attorney’s offices agrees that healthcare fraud is an ongoing epidemic as many medical testing labs and home health care agencies are increasingly being nabbed in health care fraud cases; typically amounting to millions and millions in damages or settlements. This has extended to individual physicians as well; a podiatrist in Maryland was sentenced to prison for fraudulently billing Medicare over $1.1 million. In fact, it has extended to even non-physicians; a pastor was sentenced to prison for contributing to a $14 million Medicare fraud scheme.

The bottom line—whether it is hospital billing or your own credit card—ALWAYS check, recheck, and question billing amounts. Make sure you can calculate it yourself, and if you cannot ask the biller how they came to that amount. Essentially, make them prove to YOU that you own them that money; no assumptions!

Do you have any horror stories? But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctors Cheating on Board Exams—Why It Matters to YOU!

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

I just came across a disturbing article posted online at CNN. They lead an investigation into board certification exams for radiology and the possibility of candidates cheating on the test. Once this was disclosed to the American Board of Radiology (“ABR”)—the organization who oversees the exam and certifies passing radiologists—considered what candidates are doing cheating and now want to put a stop to it.

What the candidates are doing is called “recalling.” What happens is that candidates write down the questions they can remember after taking the board certification test. These questions get complied into a quite extensive bank, and hopefully candidates in turn will study and blatantly memorize these banks of questions to pass the board certification test. Essentially, they are just studying and memorizing the test and possible questions as opposed to memorizing all of the potential material that could be on the test. The banks span over fifteen years of questions and are presented in easy-to-digest formats, such as PowerPoints or PDFs. Here is a sample: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/09/saushec.pdf.

The ABR acknowledged that this has been happening for quite some time, and—again—considers this cheating and directly against the exam policy. In fact, the candidates must sign an agreement not to share test material. However, this is completely violated by the candidates in making these “recall” banks. This is important because about half of the questions on the radiology test are actually the same exact ones each year!

So what is the big deal? Well—the students are memorizing the test and not the actual material. Granted, they are still learning the material. However, they are more so focusing on these given questions. The president-elect of ABR, Dr. James Borgstede, stated that “[o]ur real mission is to the public . . . [o]ur real mission is to say that your certified radiologist has demonstrated, acquired and maintained the requisite skills and knowledge to practice with skill and safety on the public.” Dr. Matthew Webb, a military radiologist who complained specifically to the ABR about recalled which generated an investigation by the ABR, said that “[c]heating is the ultimate betrayal of trust to patients, and it’s also the most egregious and flagrant violation in academia . . . . I got to where I was based on my own personal achievements, learning and educating myself. To have to take an exam against others who were cheating is . . . unfathomable.”

This scares me because radiologists are sued with some frequency—perhaps not one of the highest, but they are still commonly sued. I would bet that if radiologists were without these “recall” banks of questions, they would have a significantly lower rate of medical malpractice. Either way, I really hate investigations like this because it really makes me questions the trustworthiness of some physicians. It will make me question any and all radiologists, which gives a bad name for the ones that do the right thing and study for the board certification test properly. I hope that these “recall” banks are vehemently attacked by the ABR and taken down, and violations of such anti-cheating policy are prosecuted.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds a Third of Medical Costs Can Be Attributed to Defensive Medicine! But is this a Bad Thing? Kingston, Medical Malpractice Lawyer Doesn't Think So!

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A poll was conducted by Oppenheim Research on behalf of Patients for Fair Compensation which found amazing results. Their study found that about one-third of healthcare funds expended in Florida were for unnecessary tests, treatments, and examinations done by physicians in order to avoid being sued!

The researchers said that this would eliminate $650 billion per year in medical costs nationwide. Just by itself, Florida’s annual healthcare accounts for about $132 billion for healthcare costs. Therefore, it so follows that a little over $40 billion in health care costs by Florida is spent on unnecessary tests and treatments. Further, they concluded that eighty-eight percent of Florida physicians are practicing some form of defensive medicine within the past year. Chairman Richard L. Jackson of the Patients for Fair Compensation was quoted regarding the survey saying that “[t]hat kind of money could certainly help pay for the healthcare of many uninsured Americans . . . if we eliminate defensive medicine, we can make healthcare more affordable for everyone.”

Defensive medicine is more than just a money drain. Yes, it shows that doctors are cognizant of lawyers watching their every move. However, it is incredibly hard to successfully sue a doctor for medical malpractice; it cannot be a small deviation from the accepted norm! Massive medical malpractice lawsuits are because the doctor truly caused great harm to the patient. Therefore, defensive medicine is almost unwarranted to that degree, because those small mistakes won’t ground liability in a physician’s mistake.

Additionally, defensive medicine is going to primarily be “rule out” procedures. These are procedures that are diagnostic in nature and seek to check on specific health conditions that could effectively be plaguing the patient. Not only are they generally less-expensive, but they can actually prevent more dangerous conditions that WOULD cost a lot of money (for example, treatable forms of cancer when timely detected). Defensive medicine could be things such as blood tests, endoscopies, colonoscopies, mammograms, and biopsies. Medical guidelines say we need to have these certain procedures done every so often, but sometimes a physician might come across a troubling symptom that a patient has and may order them outside of that accepted schedule; this is where that cost lies.

So let’s break this down. Say that performing diagnostic tests on all patients costs X. And treating dangerous conditions on the few patients that develop them costs Y. If X is greater than Y, than this new study has validity and we could save money by not performing defensive and cautionary medicine and just treating the dangerous conditions as they arise. However, if Y is greater than X, maybe we need to perform more preventative medicine to lower the costs of the dangerous conditions. In either scenario we are forgetting one intangible; people.

Costs should not matter when it comes to effectively treating patients! Whatever happens to an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?! This is why it shouldn’t matter that defensive medicine is costing so much money, because it WILL bring the long term costs down whether it is a pecuniary cost or a human life cost. Consequently, this survey was looking at Florida where it is understood that there is an aging population more than the national average. Thus, it would wholly be improper to try and impute this study on the rest of the United States because the demographics are different!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Why the Courts Don't Allow A Party to Convert Non-Party Physician Witnesses into Experts

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

So I came across a really interesting article in this month’s issue of the New York State Bar Association Journal that I thought I should share. The article is “Can a Non-Party Physician Be Compelled to Give Expert Testimony in a Medical Malpractice Action?” written by Katherine W. Dandy and Steven W. Kraus. I’m going to summarize it a little, and if you are interested PLEASE go and read this great article!

The article talks about an interesting issue revolving around procedure and trial practice. So this is another post about the nuances that need to be taken into consideration when practicing law (like my other post on the twelve New Jersey nurses).

It is understand that a defendant in a civil trial can be called to the stand as a witness and have their knowledge used as an expert. They can be asked typical witness-like question such as their examination of the patient, diagnosis, treatment, what they saw, heard, said, and anything else relevant to the case. They may ALSO be asked to act as an expert witness and discuss the more complicated nuances of practicing medicine. This has been approved by the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals.

However, the situation is different when there is another non-party physician testifying at trial. There are STRICT procedural requirements for expert witnesses and witnesses birthed from the Civil Practice Law and Rules—New York’s body of law governing civil trials—and case law. Particularly, the case law explicitly says that a non-party witness cannot be converted to an expert witness against his or her will and, moreover, cannot be compelled to give expert testimony but may contract to do so for compensation. This serves to protect a witness from being abused at trial. The idea is for the non-party witness to testify to the basic facts, such as the treatment they did after the defendant to help correct the mistakes or what the patient’s condition was when he or she first came to the non-party physician.

Not only does this act to save the non-party witness from overreaching by a party, but it protects the party not calling that witness from being broadsided by a witness who is now acting as an expert. Preparing for a witness is time consuming, but it requires a mastery of the facts (and the law to a point) at trial. HOWEVER, when there is an expert at trial a party REALLY needs to prepare a LOT to combat that expert. Essentially, the attorney needs to know MORE than the expert; that means memorizing all of the law and the medicine at the same time. The CPLR provides for expert disclosure so the attorney can do extensive and appropriate research regarding that expert in efforts to combat them. Therefore, if a party brings a non-party physician into trial as a “witness” but uses them inappropriately as an expert, courts have forcefully prohibited that.

This is really an interesting nuance of the law on how little technicalities can be the difference between admitting the testimony of a non-party physician into the trial and potentially having a devastating effect OR having that testimony barred and not admitted; possibly killing the trial for that party.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctor Didn't Have Privileges in Hospital but Performed Surgery Anyway; Resulted in Medical Malpractice!

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

Here is another lesson I hope to pass on to everyone. This is something I never thought of checking until law school. But ANY and EVERY time you are having a procedure done by a physician at a hospital, check with the hospital to ensure the doctor is allowed to perform that procedure there. This is called privileges, and it is essentially permission granted by a hospital to a particular physician—NOT to a physician’s entire firm—but to an actual and individual doctor. Privileges are commonly reviewed by the hospital every few years to ensure the doctor is still qualified to practice in that hospital.

Obviously there is a sliding scale for granting privileges. What I mean by this is that for permission to perform minor the procedures, the doctor will likely easily have permission granted by the hospital after a brief review. So it follows that the when a doctor wants permission to perform more dangerous, major, and invasive procedures, the hospital will conduct a detailed and thorough evaluation of the doctor’s credentials! These approvals are generally always done way ahead of time; they are not done for specific patients. In fact, it is incorrect for a doctor to advertise they have privileges when they do not!

In one case, a doctor was granted privileges for those minor procedures but was not granted privileges for the more dangerous and invasive procedures. The doctor attempted to do a laparoscopic hernia surgery—which he was NOT allowed to do—and ended up perforating the patient’s bowel during the surgery. Similarly with other a few other posts I have blogged about recently about damages to a patient’s bowels, this perforation caused a massive infection, sepsis shock, and organ failure. Moreover, the patient had to have an additional surgery to have parts of his hip and colon removed; he now has to permanently wear a colostomy bag!

So PLEASE before you have a surgery done at the hospital DOUBLE CHECK to make sure a doctor has privileges! The reason why this doctor didn’t have privileges to do this surgery was because he JUST finished his residency nine-months ago! He was not using the correct procedure to do this operation and he failed to get proper assistance when he accidently caused the perforation! Not only is this a complete failure by the doctor, but it is a failure by the hospital for not ensuring this doctor did not perform this surgery.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Survey Finds 1 in 10 Smokers Hide That Fact From a Doctor; But What Does That Actually Mean?

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A new survey found that one in ten smokers do not tell their doctors that they are smokers. This is important not just because doctors should be aware of their patients smoking. Granted, doctors play a MAJOR role in reaching out to smokers and helping them quit this very bad habit. But it is REALLY important because if smokers are not telling patients that they indeed do smoke, something that a doctor who—during a physical exam—is LIKELY to figure out the patient smokes (i.e. smell), then what else do patients hide? This survey might be extracted to drinking, drugs, and other unsafe practices to show that other patients are also hiding habits.

One reason that the survey provided was that patients might not disclose to doctors that they smoke because of the stronger social stigma recently around smokers; the trend is discouraging smoking. Thus, it might be seen as embarrassing the patient. Therefore, this ALSO could extract this to individuals who have embarrassing health conditions that they also do not want to share with their doctors!

I have posted numerous times that it is important for DOCTORS to adequately communicate with their patients. That poor communication leads to misunderstandings and errors, which in turn develop into lawsuits and even medical malpractice! BUT this is not a one-way road! Patients need to tell their doctors everything too because, if they do not and something unexpectedly goes wrong, the doctor COULD be insulated from liability because the patient did not fully disclose everything. For example, it would be dangerous for a heavy drinker to not tell his doctor about it if that doctor was going to prescribe blood thinners or high blood pressure medication.

So the bottom line is that yes, physicians should really try to pull from their patients about their bad habits. But patients should really be disclosing to their doctors EVERYTHING—whether or not the doctor asks! There needs to be a free exchange of information between you and your doctor!! The best way for them to accurately treat you is if they know everything in your file—especially the embarrassing things!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Believe it or Not—Busier Hospitals Are Better for Children Who Need Heart Surgery!

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A new study in the journal Pediatrics found that children who underwent heart surgeries at high-volume hospitals generally fare better than children who are treated at hospitals that perform fewer pediatric cardiac surgeries per year. Interesting because you would think that the busier a hospital is, the less intention each individual patient gets.

But that isn’t always true. A few months ago I posted an article about throat stents. The research there found a significant different between the surgeons who perform a lot of them (a set amount I cannot recall), as opposed to physicians who perform only a handful. That is because those surgeons—who are busier—end up having more expertise and “practice” performing the procedure. The same is likely true here.

The study argued that busier hospitals are more able to spot and handle complications that could occur during or after heart surgery because they understand the nuances of the patient’s condition. The more cases they see, the more experience they get treating complications, watching the patient’s status for issues that may arise, and overall being able to address those issues as they arise.

The study found that the risk for a patient dying after a major complication was higher in the hospitals that perform fewer than 150 pediatric heart surgeries a year as opposed to hospitals that perform more than 350 heart surgeries a year. Researchers noted that as much as eighty-percent of all pediatric heart patients can be treated anywhere. BUT the difference is that those twenty-percent of complex or difficult cases are the ones that a more experienced hospital can aptly take care of; here’s the statistical significance.

So just like a good restaurant, look for the busy hospitals! The more patients, the more experience and better equipped staff, which will therefore provide you with the best health care!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Lawsuit vs Pharmacy; Elderly Patient Given Wrong Medication and Doesn't Realize Until Refill!

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state woman has just filed a lawsuit against the pharmacy chain Rite Aid—who also has stores in New York—after she found out they gave her the wrong medication. She was prescribed the muscle relaxant hydralazine because it will help lower her blood pressure. When she went to the pharmacy to pick it up, her pharmacist actually gave her hydroxyzine by mistake. Hydroxyzine is an antihistamine that is not suggested for the elderly and can actually be very dangerous for them, particularly combined with other medications.

            The woman took the medication for a whole month because going in for a refill when another pharmacist realized the mistake! The woman had suffered greatly from taking the hydroxyzine for a whole month. She had an increase in the frequency and severity of seizures, a significant decrease in vision (likely from her high blood pressure which was unregulated), and an altered mental state.

            The lawsuit she just filed claims the pharmacist was negligent by failing to properly fill her prescription and failing to catch the error. As I have posted in other blog posts, she also went after Rite Aid—the deep pocket in the litigation—claiming that they are negligent in their hiring practices, failed to maintain a safe procedure for dispensing medicine, and violated state and federal laws and regulations regarding medications.

            Not only do we depend on our doctors to properly prescribe medications to us, we also rely on the pharmacists as almost a check and balance system. The patient gives the pharmacist a slip from the doctor, and the pharmacist—who has superior knowledge of the pharmaceuticals, must more than a doctor—checks the medication’s benefits, risks, and alternatives with the patient’s background. In this case, the doctor was right but the pharmacist was completely negligent in dispensing the medication properly. What is scarier is that this did happen to an elderly individual who is more susceptible to harm from the error; similarly, a young child or baby would also be in great danger.

            I hope this case it a warning to pharmacist to double check your double checks. This elderly individual is at the mercy of the pharmacist. She clearly does not understand her medication regimen which is a product of such prescriptions, and the pharmacist is the last in line to not only prescribe this medication but to also teach her about it.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctor Sued Over Botched Hernia Operation; Patient Dies!

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

In out-of-state doctor has just recently been sued for a really atrocious incident of medical malpractice. The patient underwent a hernia operation in 2010 and everything appeared to have done well. However, a few days later the patient developed sepsis—a potentially deadly medical condition that is characterized by a whole-body inflammatory state and the presence of a known or suspected infection. He underwent an exploratory surgery and the surgeon found that part of the patient’s intestine with fecal matter in it trapped within a meshed area of the hernia operation repair. It had begun to rot and the infection spread very quickly. This ultimately killed the patient.

            But the true worst part is the suffering the patient endured. After the second surgery, he was continued to get sicker and sicker, and gangrene set in. The patient struggled for more than two months (!!!) with gangrene and, essentially, his entire stomach and chest rotting from the inside out until he died in the hospital.

            The lawsuit alleges that the surgeon did not have the requisite knowledge to perform the hernia operation safely, failed to recognize the early and tell-tail signs of infection, and failed to use reasonable care in treating the patient.

            These are cases that just get me STEAMING. I hope this NEVER EVER happens again, but I know it—unfortunately—will. Some people saw that medical malpractice lawsuits really drive up the costs of the entire health care system. Some people think that medical malpractice and personal injury lawyers are just “ambulance chasers.” But look at what happened. Look at the REAL cost to the system; humans. Money will NEVER, EVER replace this man nor erase from the memory of his family the hideous suffering he endured for two months as his body rotted before them. Now he is gone.

            But there are also the high costs of the treatment AFTER the surgery that adds to the cost. For example, look at all the EXTRA costs the malpractice caused our system: the patient needed a second MAJOR exploratory operation, needed to stay in Intensive Care for two full months, the strong and regimented antibiotic schedule, the cocktails of painkillers multiple times a day for two months straight, changing of bandages and gauze, and salary for staff constantly monitoring him, amongst other expenses.

            Medical malpractice lawsuits ensure that doctors do things correctly or face a steep penalty. They serve as a checks and balances like the three branches of government, but here it is the client/patient, attorney, and doctor. No one party can abuse the system without repercussions from the other parties; the attorney cannot take a cut of the award/settlement that is too large without either the client/patient reporting him; the doctor cannot perform surgeries recklessly or conduct themselves in a way under the standard of care from his colleagues who are also under this obligation; and the patient cannot suffer from a small injury or feign it because the attorney cannot get paid without winning and will only take real instances of malpractice.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Points to Interesting Case Showing Interplay of Many Different Areas of Law

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A recent case has been settled in New Jersey regarding nurses having religious objections to performing abortions at their hospital. Now, I dislike taking positions on such controversial topics and I will NOT be telling you my position. Whether or not you support it, PLEASE look past that and look how medical malpractice, health care employees, hospitals, and of course patients all have different contingencies that go across legal lines and extend to moral, ethical, and philosophical. Attorneys do not just have to consider the law, but also religious positions, criminal liability/compliance, and traditions or family beliefs. Very interesting and really important for everyone to understand that a client or patient has so many dimensions are lawyer or doctor needs to consider!

            The case that I find so interesting that highlights this interplay is twelve nurses from a New Jersey hospital who refused to perform abortions they were ordered to do. Of course, the hospital wanted them terminated and they wanted to keep their jobs and not get transferred. So the nurses filed a lawsuit with a religious objection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in federal court. Judge Jose Linares expertly negotiated a settlement where both sides are content. The nurses do not have to perform the abortions unless there is a life-threatening situation and no other alternative staff present.

            This is a major and VERY interesting case to think about; there are other undercurrents are your local hospital such as this. More interesting cases regarding religious objections relate to spiritual healing for children. In these types of cases, the most common in the media are where parents insist and treating their children through spiritual healing as opposed to medical care. Courts have considered various factors and generally held that if the child is able to be healed with a high rate of probability and the parents are going against sound medical judgment, the parents cannot make their children martyrs and the procedure must happen over the objections of the parents. Essentially, the court takes a parens patriae approach.

            But courts do not extend this to competent adults. So when a physician has an emergency and has to treat an adult with a religious objection—commonly a blood transfusion scenario regarding Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses—they have to respect that objection unless the adult appears to be incompetent.

            The bottom line I want you to leave with is that when a doctor treats a patient they are more than just medical treatment at work here. There are religious decisions to make, health care compliance with the Department of Health decisions, criminal liability to consider (i.e. reporting abuse), and of course, standard of care and medical malpractice issues to comport with. The same is true with lawyers and religious, criminal, and malpractice issues. For example, federal courts have even considered this. In civil practice, when an attorney files papers they need to provide an affidavit or affirmation; a sworn statement. But some religions or personal beliefs of individuals will NOT swear on anything.   Federal court has provided for declarations which are not sworn statements, but have the penalty of perjury which effectively makes it the same as an affidavit.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Over Treatment of Patients; Are Doctors Afraid of Lawyers?

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A study published in the Journal of American Medical Association found that fourth-two percent of U.S. doctors surveyed believe that their patients are getting too much medical care. The other reasons noted by the doctors varied. Another fifty-two percent felt their patients were receiving the correct amount of care. And the very last six percent said their patients were receiving too little care.

Of the same doctors, twenty-eight percent said the reason was because they felt they were treating their patients too aggressively, which again could be that fear of medical malpractice. Another forty-five percent said that one in about every ten patients they say in a day had medical issues that could have been dealt with over the phone, by e-mail, or even through a nurse. One reason—or what is being claimed as the reason—is the fear of malpractice suits!

In a way that means I’m doing my job. But does that means that doctors are being sued too much? Recent news reports, none which I had blogged about, did note that while doctors might be sued a generous amount, very few of them are actually paying out claims. In fact, in the past I posted about pediatricians, a specialty least likely to be sued, actually paid out claims most often. Whereas OB-GYNs, one of the most sued specialty, actually paid out the least amount of claims.

This study is particularly important because the U.S. is the world’s highest health spending per capita among developed nations. Currently, the cost of health care is swirling around the U.S. in the tort reform as well because the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is being contested.

What do you think? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Hospital Readmissions: Study Finds Most Often it is a Heart Attack Patient

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

A new study published in the Journal of American Medical Association found that people who have heart attacks in the United States are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days (the standard measuring scale) than people in 16 other countries. Part of this is likely due to the fact that the average length of stay in the United States is THREE days, whereas in other countries it is AT LEAST SIX days.

In the study which spanned over 17 countries, just over eleven percent of the participants were readmitted to the hospital after a specific kind of heart attack where the coronary artery is completely blocked by a clot. In the United States, the readmission rate was 14.5 percent while in other countries it was almost ten percent. Additionally, the United States had the shortest sty at three days whereas in Germany—the country with the longest average stay—it was eight days.

Spokesperson for the American Heart association and preventive cardiologist in a New York City hospital said it best, that "[t]his study compared the U.S. against 16 other countries and asked how do we [the U.S.] measure up? And, their findings were a little disturbing. About 60 percent of patients with major heart attacks were discharged in three days or less. And, our readmission rates were higher than in other countries. We have the technology and the ability to provide quality care, but we're just not doing well. Even for the sickest patients, we're not doing well.”

A week or two ago I posted exactly about hospital readmissions and I believe the study there indicated that elderly individuals were most likely to be readmitted. Now this study indicates that heart patients are also more likely to be readmitted. These two factors create a dangerous combination. The other scary realization is that the longer a patient stays in the hospital, the less likely there is a readmission—AND that the United States is the WORST in terms of hospital stays.

We come to the cost issue: Does keeping 100 percent of patients in the hospital twice as long like other countries cost less than covering the hospital readmission for the 14 percent that need to come back? Because 85 percent of people will NOT need to be rehospitalized so you could save money on those individuals.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Patient Injured by Man Posing As Doctor!! Always Check Your Doctor's Credentials!

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST

This is a SHOCKING story and stresses the importance of knowing who your doctor is before having a surgery done!! We all test out and probe colleges for ourselves or our children or cars that we are thinking of buying; so why not test out and investigate our doctors? More specifically, our surgeons! ALWAYS CHECK! I hope this story is a wakeup call to everyone at the unfortunate expense of another.

            A San Francisco man, who has NO medical license, was posing as a doctor and got a woman to agree to a surgery at a dermatology clinic. He told the patient that it was his clinic which he owned with another doctor. In early 2010, the patient sought liposuction on her stomach and an eye lift for just $3,000! Here is your first red-flag, if the price is too good to be true then it PROBABLY IS!

            Once the surgery date was agreed upon, the defendant picked up the woman at her house—a SECOND red-flag; a busy doctor will not do this! EVER! They went to the office where he began the procedure, however, he had HER hold the IV bag; a THIRD red-flag! After he removed the six pounds of fat from her, he FLUSHED IT DOWN THE TOILET! At this point, I hope all of my readers would have checked his name, but if you didn’t once the “doctor” offered to pick you up at your house you wouldn’t have retained him for the surgery.

            OF COURSE the patient’s stomach became extremely infected and she had to go to another doctor to take care of it and perform corrective surgery. This is when she learned the man was NOT a doctor and they contacted the authorities.

            BUT WAIT—it’s even worse! Prior to the liposuction surgery, the “doctor” actually performed other procedures for the patient’s daughter to get rid of her acne. The defendant is facing four felony counts of practicing medicine without a license, three counts of assault with force likely to cause great bodily harm, and one count of battery for the procedures he performed on the patient and the patient’s daughter.

            I REALLY HOPE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! But, unfortunately, I know something like this will. That is the whole purpose of this blog; to protect patient rights. Whether it is from a real doctor or an imposter such as this crook, I hope I am giving you the knowledge and power to protect you and your family or friends the best you can when a health care employee is involved!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Proposed New York Bill Would Require RNs to Earn Bachelor's Degrees; Kingston, Medmal Lawyer Reacts

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

Proposed initiative “BSN in 10” will require registered nurses to earn a bachelor’s degree within ten years to keep working in New York. Currently, there are no other states that require registered nurses to have a four-year degree but just a two-year associate’s degree. Recently, both New Jersey and Rhode Island considered similar proposals but they did not stick through the legislature. Some might think that this seems to be draconian and over burdensome to require RNs to have four year degrees, especially considering that New York would be the only state to require such lofty requirements.

However, this is part of a national push to raise educational standards for nurses and is actually SUPPORTED by nursing associations and major health policy organizations. This also has federal support which has been recommending an upgrade to nursing education requirements. Last year, another stronger federal report came out really creating an impetus for the other two states and New York to propose these bills. As of 2008, the federal noted that 1/3 of all nurses had at least a four year degree. They hope and recommended raising that to eighty percent by 2020! An older study from the University of Pennsylvania found that for every ten percent increase in staffing by nurses with bachelor’s degrees, there was a five percent decrease in surgical deaths. If we follow the federal recommendation, that could result in a forty percent decrease in surgical deaths if eighty percent of the nursing staff has a four year decree.

As pushy as this support seems, it is important. It shows that organizations and governments are willing to take a big risk of possibility turning away individuals from a nursing career because of the added requirement. The health care industry as a whole is facing staffing shortages, particularly for nurses. This has the added effect that of all nurses, very few actually have been properly trained to care for the aging population.

Of course, this bill would have a “grandfather clause” which would protect current registered nurses from having to go back to school.

I think this is a good idea because it will help to lower the high costs of health care by providing more effective nurses which, as the study did show, will reduce errors. Moreover, nurses will be more efficient and proficient in their skills after a four year degree because they will have an additional two years of instruction and, presumably, supervised instruction by educators by current nurses. I am not saying that current nurses with a two year degree are worse off than a fresh-out-of-school student who has a four year degree because I acknowledge that a nurse is going to learn a TON from hands on work and experience. Additionally, I know some nurses with an associate’s degree are absolutely amazing; behind every good doctor is a better nurse.

However, the difference is that those nurses with a two year degree will have to learn the ropes at work on real patients. While that is a great thing, it also means they need to get up to speed. This is excellent if their employer will take the time to properly teach their nurses. BUT this is not going to be good if their employer is too busy, overworked, and really needs nurses IMMEDIATELY. With the extra two years of instruction and supervised attention/training, this could help get students up to speed on mock patients or under strict supervision; much safer for the patient.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Mental Hospital Patient Alleges Abuse; Sues for $2 Million

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

In an out-of-state mental hospital, a patient is accusing the hospital staff of subjecting her to sexual abuse and is seeking more than $2 million in damages. Now this is just a lawsuit filed, and the allegations are SHOCKING, but whether or not these are true it highlights an important issue that appears every so often: We need to ensure the preservation of the rights and safety of individuals in mental hospitals. From the groundbreaking incident at the Willowbrook Institution (see https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87975196) to more recent allegations of abuse at New York facilities, this is becoming a more common issue.

In this individual lawsuit, the patient alleges that the hospital staff had drugged her and subjected her to isolation when she complained of the incidents and tried to report them. The lawsuit alleges that it caused her injury to severe emotion distress as well, and that her woman’s civil rights were also affected. She has named 6 defendants in the lawsuit as well, again as I have posted last week, to widen the net for the best possible recovery.

I hope that cases like this will really highlight the issues because they are not New York specific; this could happen anywhere. There needs to be more oversight and checks for this specific population and in these hospitals to ensure we are treating everyone with the proper dignity we human beings deserve.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New Research Finds "Biomarker" Indicator For Heart Attacks; Will Lead to More Accurate and Life-saving Diagnoses

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

New research from the Journal of American Medical Association (“JAMA”) has found that a new and extremely sensitive test can detect a protein in muscle tissue, called troponin, which is linked to heart attacks. This is a crucial discovery because when patients go to emergency rooms for serious chest pains, the faster doctors can appropriately respond the better treatment and higher rate of success for treating a patient who is potentially suffering from a heart attack.

Troponin is important because, according to cardiologists and researchers, the higher levels of troponin the more likely a person is to have a heart attack. Interestingly enough, the less troponin or if it is not present, the likelihood of a heart attack is actually significantly smaller then with high levels. Therefore, if a patient is having chest pains but is not exhibiting the symptoms of a heart attack, the emergency team can now use this test to effectively rule out or diagnose the heart attack and appropriately treat the patient. In fact, it is so accurate that in the study, almost 100% of the time the test correctly predicted if the patient was or was not having a heart attack while other tests were significantly less accurate (almost 23% accurate).

This will save lives because it is very accurate, but it will help to lower the high costs of health care since patients with chest pains and low levels of troponin are unlikely to be having a heart attack and, therefore, do not need to be treated from a heart attack unless the heart attack symptoms manifest. Therefore, it can also help hospitals triage patients in a busy ER (for example, in an urban setting) where there are more potential patients with heart attacks then staff to treat them. These tests could be conducted immediately and help focus the limited cardiac staff on those suffering from cardiac conditions, as opposed to individuals suffering from muscular, skeletal, or other chest pains not associated with a heart attack.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Patient Sues Hospital for Improper Sterilization of Equipment; Kingston, MedMal Lawyer Weighs in

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state patient has filed a lawsuit against a hospital when they realized and told the patient that a medical device in an endoscopic procedure had not been properly sterilized. Now, that is just disturbing considering an endoscopy engulfs the instrument down the patient’s throat to look at the esophagus or even down to the stomach and the top of the GI tract. But that is not the worst part—the WORST PART is that the hospital notified the patient that he may have been exposed to HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C.
The lawsuit includes the injury to the patient’s family for reasonable fear and fright of contracting infectious diseases, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earnings/earning capacity, mental anguish, and emotional distress while of course suing for medical negligence.
This case is disturbing because it is something that really could happen anywhere, for any procedure whether it be a complicated endoscopy or even a simple ear exam with a scope. While the case has just been filed and I could not find out any more details of this case, it is absolutely horrifying if these allegations are true. Notice that the patient did sue under a lot of different theories of law to make sure that they can recover from this incident. Theories will change after the preliminary conference, initial disclosures, discovery, and pre-trial conferences are done because the facts and circumstances around the incident will be better known.
Moreover, the harm might not have been manifested yet, meaning, the patient might not know whether they have contracting one of those diseases. The patient’s legal recovery will be significantly higher or lower if one of multiple diseases are contracted or not.
But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctor Sued Over 40 Times for Malpractice; State FINALLY Suspends License

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

I have posted a few times before about the dangers of cosmetic surgery and the overzealousness of cosmetic surgeons attempting to perform surgeries beyond their skill level or out of their area of expertise; for example, anesthesia. Granted, there are some really fantastic plastic surgeons with exception nursing and support staffs. Moreover, it is one of the most difficult and sought after residency programs a medical student can obtain.
            However, cosmetic surgery also has some very poor physicians. Dr. Robert Cattani out of Staten Island has been sued over 40 times, but the New York State Health Department has yet to do anything until now. Some of his medical malpractice lawsuits include blinding a patient in one eye in 2005, causing life-threatening blood loss during a tummy tuck surgery, and perforating a patient’s bowel during a 2007 liposuction. In other surgeries he has caused horrific scaring and even prevented emergency assistance to a patient during a tummy tuck where he almost killed the patient when his kidneys started to fail.
            Finally, last month the New York State Department of Health—who also deals with complaints against physicians—suspended the doctor’s license saying that his practice “constitutes an imminent danger to [the] health of the people of this state.”
            My issue is, why did this doctor—or ANY doctor—gets through 40 medical malpractice lawsuits before having his or her license suspended?! There needs to be more aggressive oversight where if there are excessive complaints and lawsuits filed against a doctor, the Department of Health should act on it. Well, maybe not even excessive; maybe just MULTIPLE complaints within a certain timeframe, i.e. 2, 3, 4, maybe 5 all within a tight timeframe. I think we should be more aggressive to protect the rest of us from these horrific medical malpractice incidents and unnecessary harm.
            But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

One in Six New Yorkers Who Receive Stents End Up Back in Hospital

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

A few days ago I posted about overstenting and how it really contributes to the high costs of health care. Today, a new study came out finding that one in six New Yorkers who receive a stent end up back in the hospital within 30 days. This is up from another study last month of a single Minnesota hospital which had a one in ten readmission rate.
            This suggests that the stenting might not have been just the cure, but a bandage to the problem. Therefore, hospitals are not effectively treating the problem the first time. In fact, some experts even believe that if patients are more thoroughly evaluated the first time, this would significantly help to cut the high costs of health care. That a lot of the health care system costs are used up in hospital readmissions in general, coupled with the many cases, settlements, lawsuits, and allegations of overstenting, this is an area that needs to be improved.
            The study found that the highest risk group for rehospitalization were individuals who were elderly, female, have underlying diseases (like diabetes, kidney failure), and those individuals who had a longer or more complicated original procedure. Some experts acknowledged that some of the factors could not be changed like age or gender, however, other treatment plans could be made or modified to help reduce the rate of rehospitalizations. For example, patients could stay in the hospital for the original procedure longer or have more aggressive aftercare treatment. However, for the five out of six who do not come back to the hospital, does keeping them in the hospital for a few extra days and providing more aftercare outweigh the burden of that one patient who has to come back to the hospital?
            But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Nurse, Doctor, Anesthesiology Group Sued for Causing Brain Damage

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state patient is suing a nurse, doctor, and anesthesiology group for negligence after he suffered brain damage because of oxygen deprivation during a surgery. During the surgery, the team allowed him to remain hypotensive and bradycardic, which caused his brain damage. He is seeking damages for the medical malpractice negligence and for the oxygen deprivation.
The facts surrounding this case are very sparse, but nonetheless disturbing. If true, this would be very worrying for anyone undergoing a surgery requiring anesthesia. The fact that the nurse was sued also is just a litigation precaution to ensure the patient can take a recovery if, for example, the nurse was to be solely responsible for monitoring the patient for these specific harms. Even the doctor is not likely to be liable for the damage and, again, is likely a precaution. The deep pocket the patient wants to recover is the entire group of anesthesiologists because it is not one, but multiple physicians that the patient can all equally seeking recovery from. Whereas for the individual nurse and doctor, the amount awarded by the court can only be collected from either of them individually. Therefore, it is a tactical advantage to sue the larger group.
But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Out-of-state Hospital Settles Medical Malpractice Suit for $275k; Towels Left In Patient!

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state hospital has settled a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a 47-year-old veteran. The patient underwent surgery on May 2008 to remove a cancerous left kidney, and the surgeons ended up left in not one but TWO surgical towels by mistake. While the cancer was effectively removed, after two months with the towels left inside of him he became very sick and developed an abscess which required hospitalization. A CT scan of his abdomen revealed the two surgical towels and was told that finding one towel was “ridiculous, but tow is atrocious.”

Yesterday, I discussed the statute of limitations or medical malpractice cases. Now today, that discuss is pertinent. Recall from yesterday, that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is 2 ½ years. But, there are exceptions to the statute of limitations and one such exception is the discovery doctrine. So when the patient discovers the two towels left inside of him, he now has one year to bring the lawsuit; this is what saves his claim. Since the actually surgery was in 2008, the limitations period would have expired in 2010. But the discovery provision saves it.

A while ago I also discussed how foreign objects cases are more common than we would like or hope. The fact that two towels were left in this patient is just outrageous! That means the surgical staff really made big mistakes when it came to protocol and completed the surgery correctly. Hospital guidelines and American Medical Association guidelines must not have been followed. I think the amount was a little but low because there were two towels, the patient is older and the injuries might have a greater impact on him, and the fact that it was in so long that it created an abscess.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Sidebar: Pen Accidentally Swallowed 25 Years Ago Removed from the Woman's Stomach

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

Even though not entirely on point, I found this news report very interesting that I just had to share. I’ll also attempt to tie it in at the end to the law with the statute of limitations to keep it related to my blog, but really just think this is very newsworthy and interesting.

Twenty-five years ago, a British woman was evaluating her tonsils with a pen when it accidentally slipped and fell down her throat causing her to swallow it. Initially she had told her husband and general practitioner about it, but when abdominal scans came back normal, they dismissed her story.

Now at age 76, the woman had an appointment with a GI specialist for other symptoms when the doctors scanned her stomach and found the pen in her intestinal tract. When doctors removed the pen—which was corroded—they realized that it was still functional and able to write! What a crazy story! The doctor who did find the pen did say that it should serve the other doctor a lesson to not use x-rays to find plastic objects; they might not sure. Moreover, the doctor said that “occasionally it may be worth believing the patient’s account however unlikely it may be.”

What about the legal side of it though; is there any liability? Well, without knowing for sure the statute of limitations in England for medical malpractice, I am certain that it would not allow a claim for over a quarter of a century. The statute of limitations is essentially an absolute bar when a aggrieved patient can no longer sue another party for the harm they caused them. For example, in New York the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is in NY Civil Practice Law and Rules 214-a which states the timeframe is JUST 2 ½ years!! Other offenses have different statute of limitations—even the same offenses in civil and criminal contexts.

There are SOME ways to extend the statute of limitations. Some ways are tolls such as the patient was an infant (i.e. someone under 18), however it will only toll for tens before the statute of limitations begins to run again. Another toll is incompetency, and a last main toll is military service.

But there are other ways to extend the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases. One such way was codified in the case Borgia and later codified in that same CPLR section 214-a. It is the continuous treatment doctrine and it works by not starting the 2 ½ year limitation until the doctor has finished all the treatment related to that ailment. For instance, if a doctor harms a patient in January 2000, and has scheduled follow-up appointments for that ailment in April 2000, October 200, and then decided there should be a corrective procedure in February 2001 with another follow-up March 2001 and May 2001, the statute of limitations will now end November 2003 instead of June 2002; that can be a BIG difference in a medical malpractice case!

The other way—which I wrote an extensive blog post on in the fall—is the discovery rule by the Flanagan case which was also codified in 214-a. That gives the aggrieved patient another year upon the discovery of a “foreign object” left inside of a patient by the doctor, or the time left in the statute of limitations (whatever is longer). So, if a patient is harmed by a doctor January 2000, the statute of limitations ends June 2002. But if the patient discovers a foreign object in October 2003, the patient now has one year from that to sue the doctor; October 2004. This will extend the statute of limitations again to help the patient.

But wait—why isn’t this a foreign objects case? Didn’t the doctor miss the pen—a foreign object—in the patient?!! We, yes the doctor did but no, that is not technically a foreign object. It needs to be an object that the doctor put into the patient (here it was the patient putting it in the patient). Additionally, it also cannot be something that the doctor purposefully puts into the patient, i.e. a suture, pacemaker, etc.

So while the doctor 25 years ago is not liable for the pen being left inside of the patient, this should teach that doctor and doctors everywhere a lesson. LISTEN TO YOUR PATIENTS! A patient who accidently swallows a pen is embarrassed to come forward and tell anyone about this, the fact that she did should say something; she is scared and telling the truth! What if the patient’s stomach was punctured? What if she could have been poisoned by the ink all leaking out at once? Doctors should provide a more thorough examination of patients like this instead of so quickly dismissing it!

Woman Accidentally Swallowed a Pen 25 Years Ago; New Doctor Found It and the Pen Works!

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

Doctors and Over-Stenting; Kingston, NY Medical Malpractice Lawyer Evaluates

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

Stents are very important and great medical inventions and tools a physician has in their arsenal to save patients. Basically, a stent is just an artificial tube that goes into a patient’s body and is used to create or retain flow through a passage. This is most popularly known as a treatment for heart attacks, strokes, and other blood/artery related usage. But they are also used in the ureter to combat kidney stones, in the urethra for help an individual urinate, in the ears to help with drainage, and even in the esophagus for certain kinds of throat cancer. They could be made out of plastic or metal mesh-like materials.

But as great as these are, there are drawbacks. Yet the drawbacks come from not the stent, the people using them. Doctors have been accused and successfully sued for what is now known as over-stenting. One doctor gave his patient—a concededly stubborn 80-year-old man who refused a bypass surgery—32 stents in just 13 months! Another out-of-state hospital ended up settling for $1.8 million to end allegations of unnecessary stenting and health care fraud. Another doctor was accused of unnecessary stenting as many as 369 patients and ended up losing his license and costing a hospital $22 million.

Now there is a lot of resentment from the tort reform aimed at the high costs of medical malpractice and “ambulance chasers.” This is so misplaced. Medical malpractice lawsuits seek to right the aggrieved patient and try to make them whole again. But that is difficult because in medical cases, sometimes we cannot just bring back the patient or fix something so simply as a breach of contract or a manufacture deficiency. The only way to fix patients is to get money to compensate their harm.

But what really is raising the costs of health care? Unnecessary procedures like over-stenting. This is because now, not only do we have an unnecessary procedure—any expensive unnecessary procedure—but we now have to find a way to right the patient and bring a lawsuit. There are complications and in unnecessary procedures and I have even posted a few months ago that patients who receive more procedures end up generally end up in a worse condition as opposed to those patients that just receive procedures that are absolutely necessary. These are the true contributors to the costs of health care, not physicians being sued and a reformation through the tort reform, but physicians who are mindlessly prescribing and performing procedures that are not medically necessary. These are what are driving up our costs, not the litigation, it is the MEDICINE—the unnecessary medicine—that is causing it!

NY Dentist Sued for Making Patients Sign Privacy Agreement That They Could Not Rate or Opine her Treatment; Including Online!

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

New York Dentist Stacy Makhnevich, who practices in Manhattan, specializes in providing her services particularly to singers and musicians who play wind instruments. She requires patients to fill out a “Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy” form at the onset of treatment which REQUIRES patients to refrain from criticizing the dentist publically.

Particularly this is aimed at preventing patients from speaking on online blogs, forums, or review sites. Remember back in September, I had multiple blog sites about the benefits (and downfalls) of these types of services. In sum and substance, I concluded that those websites were beneficial and helped increase transparency but were certainly subject to abuse from physicians (signing in multiple times to boost their scores or, vice-versa, aggrieved patients).

Here, to make the deal seem more “fair” and reasonably, Dr. Makhnevich, in return, agrees to not sell the patients confidential information to third parties like marketers. BUT this is ALREADY illegal for her to do that under that small thing called HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)!

This is a one-way street. Patients can talk about the good and bad about a doctor but it is ILLEGAL for a doctor to do this to a patient. Essentially, the dentist is having patients sign something that is already in effect, but changing it to fit her own liking.

So why is this even an issue? Because one patient had a bad experience about the administrative functions of Dr. Makhnevich’s office (with insurance and billing) and posted about it online where the dentist immediately sent him a letter notifying him of his breach of the “mutual” agreement. The dentist then proceeded to charge him a fee for every day he had left the negative comments up online. The patient then filed a lawsuit against her, which evolved into a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; a federal courthouse.

So while today’s post is not per se about medical malpractice, this conduct by a doctor in connection with treatment is something else we need to be aware of to protect patient’s rights. This is outrageous for her to allow herself to break the law to abridge the rights of her patients; her patients who are paying HER! Moreover, in the era of the Affordable Care Act and the movement to increase transparency in our system, this is just a giant steps backwards!

This also reminds me that a lawyer in their retainer agreement (the agreement a client signs at the onset of the representation which defines the services, basis of pay, scope of representation, etc) cannot give themselves greater rights to do something against the law or professional rules. For example, the ethics committee said that a New York lawyer could NOT create more grounds for withdrawal of representation (something difficult to do) then the professional rules already allow for!

I hope that this lawsuit is successful—and not just to punish the dentist from doing this, but to make sure NO other doctors do this. We want to know about medical malpractice and how the quality of care a physician gives to a patient to other patients can make educated decisions.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Discover Why Caps on Damages suck and why you should care

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

An emotionally charged issue in politics is whether there should be caps on the amount of compensation that an injury victim can receive. About 30 states have laws that place a maximum cap on an injury victim's damages--fortunately, New York has no cap.

The horrific stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair in August illustrates all you need to know about caps. Here's the facts: In August, 2011, a windstorm caused metal scaffolding supporting stage lights to fall on dozens of fans attending a music concert at the Indiana State Fair. The concert promoters were warned more than two hours before the catastrophe that there would be extremely strong winds and heavy rain, but they did not postpone or cancel the concert. No precautions were taken by security.

Seven people were killed during the stage collapse, including 23-year Alina BigJohnny, and 58 survivors were seriously injured. Among the 58 injury victims was a teenager who was paralyzed and now faces a lifetime in a wheelchair. There is no dispute that the deaths and severe injuries caused by the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair have caused unimaginable harm to the injury victims and families of those who perished. In fairness, these innocent victims of the stage collapse should be compensated for their economic (medical expenses and loss of earnings) and non-economic (change in the quality of their life) damages, right?

But there's one big problem: Indiana law caps the state's liability at $5 million for ALL of the injury victims and the estates of those who died. The cap imposes an artificial limit on the maximum amount that all of the injury victims can recover, even if their collective damages far exceed the cap. The paralyzed teenager alone faces a lifetime of medical bills that will likely exceed $10 million.

Today, the State of Indiana offered the full amount of $5 million to ALL (not each) of the 65 persons harmed or killed by the accident.  The estates of the seven persons who died in the accident will get $300,000, and those seriously harmed by the accident will recover sums ranging from a high of $500,000 for the paralyzed teenager to $109. Thirty one people with physical injuries will recover nothing.

Gregory Zoeller, Esq., the Attorney General for Indiana, acknowledges that the injury victims will not even be able to pay their medical expenses with the settlement money. The injury victims are being offered settlements that amount to 65 percent of their documented medical bills. Many of those seriously injured in the accident will be forced into personal bankruptcy by their unpaid medical expenses. Many of those seriously injured in the accident will never be able to work again and face personal bankruptcy.

When asked to explain the fact that the settlement will not even compensate the injury victims for the full amount of their medical bills, Indiana's Attorney General simply responded, "The law is the law." Great explanation! Let's just ignore that fact that a paralyzed teenager has been forever devastated by the State's negligence and faces the rest of his life in a wheelchair. I'd like the Attorney General to look the paralzyed teenager in the face when he tells him, "The law is the law."

Unfortunately, Indiana is not the only state with caps on damages. Currently, 30 states have laws placing a cap on damages. Fortunately, some of the more enlightened states (Arizona, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Wyoming) have State constitutions that explicitly prohibit caps on damages. New York, New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire have no caps on damages.

The next time someone tells you that there should be caps on damages, you might want to mention the Indiana Stage Fair catastrophe.

If you have any questions or would like a free copy of my book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882. You are also welcome to join the mailing list for my newsletter, Your Malpractice Insider, by sending me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net with your name and address. My book and newsletter are FREE.

Medical and Legal Breakthrough: Court Allows Bone Marrow Donors to be Paid! Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Provides History and Weighs-in

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

A major case just decided by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is in San Francisco, California, determined that certain bone marrow donors can get paid for their life-saving donations. This is a monumental and break-through decision that will ripple throughout the United States!

But a little background is needed. The court system in the United States can be complicated! While each state is different, the New York system isn’t too far off (besides naming). First, you have specialized courts like Family Court (everything family law related like custody but NOT divorce), the Court of Claims (suing the State), and Surrogate’s Court (probating wills, administration, etc), among some other courts. Then second, you have some general trial courts with broad jurisdiction of what types of cases they can hear but limited in the amount of money allowed. These courts include town, village, city, district (Long Island only), and county courts. Third, you have the court with the broadest and most general jurisdiction in the state with the ability to hear virtually every kind of case; in New York that is the Supreme Court but other states that is the Superior Court. Fourth, you have the appeals courts—called the Appellate Division—which hear appeals from trial courts; they jurisdiction is quite limited to JUST appeals and in very rare circumstances some tax cases. They are usually spread out geographically throughout the state; New York has four spread out two south, and one north, and one west. Last, you have the highest court in the state—called the Court of Appeals in New York but in almost every other state called the Supreme Court—which has the MOST limited jurisdiction. These courts can only hear appeals from the appeals court, except in very, very rare circumstances. But these courts also have the most power because they have the final say.

The federal system is similar to the state system. You have some other courts like international trade or bankruptcy court as specialty courts. The main trial level court is the District Court which each state as at least one, usually multiple ones spread out geographically through the state. For example, New York has a Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western District Court. From there, appeals go to one of the 13 Circuit Courts. Those are also geographically spread out, but can hear cases that are not contiguous. For example, the 9^th Circuit in this blog post hears cases from district courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. (!) New York is in the Second Circuit, which is shared by just Connecticut and Vermont. Last in the federal system, and most obvious, is the Supreme Court which has ultimate power to bind all Circuits and even states.

Why this ruling by the 9^th Circuit that bone marrow donors can get paid is so important is because the National Organ Transplant Act that the US Congress passed in 1984 made it illegal for people to sell organs. New York also has a similar provision in the Public Health Law Section 4307 that makes it illegal to give anything of “valuable consideration [for] any human organ.” This is even broader and makes it illegal to even barter for organs. This is also an E Felony, meaning that it is the lowest level Felony but still provides for prison time of more than a year! Most importantly, this does not prevent “daisy chains” which allows for person A to donate an organ to person B, if person B or even C on B’s behalf donates an organ to another person.

Bone marrow donations have constituted an organ transplant and thus illegal for a person to receive compensation for up until now. The court analogized it with donating blood plasma, which is basically the same process, because blood plasma donors actually get paid. That is because a new medical breakthrough harvests the cells which eventually go into marrow form the donor’s bloodstream instead of the actual marrow. Therefore, it is JUST like taking blood plasma!

I agree and hope this really catches root nation-wide. With thousands and tens of thousands of patients needing bone marrow, hopefully a financial incentive during these tough economic times will induce people to donate these bone marrow cells to help save more lives. Moreover, this new procedure makes it MUCH easier to get bone marrow donations, because those donations are generally very, very painful until now; it’s like a blood test! Still, this procedure can weaken the donor a little, but it is much less painful and more beneficial for the donee. Overall, I fully support this and hope to see bone marrow donation increase greatly!

But what do you think? Should bone marrow donors get paid? Should overall organ donors get paid per organ? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Hospital Fails to Diagnose Child with Strep Infection; Child's Legs Needed to be Amputated!

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state hospital failed to perform a rapid strep test—standard safety protocol at hospitals when patients are suspected of having an infection—when a six-year-old boy came in with a fever, swollen tonsils, and unexplained hip pain. Initially, doctors diagnosed the boy with a hip strain and nasal congestion and began treatment for those conditions, then discharged him. However, the boy’s fever continued to rise as the infection worsened.

Hours later the boy’s parents realized something was really wrong and rushed him back to the hospital and that is finally when the hospital did the strep test and diagnosed him with a massive infection. At this point the infection was so bad it had began to destroy the child’s organ and ultimately required the boy to have both his legs amputated to save his life!

A strep infection is very, very dangerous. The infection can start harmlessly enough just causing illness or irritation for a patient, however, it can become stronger and deadly if it is left untreated and progresses to the bloodstream. A common strep infection is tonsillitis, or strep throat. That is a kind of focal infection, or localized. Other types are impetigo, cellulitis, and erysipelas which are all skin and tissue strep infections. Or as in this case, bacteremia which is a bloodstream infection. These kind of blood infections are very dangerous and the immune system’s response can cause sepsis and septic shock—both which have a very high mortality rate.

However, when treated in a timely manner the infection can be neutralized with antibiotics. In this case, the hospital failed to perform a simple strep test that could have saved the boys legs. The parents filed the medical malpractice lawsuit and are seeking compensating for his medical costs and pain and suffering.

I hope that the hospital here really has a large payout. Not for the stake of sticking it to them, but as I posted yesterday from the Jackson family: The hospital should learn from their mistake and know they need to uphold their Oath. This was a SIMPLE protocol mistake in not doing this test! So simple yet ended horribly for the patient! In law school, we learn about the seminal case of Carroll Towing where the Judge Learned Hand famous set the stand for a duty that if the probability of harm is great, the harm is significant, and the burden on addressing that harm is so low, there is a duty. Here, we fight squarely in that rule.

Kingston, Medical Malpractice Attorney Discusses the Conclusion of the Conrad Murray Case

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

The latest trial to grip the nation was the Dr. Conrad Murray trial in the death of Michael Jackson case. Dr. Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and now had his sentencing today. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor began the sentencing proceeding with an eloquent statement about Dr. Murray and to ensure that he, the judge, exercises his discretion to be fair. He powerfully said “There are those who feel Dr. Murray is a saint. There are those who feel Dr. Murray is the devil. He’s neither. He’s a human being. He stands convicted of the death of another human being.”

Looking like the judge was going to provide Dr. Murray a lighter sentence. However, he didn’t. He surprised the courtroom with the maximum sentence after preparing us—if not scaring us at first—with a possibly lesser sentence.

The sentence was four years. However, with good time the sentence will be credited to be just two years meaning Dr. Murray is released at the end of 2013. The Jackson family noted they were happy the judge did not let Dr. Murray go with a light sentence and felt this was justified. They were recorded saying that they did not want revenge, but they did want to “remind[] physicians that they cannot sell their services to the highest bidder and cast aside their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.”

It is that statement that I read in the news and knew I should relay to all my faithful readers. That is really the crux of the justice system when they go after physicians in either civil or criminal cases. While remedies in other cases like contracts can reimburse the party who had their contract breached, in medicine that is not always the case. Either the patient has died like here, or cannot be fixed. We are not talking about material possession but the bodies and emotions of human beings; that cannot be fixed!

Therefore, the law in medical malpractice and medical cases is not looking to suck the money out of the doctor’s pockets. Nor is it seeking to throw away doctor’s lives in jail. It is to deter wrongful conduct by physicians. It is to make sure the uphold their Oaths, to do the best they can as physicians, and to health the sick or injured. Essentially, and most importantly, it is to PROTECT PATIENT RIGHTS. I commend the judge for upholding this notion, and the Jackson family for not seeking an aggressive retributive stance, but one more of deterrence—or ideally declared to be.

Researchers Designed Robot So Steady-Handed it is OK for Brain Surgery; Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Cautions Use

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

The European Commission funded a project called ROBOCAST which created a robotic surgical device that has movements ten times steadier than a human’s hand during a surgery. This would allow it to perform the most delicate of brain surgeries, even more what can do now and particularly for treating tumors, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and Tourette’s syndrome. Particularly, it essentially shrinks the surgeon’s hand tremors to nothing.

Like other robots, it is guided by the surgeon and has thirteen different types of movement compared to only four available to human hands during minimally invasive surgery now. For example, during laparoscopies where surgeons make a small incision and insert the scope/tool(s) through it. This particularly lowers the infection risk and recovery time, as well as other complications such as bleeding risk.

So far this robot has only been tested on dummies through what is called “keyhole neurosurgery.” This surgery is when the probe goes into a tiny hole in the skull to perform the surgery. It will allow for more risky and dangerous surgeries which would not be possible with the human hand.

HOWEVER, recall recently my posts relating to robot surgeries. One post recounted a surgery where the robot punctured a patient’s intestines and caused massive complications and infection problems. Another was the last post or two where the robot malfunctioned and could not be restarted! What happens when the robot breaks down in a keyhole surgery at a very delicate part of the patient’s brain? The probe would have to blindly be removed by the staff, and therefore create more dangers then the physician doing it themselves!

I understand that this can be used for high-risky surgeries where we cannot possibly perform the surgery due to our own human limitations, and the robot makes it possible (i.e. the steadiness of the tools). And for that, it is GREAT. I just do not want to see a reliance on these machines for surgeries that COULD be performed with a surgeon’s hand as opposed to the machine’s probe. There are too many risks and dangerous already between the surgeon and the patient, why add another element of risk between the surgeon and patient when it is not necessary?

Nursing Home Resident Dies Because Staff Not Trained in Heimlich! Jury Awards $2.35 Million

Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

This appalling case is from an out-of-state nursing home and really scares me. It is hard enough to bring out loved ones to nursing homes that siphon money away. It is even harder to know that they are not doing a good job with all that money and can’t even train their staff correctly and to be more cognizant of the resident’s restrictions!

I hope this case is an impetus for STRICTER regulations and oversight. I know it is hard to do, but this case should never have happened! We fight and argue for the tort reform and to limit damages caps on medical malpractice and personal injury, but look at the outrageous behavior by nursing homes and hospitals. If they spend the few hundred dollars to train their staffs correctly, they would never have to pay a multi-million dollar verdict!! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Unfortunately in this case, no cure could save the resident.

A resident who was just 56 years old (!!) was eating his dinner when he began to choke on a meatball. The meatball had done down into this trachea instead of his esophagus, and would not come un-lodged easily. The nurse who was in charge of overseeing mealtime was NOT trained in the Heimlich maneuver but instead moved him to the nurse’s station as he was actively choking to get more help. When another nurse tried to help, the forced air into his lungs and only pushed the meatball down further making it even harder to get out!

A full twelve… TWELVE minute passed because the nurses called 911! When paramedics arrived they removed the meatball with forceps immediately but the resident died four hours later in the hospital. He had been with no or little airflow for almost 30 minutes at that point!

It turns out that he never should have been allowed food like meatballs because he had a swallowing problem in the first place, but oversight at the nursing home was so poor they did not monitor him closely enough.

The jury awarded his family $1.5 million for pain and suffering, and $850,000 for loss of past and future companionship. Money will never help the family cope for his loss at such a young age of 56, but hopefully this large sum WILL snap the nursing home—and others like it—into shape to make sure they train ALL their staff in such basic procedures. Just the fact that he should not have even been eating the food that ultimately caused his death should be a sign that something is wrong. And a delay of almost 15 minutes before calling for help is unbelievable!

Post-Thanksgiving Injuries Emergency Rooms; ER Doctor and Lawyer's Point of View

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

I hope everyone had a safe and great Thanksgiving yesterday! Every once in awhile I think it is important to take a step back from medical malpractice and legal blog posts and take a look at something less-business related but still relevant to the overall blog. Basically, take a look at something a little easier to digest (and the day after Thanksgiving, that will help us all!).

Emergency rooms on and after Thanksgiving are busy places; just because it is a holiday doesn’t mean people stop getting hurt. There are some interesting injuries that ER doctors see, particularly ones that are holiday-related (pumpkin carving accidents, food poisoning from rotten Easter eggs, electric shocks/burns from Christmas lights, etc), and here are some of the more interesting ones for Thanksgiving.

Sometimes the turkey isn’t ready when everyone gets to the house, so we naturally continue to pick at appetizers and, of course, continue to drink alcohol. By the time the turkey is ready and does come out, some people are a little liquored up. ER doctors say they see a lot of knife-related injuries stemming from carving the bird, particularly of intoxicated individuals.

Another common injury happens when patients have intestinal blockage due to overeating—that’s right, intestinal blockage! This generally happens when patients also have a condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis, or a related disorder.

Yesterday I noted how technology and medicine will continue to advance hand-in-hand, but sometimes they fail (i.e. when the robotic surgery device malfunctioned and shut down). A new theme with cooking turkeys is deep-frying them, and I cannot stress enough how dangerous gallons of boiling oil is. Add alcohol, and you have a real recipe for injuries! ER doctors have said that they have been a large increase in burns because of this new cooking method!

And lastly, another common “injury” not necessarily during Thanksgiving or the day after, but in the few days after is spoiled food. People go to the ER with severe food poisoning when they do not properly refrigerate/let food sit out too long. Also, people continue to eat leftovers way longer then it is save (rule of thumb is no more than five days, but safe practice is at three; when in doubt just throw it out!).

Legally, there is not much a patient can due to sue anyone because of his or her injuries. Generally, he or she would have assumed the risks of doing this actions and would be comparatively negligent when they cut their own hand while intoxicated even if they allege that the knife handle was defective and caused them to slip. In the case of the frying oil, manufacturers do make their own turkey frying kits and could have a products liability issue. However, they insulate themselves from lawsuits well with warning labels and again, through the assumption of risk doctrine. Moreover, the patient would likely to comparatively negligent as well.

During Patient's Robotic Surgery, the Device Fails! Staff Couldn't Fix it!

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

At an out-of-state hospital, during a robotic surgery on a patient’s NECK the device stopped working and the team was unable to fix the robot! This is a case of when medicine and technology mix there can be new problems that arise that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. Around a month ago I had posted an article about a robotic surgery gone wrong, and I think a few weeks before that I explained it robot surgery in detail. Now this case brings up some of the concerns that I had.

The patient was undergoing a thyroidectomy in her neck when the robot malfunctioned. The doctor performing the surgery remotely could not get the robot to restart, and the support staff in the OR could not get it to continue working either. The robot company is required to have support staff available to take care of problems, however the hospital was unable to get anyone there to take care of it!

The surgery had to be converted into a traditional surgery which ended up creating a bigger incision than the patient had wanted or consented to. The patient has now filed a lawsuit at the doctor, the hospital, and the manufacturer of the robot for physical pain, mental anguish, medical expenses, interest and court costs.

I think cases like these will continue to happen and even become more common! There are enough medical malpractice cases when the doctor is performing the surgery traditionally. Now, a computer or robot is serving as a middle man and you are just adding another element that could go wrong like it did here. THANKFULLY this was not during another major surgery or a life-threatening emergency surgery (for example, doctors in the US completing surgeries in Iraq for surgeries critically wounded).

There should be more regulation and I hope the manufacturer and the hospital get stuck with the bill; there really needs to be support staff available. Here, the doctor really did NOTHING wrong other than perform the surgery to the best of his ability but the machine malfunctioned. The hospitals need to take greater responsibility for these occurrences.

Surgical Team Leaves Sponge in Senior Citizen, Second Surgery to Remove it Kills Him; Family Files Lawsuit!

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

In an out-of-state case, a senior citizen aged 89 years old underwent open heart surgery along with a bypass and heart valve replacement at a hospital. Open heart surgery is literally that-the patient's heart is opened up and the surgery is performed on the internal structures of the heart. So it is a really intense, risky, and dangerous surgery because the blood flow has to be rerouted or, as posted recently, surgeons use hyperthermia to elongate the time they have.

Three days after the surgery, doctors realized the sponge was still inside and attempted to remove it. However, the patient died of bleeding complications in the subsequent surgery to remove the sponge. The hospital maintained that the patient died due to his poor health condition, and it will be interesting to see what the jury finds considering it is pretty conclusive that he died on the table during the second surgery to remove the sponge negligently left behind.

A few months ago, I had an extensive blog post on foreign objects and explained them in some detail. What is interesting is that cases like this are NOT really that uncommon. In fact, there are about 1,500 cases a year where a something was left inside the patient. Granted, there are a lot of surgeries so the percentage of surgeries with something left in the patient is probably miniscule. Yet, just that it still happens is disheartening, especially when it results in the death of the patient.

Hospitals do have procedures for counting sponges, tracking codes, precautionary x-rays, and other special methods to keep track of equipment. Yet, when there are humans involved there will always be errors no matter how careful you can be; we aren't perfect and we can't be expected to be.

It is important to know that this case was just filed, so the hospital and doctors are NOT guilty yet; their liability hasn't been determined. All that has happened was the ball is now rolling and the litigation process will begin. But this case reminds me of one that happened years ago at St. Francis in Poughkeepsie; in fact it is quite a famous case. In Kambat v. St. Francis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I97_0015.htm), the physicians left a sponge inside of a patient during a surgery too. When they realized the error after she had continued stomach pain after months went by, she had an x-ray and underwent another surgery where the pad was found. However, the pad had created an abscess in her bowels, which ultimately resulted in her death. The case is a bit complicated as to the theory of liability, but in the end the hospital was found liable for the damages to Ms. Kambat and her family. As for the case just filed here, I do not think the facts are so drastically different than Kambat actually, and I wouldn't be surprised if the hospital and surgical team were found to be liable.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New Study Finds Doctors Who Fail to or Poorly Communicate Test Results to Patients Get Sued More Often!

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

Researchers published a new study in the Journal of the American College of Radiology finding that doctors who fail to properly communicate test results to patients are at a much greater risk for medical malpractice lawsuits. The study found that malpractice payouts linked to communication failures jumped from almost $22 million in 1991, to $91 million in 2009. It is this lack of communication that prevents the patient from learning the risks, benefits, and alternatives to their treatment.

But is also creates more frustrated patients when your physician is not providing you the information you need in your condition. Moreover, it closes the line of communication when other symptoms might develop and create other problems. For example, in one case a client was misdiagnosed with viral meningitis-a serious but treatable condition. However, other symptoms manifested themselves and it turns out he was actually suffering from fungal meningitis-a much more serious and very fatal disease, particularly when there is even a SLIGHT delay in treatment.

This is something that I hate to see. One of the simplest, albeit potentially frustrating experiences, is for the doctor to just talk to the patient. Whether it is about the current state of the patient's health, test results from a treatment, or what to do next to further treat the patient, a doctor needs to relay this information to the patient. Particularly when it is a very serious condition and the likelihood of something to go wrong if great, a doctor should be the most vocal with his patients.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Hospital Ordered to Pay $12.5 Million In Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death Case; Kingston, Medical Malpractice Weighs In

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

An out-of-state hospital was ordered earlier this week to pay a total of $12.5 million to the family of a young accountant. In 2008, a jury awarded the family $2.5 million for a wrongful death claim after finding that the hospital was responsible for the patient's death in 2003. After delays in the litigation and procedural process, the family finally as closure; or the best closure they will ever had to this point after the death of their young family member. A jury of six men and six women determined that the young accountant would have made over $10 million in lifetime income and awarded that to the family. Thus, the total award was a whopping $12.5 million. The hospital, respectfully, will appeal.

What actually happened was the account, who had been working at one of the countries' most prestigious account firms, went to the hospital with severe headaches. Upon initial inspection, doctors believed he had a brain tumor and scheduled surgery to remove it four days later. But the night before the surgery the patient's pupils became fixed and dilated-a clear sign of serious brain problems. Nurses and doctors then dispute what happened next, but when the surgery was performed the next morning they learned that it was not a tumor, but in fact an abscess. Thus, it was too late and the patient never regained consciousness.

The crux of the case was that, despite the initial misdiagnosis-which could have won the case right there-the fact that the patient lay from for five hours after his pupils had dilated without being seen by a single doctor, when he STILL could have been saved, was the medical malpractice. The jury agreed.

Cases like this frustrate me why the physicians, on such a clear indication of neurological problems such as fixed and dilated pupils, could STILL not try to do something more. Especially when the patient is already diagnosed with a brain tumor, more tests, another CT scan or MRI should have been conducted. Moreover, I would love to see many cancers require a second opinion; especially something as nebulous yet dangerous as brain tumors.

Another feeling is that the hefty award is worth it for the family. Today there is a maelstrom of debate regarding the tort reform, and lowering or capping medical malpractice damages cases to help minimize the debt. I say forget about it! While I agree this high, particularly due to the patient's age and already powerful job, other hospitals need to see the ramifications of this! They need to know that if you are negligent and cause the death of another person, you will be sued and you will pay for it. The fact that they are now out $12.5 million is a lot of money, and aggregated around the country it accumulates fast.

But this family is completely destroyed; money will not fix their loss. The medical profession has to do their job to the best of their ability, and if they do so they will not have to pay out these large sums of money. It really is not easy for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, especially in New York were the Pattern Jury Instructions and even the case law is so deferential to the medical field. So when there is a big case, the plaintiff really did deserve it!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Trauma Surgeons Turning to Science Fiction: Inducing Suspended-Animation Hypothermia on Seriously Injured Patients

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

Funded by the Defense Department, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is preparing to test a strategy and method to treat severally injured trauma patients at their hospital. Many trauma patients that come into hospitals actually bleed to death before doctors can heal them and, basically, stop the bleeding. However, dropping some critically injured people into a very deep chill, as low as 50 degrees actually, would put the trauma victims into a suspended animation. Basically, the patient would do into extreme hypothermia which would allow them to survive without brain damage for about an hour so surgeons can repair the damage done to the patient.

Victims bleeding badly from gunshots, stabs, car accidents, or other such injuries which cause their hearts to stop beating, are the ideal patients to be saved by this induced-hyperthermia. Currently when a patient in these circumstances has their heart stop beating, they only have a seven-percent chance to live.

The lead researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, who is a critical care specialist, noted that if a patient gets cold enough, "you [the patient] do OK with no blood for a while . . . . We think we can buy time. We think it's better than anything else we have at the moment, and could have a significant impact in saving a bunch of patients."

Is this good or bad? Personally, I like this option. As the lead researcher said, trauma victims that are bleeding out are likely to not have a very good chance of survival-seven percent-and this experimental procedure might result in major advancement in human biology. Currently, this method has been used with animals such as dogs and pigs; both have physiological biology very similar to humans (some breeds of pigs can even have organs transplanted into humans! That is called xenotransportation).

But there are major ethical concerns here, particularly with consent. Experimental procedures REQUIRE consent, but a trauma patient-who was shot, stabbed, or in a car accident-is likely NOT in the position to consent (where or not they are conscious). Therefore, this could open up physicians to a lot of liability.

Another ethical concern-which I recognize is legal because there are SO many checks and approvals that are required to be done-are the testing on animals. Some studies had sedated and bled animals until their hearts stopped, which is usually fatal. Then the experimenters flushed ice-cold fluids through the animal's arteries to deep-chill the brain, heart, and then the rest of the body. After two hours, they brought the animal back to life by warming it up gradually and restarting blood flow (adding blood to the animal). Miraculously, the vast majority of the animals SURVIVED this experiment and made FULL recoveries!! No cognitive/mental problems either! Researchers were surprised too, as all of those animals should have died from this experiment, but they almost all survived. Now I understand tests on animals are almost required to advance science and, moreover, on humans. But something leaves me a little uneasy about this.

Now combining the ethical concerns for humans and animals, I am very uneasy about doing this on humans in trauma situations without their consent. If they procedure doesn't work, of the hyperthermia actually causes its very own complications or injuries to the patient, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't litigation.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

"Hot Coffee": A Movie you must see

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

On November 1, 2011, HBO Films released a documentary, "Hot Coffee", about America's civil justice system. "Hot Coffee" is named after the well-known case arising from McDonald's coffee that caused severe, third degree burns and multiple skin grafting operations on Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old Albuquerque, New Mexico resident who spilt the coffee on her lap.

"Hot Coffee" explores the facts of the McDonald's coffee case and contrasts the public perception of that case with the facts. While members of the public universally condemn the McDonald's coffee case as an example of "jackpot justice" at its worst, the facts of the case tell a different story.

The facts of Stella Liebeck's case were that she sustained severe, third-degree burns to her pelvic area necessitating three skin-grafting operations. Photographs showing the burns are grotesque. The lawyers for Ms. Liebeck discovered that McDonald's had a corporate policy of overheating their coffee by 40-50 degrees, which was designed to reduce the number of customers asking for free refills. McDonald's had 700 documented complaints of scalding burns caused by their hot coffee. McDonald's did nothing in response to the 700 complaints about their "hot" coffee.

Notably, the director of McDonald's risk assurance department testified matter-of-factly at a deposition that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption at 180-190 degrees (its desired temperature under McDonald's corporate policy) and if a consumer drank the coffee at that temperature, it would burn them.

A jury found Stella Liebeck partially at fault for spilling the coffee on herself and found McDonald's at fault for its corporate policy of overheating coffee to extreme temperatures and ignoring repeated burn injuries caused by their coffee. Compensatory damages for Ms. Liebeck's injuries of $160,000 were modest given her severe injuries, and the punitive damages of $2.7 million were later reduced by the Court to $480,000.

When random members of the public were shown photographs of Ms. Liebeck's severe pelvic burns, they were shocked and they could not believe that a single cup of coffee could have caused such injuries (you have to see the photographs to believe this). When informed that McDonald's had a corporate policy of overheating their coffee and McDonald's had received 700 complaints of burns caused by their coffee, their indignation rose.

After getting the actual facts of the McDonald's case, the persons interviewed for "Hot Coffee" stopped laughing at the McDonald's case and many expressed the view that the jury did not go far enough with their verdict. After the jury's verdict in Albuquerque, New Mexico, McDonald's changed its corporate policy by reducing the temperature of its coffee. A single lawsuit prevented innumerable burn injuries by forcing McDonald's to change its corporate policy.

"Hot Coffee" does an excellent job of illustrating the difference between perception and reality. The perception of the public is that Stella Liebeck scammed McDonald's for millions for a minor injury that was completely her fault. The reality of the McDonald's case is that Stella Liebeck sustained severe injuries by scalding hot coffee that was deliberately overheated by McDonald's in order to maximize their profits from coffee sales.

For those interested in learning the truth about America's civil justice system, the movie, "Hot Coffee", is a fantastic primer.

If you have any questions about "Hot Coffee", I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882. You can request a FREE copy of my book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, by sending me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net.

New Study Finds Too Few Doctors Screening Young Athletes for Heart Problems; Should There Be Stricter Guidelines?

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

With the focus of protecting young athletes from concussions is at the forefront, monitoring heart health might have fallen to the wayside. Until now. At the annual American Heart Association ("AHA") meeting, a study was presented showing that less than half of physicians actually screened for heart problems in young athletes. In fact, twenty-eight percent failed to ask about whether or not patients ever experienced chest pain during exercise, twenty-two percent didn't ask about unexplained fainting, and a whopping sixty-seven percent failed to discuss family history! Adding to the problem, only six-percent of high school athletic directors in one state were even aware of these guidelines.

In response, the AHA issued new guidelines aimed at helping doctors detect these problems earlier to prevent what has become more common in the news-a young athlete dying on the playing field due to one of these undetected heart problems. Further, the guidelines push education on coaches to also help them recognize the problems too.
The new guidelines list eight very specific questions that look at the medical-history, and four key elements in a physical exam of the athlete. The questions are even very obvious, but are still not being asked. For example, doctors need to ask if the athlete has chest pain during their exercise, unexplained fainting, and really investigate their family history of heart disease.

With the seven million high school athletes estimated to be playing sports in the United States, one out of every 30-to-50,000 will die each year due to sudden cardiac death. Of these deaths, the main cause was hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or a thickening of the heart muscle.

I think these are absolutely EASY and NECESSARY questions to ask and a very simple thing for a physician to do! How hard is it? When trying to rush through as many patients in a day as possible, doctors could be spreading themselves too thin. Granted, that primary care and pediatric physicians need to move quickly to make a living, these questions could be easily disposed of in most cases. And when they aren't, they would be completely necessary and could save a life.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctor Fails to Order X-Rays for Patient in Rollover Accident; Patient's Neck Was Broken!!

Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

In an out of state case, an oil field worker was involved in a rollover accident and seriously hurt. The responding ambulance immobilized him on a backboard with a neck brace, and rushed him to the nearest hospital emergency department. While there, the patient's treating physician order head and back x-rays. The doctor concluded that the patient had no broken bones or fractures, and was just a little beat up but otherwise fine. The doctor then released the patient without a neck brace, neck x-ray, or neck physical examination.

The problem? The doctor never ordered a neck x-ray!!

Days later the patient went back to four days later with lose of use of his left arm and shoulder. It turns out he had multiple cervical spine fractures, those are the vertebrate in the neck, and needed an immediate emergency neck fusion surgery.
As a result, the patient has permanent nerve root injuries in his neck because the doctor failed to diagnose his broken neck. This will result in a second neck fusion surgery and additional surgeries such as implanting a spinal cord stimulater to reduce the amount of pain the patient will feel.

The jury came back and awarded $7 million in damages to the patient, and another $2 million to his wife for loss of consortium. Essentially, loss of consortium is grounded in tort law (civil wrongs law; opposite of criminal) which refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor-here it was the doctor.

I am glad that the doctor got hit hard here. Why? Because it is such a simple mistake that lead to such great harm! We are all aware of the dangers of neck injuries, particularly in a car accident-let alone a rollover. The doctor and medical staff here made MAJOR mistake, especially considering they x-rayed the head AND back, but not the neck in between. I am confident this was also against hospital protocol in car accidents and rollover cases as well. Just the fact that the patient was COMPLAINING about his neck hurting, and the doctor not investigating further, should just in itself be enough of a deterrent for other doctors in similar circumstances.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Follow-up From Yesterday: Study Finds Health Care Employees More Likely to Put Gloves on Then Follow Proper Hand Hygiene

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

Yesterday, an alert blog follower sent me a very interesting article to report to everyone that was relevant in some of my older posts. Today, in almost ironic fashion, a study was released in the journal of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology further elaborating on the uncouth and lax protocol of hospital workers.

It found that health care providers who wear gloves are much less likely to wash their hands before and after treating their patients; something generally mandated by health care facilities. Further, the study noted that this corner cutting could spread infections in health care setting because some of the germs can actually get through the latex gloves or contaminate hands when the gloves are removed for the health care provider's hands.

While yesterday's article looked at the infection that resulted in intensive care units with infants when employees did not properly wash their hands, this study looked at more than seven-thousand elderly intensive care unit patients and their contact with health care providers; the complete opposite population but just as vulnerable. The findings concluded that proper hand hygiene compliance was forty-eight percent in a control, but when employees started to wear gloves it dropped to forty-one percent.

First, most notably, less than half of health care employees are following proper protocol as it is?! That is, frankly, SCARY. Second, if we have learned that some germs can go through latex and a danger still exists when you take them off, shouldn't trained health care professionals also know this?!

I agree with the authors of the study that health care workers need better education programs DURING their careers-like reminders-regarding hygiene and disease spreading prevention. A great resource would be through CME (continuing medical education) programs. Additionally, there should be more internal penalties for those employees caught not following the proper procedures.

Finally, if internally there is still no reaction or change for employees, there NEEDS to be more local or state oversight in creating penalties for these individuals. This cannot continue! All it takes is a mass infection where many patients-particularly the young or elderly-get sick and pass away will there be change. That step needs to be skipped, and we need to take action now!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

User-Submitted Article: Investigation Finds Flaws In Hospital Routines; Hospital Hygiene At Fault!

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

Twice recentlyI have noted the dangers of hospital practices in a blog post. Now, an observant reader-Doug C. from Alaska-pointed to my attention another interesting article. Thank you for sharing, Doug!

This article reported on a study out of Alaska which found that some hospital employees actually did NOT wash their hands after the bathrooms, and did not properly wear their medical gowns. In fact, after an outbreak an observational study found that this incorrect hand-washing and gown-wearing occurred about thirty-one percent of the time; THIRTY-ONE!

But more importantly was what the impetus was for the this observational study. That "outbreak" was a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better known as MRSA, which is a very resistant bacterial infection. What's worse? That outbreak occurred in the hospital's newborn intensive care unit!

Mild infections were detected in fourteen of the infants, and another thirty-four had been carrying the bacteria but showed no signs of infection. To put this into perspective, that hospital usually sees at MOST twelve MRSA infections in a YEAR.

But what makes MRSA so dangerous? Well, it is very difficult to treat infection and is resistant to antibiotics such as the penicillins and cephalosporins, which are both typically very powerful and curing treatments for bacterial infections. While most people actually do have MRSA on their bodies at some point or another, their immune system prevents the infection from causing any trouble. However, for an individual with a weak immune system-such as a baby-MRSA can cause serious complications and problems. It can create high temperatures, skin rashes, and even boils!

That is why I advocate for stiff penalties in situations like this. While I have blogged that it might be near impossible to rid the "human error" out of hospital infections rates, for example dangerous bacteria being on hospital curtains within a day or two after hanging them, washing hands and wearing gowns properly are human errors that could be and SHOULD be eliminated easily. Particularly when children are at risk due to a lack of hospital hygiene because of something so simple that we all learned at a very young age; wash your hands after the bathroom.

Moreover, I think that regulatory agencies should take a very aggressive stance regarding cases like this. The evidence is clear too; twelve infections per year on average, but fourteen babies currently with infections!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Medical Malpractice Costs Girl Limbs! Case Settles for $10 Million

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

The family of a two-year-old girl brought her to the hospital due to a fever which was weakening her slowly. It turns out this was due to a dangerous strep infection. However, she was left untreated at the hospital waiting room for five hours; FIVE HOURS! When staff finally came in to see her, she was suffering from septic shock-a very serious and commonly deadly condition.

The infection was so bad, she had to be flown out to another hospital! The bacterial bloodstream infection took a massive toll on her fragile body, and her feet, left hand, and part of her right hand all had to be amputated.

The hospital, which was not a New York hospital, agreed to pay $9 million in damages while the Emergency Physicians Medical Group will pay $1 million. Yes, the amount of money here is quite high but completely warranted. The money will go towards her current cost of living and case, while the rest will be given to her on a monthly basis when she turns eighteen in 2026.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time an incident like this has happened. Earlier this very month a homeless gentleman died from a bladder infection. He waited in a hospital emergency room in Canada for thirty-four hours. THIRTY-FOUR HOURS! A few years ago, a woman died from blood clots on the floor of an emergency room when she had waited for almost twenty-four hours. TWENTY-FOUR HOURS! Why does this continue?!

I understand that many hospital emergency rooms are understaffed, under-supplied, and over-utilized. However, there needs to be better triage and oversight here. Simple infections can be treated when caught early, but absolutely catastrophic when they aren't.

I recognize that this is a lot of money, but the severity of these injuries for anyone, let alone a young girl who has her whole life in front of her, is just simply upsetting. Her life has been completely changed and will never be the same; no amount of money can compensation that. Thankfully, her counsel and financial advisers look to have done a good job putting money in a trust so that the $10 million will continue to grow with interest properly; she will receive full benefit of trust law.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Jury in Franklin County, New York Awards Unprecedented $2.9 Million for Personal Injury in Hospital Negligence Case

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

A patient who was sustained permanent brain damage as a direct result of the negligence of a hospital x-ray team received a $2.9 million dollar jury verdict late last week. The patient, who is a married woman from Fort Covington, went into Alice Hyde Medical Center in 2002 for a routine procedure.

That procedure was a barium swallow, a medical imaging procedure used to examine the upper GI tract which includes the esophagus and the stomach. The patient swallows the barium, and usually baking sodium to create a contrast between the dense barium and light, gassy baking sodium, while taking an x-ray of the person's throat.

Here, the technician was positioning the x-ray tube the patient when a cord got caught on the machine's keypad, which caused it to fall onto the patient's forehead. This created a traumatic and permanent brain injury which lead to a lawsuit against the hospital, x-ray manufacturer, and x-ray company. The case failed against the manufacturer.
However, the negligence lawsuit did succeed against the others for $2.9 million dollars! The jury consisted of one man and five women who returned this verdict.

I for one am glad that the jury went outside of the past accepted awarded and gave more to this patient. She went in for a ROUTINE procedure, and came out with a catastrophic injury. I hope this serves a lesson not just to the hospital and its staff, but also to the x-ray company and manufacturer that yeah, maybe you got away this time, but cords should not be getting stuck on keyboards. Even if it did not happen once in the six years that machine was there, the fact that there is a POSSIBLITY it could happen is just horrifying!

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Baby Misdiagnosed as Stillborn; Chinese Hospital Disposes of When Alive!

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

Sometimes there are some health care/medical malpractice stories and news events that shock our conscious to our very soul, and I just think it is very important to report to everyone. This is one such case. Please note though, the baby IS alive now and in stable condition.

Health authorities in China are investigating a hospital medical team for misdiagnosing a baby born at the hospital as stillborn, and actually disposing of the baby when it was actually alive!

What happened was the mother, who was eight months pregnant, had been rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding and stomach cramps. In the emergency room, they had to give birth to the child immediately. However, the baby was not breathing or crying, and its skin began to turn purple. The medical team thought the baby was dead, and disposed of the child. However, when a family member wanted to see the baby's body about half an hour after the delivery, the baby was found alive!

The body was placed in a plastic bag in a medical trash container. When the bag was opened, the baby's hands and feet were moving, the baby was not breathing, and there were air bubbles percolating from the baby's mouth.

THANKFULLY-the baby was rushed to intensive care and remains in stable condition! The parents, rightfully so, have already announced they will sue the hospital for this. And rightfully so. Apparently, the hospital failed to conduct the proper hospital protocols when it came to stillborn babies and aftercare. I have posted a few times how OB/GYNs are sued often, how those guidelines are based on opinion rather than actual evidence, and most pertinently here, how the guidelines are sometimes just ignored completely.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! Leave a comment or I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Patient Gets Blood Drawn, Nurse Hits Nerve, Patient Wins $2.5 Million Verdict!

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

A medical malpractice case in another state resulted in a $2.5 million medical malpractice case for the fifty-year-old patient. What happened was a nurse when to draw some blood from the patient. However, the nurse struck a nerve when she was drawing that blood for a pre-operation procedure.

Immediately, the patient screamed out in pain-wouldn't you?! However, the nurse KEPT THE NEEDLE IN his skin instead of immediately withdrawing it. As a result, the patient suffered from what is called Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome. And it has been opined that he has permanent nerve damage because of it. Therefore, he had to go for ANOTHER surgery to have a device implanted into his spine to control the impulses of pain.

The jury awarded $2.5 million after a brief four day-yet very intense-jury trial. It has been called a David versus Goliath trial.

How scary is this?

We've all been stuck dozens of times with needles to draw blood or get seasonal flu shots, or even IVs. A quick scan of the internet and I found many aggrieved patients who also had nerves hit during one of these quick and usually painless procedure. However, there did not appear to be any recent studies of how often a nerve was injured in a blood test/donation. The closest one, from 1996, found that 1 in 6,300 donors suffered a nerve injury; now that's actually pretty high!

Also searching the internet, there seems to be a pretty good track record of receiving compensation in a lawsuit from this medical malpractice. Sometimes technicians receive only a few DAYS of training into a fake arm before they begin sticking patients. When this happens, a technician is also trained to IMMEDIATELY remove the needle and then seek other help; something that the nurse CLEARLY did not do here. And if it happens to you, one doctor noted that if a patient acts quickly and goes to the right doctors, there is a lot that can be done to limit the damage.

Again, cases like this-sadly-are not unique. Do you know someone this happened to? Your time is ticking to file a lawsuit! In some cases, as short as two and a half years from the date of the injury!! I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Cosmetic Surgery Death Leads to Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Lawsuit; Kingston, New York MedMal Lawyer Weighs In

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A non-certified surgeon that performed a liposuction on a Florida woman, which resulted in her death in 2010, has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that the surgeon improperly administered the anesthesia which led to the patient's death.

Additionally, the surgeon caused the death of a second patient during a liposuction procedure because she went into cardiac arrest during the procedure. However, the surgeon did not properly monitor the patient's vital signs, did not have a "crash cart" (which is to help resuscitate a patient quickly), failed to establish/keep an airway for oxygen, and failed to quickly realize and diagnose the patient was suffering from cardiac arrest.

In BOTH of these cases, the surgeon was not qualified to administer anesthesia nor did he have a qualified technician present. Further, he failed to have proper protocol and equipment to deal with the dangerous side effects of anesthesia.

This MAJOR lawsuit really highlights the dangers here I wrote about awhile ago. I wrote that cosmetic surgeries required multiple and length consultations with plastic surgeons, diagnostic tests, and long cost-benefits analysis. Most often now consultations are not with a plastic surgeon but another staff member acting as a salesperson, procedures are rushed and typically done in small offices, and generally cost significantly less money than the "going rate" for the surgery actually should cost. Therefore, most of the centers do not sufficiently screen patients for complications or problems prior to the procedure, there is inadequate follow-ups conducted, and procedures are either unnecessary or will simply not get good results; something the staff may already knows! This is evidenced by a 77% increase in cosmetic procedures last year alone!

While I know the New York State government is looking to press regulations and stricter standards-slothfully albeit-there really should be a NATIONAL standard provide. Yes, welfare of the citizens is reserved for the states. However, under the federal commerce clause in Article 1 section 8 clause 3, congress can regulate "commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Just how the Affordable Care Act has been justified by most of the courts, a national standard for cosmetic surgery needs to be done as well! If ONE state did not adopt it, that would just permit citizens of another state who did adopt it to go into that state for the surgery. You might say this won't happen, but people actually go to other COUNTRIES (!!) for surgeries that are cheaper, particularly organ transplants; this is called medical tourism.

Again, cases like this-sadly-are not unique. Do you know someone this happened to? Your time is ticking to file a lawsuit! In some cases, as short as two and a half years from the date of the injury!! Please do not hesitate to call me-I would love to hear from you! In fact, last time cosmetic surgery generated a lot of responses-I would REALLY LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL!!! Please comment, share this story, and express your opinion on it!

I also welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Emergency Mistake Kills Patient, Costs Almost a Million in Expenses

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A patient was rushed to the emergency department at a hospital with complaints of abdominal pain and upper gastric pain. After about two hours of waiting in the emergency department waiting room, the patient was finally brought to a bed. Another hour would pass before the treatment physician even came to see him. Subsequent EKG and cardiac enzyme tests, as well as some other tests, were declared "normal" by the treating physician.

The next day, a cardiologist reviewed the patient's chart and realized that the EKG was not normal, but in fact that the patient clearly suffered a heart attack. When the patient underwent emergency cardiac catheterization and was then transferred to another hospital for emergency heart surgery, it was already too late. The patient suffered in the hospital for three months before passing away from heart failure due to the delay in diagnosing and treating his heart attack, according to the lawsuit brought by his estate (his wife).

This resulted in over $700,000 in medical bills which subsequently created an economic loss of $600,000.
The wife is bringing this lawsuit, and appears from the basic facts to have a good case. A delay such as this, with such slothful protocol by the hospital to get him evaluated when the patient clearly had possible signs of a heart attack, made it quite obvious there was likely some negligence involved.

But cases like this-sadly-are not unique. This typically is what happens if a patient does not have the normal, "tell-tale" signs of a heart attack. Do you know someone this happened to? Your time is ticking to file a lawsuit! In some cases, as short as two and a half years from the date of the injury!! Please do not hesitate to call me-I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Not One But TWO Doctors Performed Medical Malpractice in Colonoscopy Case: Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Discusses

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A jury just came back and awarded $2 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who perforated a patient's colon two separate times. That's right, TWO separate times. The 62 year old man ended up needing two feet of his colon removed due to the surgical mistakes by both of the doctors, and he continues to suffer other medical problems because of it.

What happened was a doctor doing the initial colonoscopy overinflated his colon-a common practice before using the scope-so much that it caused the colon to tear at points. The following day, the patient complained of severe pain and the doctor sent him to go to the emergency room which found there was no tear in a CT scan. However, a follow-up scan conducted days later DID find a tear and the patient required surgery.

Now another doctor began to fix the tear and ended up puncturing it again and had to remove those two feet of the patient's colon! The jury found the first doctor to be sixty percent liability, and the second to be forty-percent liable.

While colonoscopy perforation is really a common risk, a study conducted years ago published in the Journal of National Cancer Institute found that 1.96 out of every 1,000 patients undergo a colonoscopy and suffer a puncture. It just so happens that the 1.96 was the same patient, two days in a row. Additionally, the study also found that as technology and training improved, the risk of colonoscopy punctures slowly is declining.

Do you know someone who has had a similar experience? Or any complications during a colonoscopy such as this? Your time is ticking to file a lawsuit! In some cases, as short as two and a half years from the date of the injury!! Please do not hesitate to call me-I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds that Chest X-Rays for Lung Cancer Do Not Save Lives: Could a Doctor Still Get Sued?

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

The Journal of American Medical Association published a study that found people who received chest x-rays to screen for lung cancer had a no better chance of a surviving after four years than those who were not screened at all.

The study, which followed 150,000 participants of equally split gender, with about ten percent current smokers, and forty-five percent non-smoker or former smokers respectfully, were either offered a chest x-ray or no screening at all. After the four years of follow ups, more cancers were found in the chest of the x-ray group-obviously-but the survival rate remained nearly the same.

The conclusion was that even though more cancers are detected with x-ray groups, they were still not detected early enough to impact survival. However, on blog post that I had written a long time ago did find that aggressive screening in smokers, particularly heavy smokers, did have a larger reduction in mortality rates.

What does this mean for doctors? For starters, they really need to explain the risks, benefits, and alternatives to their patients. To do this, they really need to stay abreast to new studies such as this, and accurately explain it to their patients. They should really learn how the medical community around them-known in medical malpractice as the locality rule-on how a physician of ordinary skill and competence would handle this situation. That is, to prevent malpractice liability, with the storm of all these studies-I feel there is a new one almost every day that I write on-a doctor really does need to know what is going on. Hence why, like yesterday's post, temporary workers may not be able to stay on top of all the changes while permanent workers can.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Temporary Staff Members Cause More Errors Then Permanent Staff Members; Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Attorney Evaluates Study

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A recent study published in the Journal of Healthcare Quality found that temporary staff members in emergency medical centers are much more responsible for harmful errors in prescribing medication and other errors than permanent staff are. In fact, one of the researchers from John Hopkins University Schools of Medicine said that their "work suggests that if you can, you probably want to avoid hiring temporary staff because they are associated with more severe medical errors."

The study was very extensive and looked at more than 24,000 emergency departments in 952 hospitals during a five year span between 2000 to 2005. Particularly, the study looked at errors in prescribing medication to patients.
Temporary workers were reported to be more likely than permanent workers to incorrectly prescribe medication for patients, more likely to require patient monitoring and cause harm to them, and when an error does occur, the errors were reportedly more likely to be life-threatening.

About a month ago I reported to you that surgeons doing dangerous neck stents who had performed the surgery the most in a given year had a significantly lower mortality rate than physicians who performed the surgery very few times during the year. This makes sense-doesn't it? Just how surgeons who do the neck stents have lower mortality rates than those that don't because they do it more often and essentially "practice it," permanent workers have more experience and keep the medication information fresh in their head better than their temporary counterparts.

Does this mean we should have some kind of temporary training program? Maybe a pre-shift test, or a quick reference sheet? A medication refresher video before the start of shifts for important and potentially dangerous medications? Whatever it be, I think temporary workers need to be held to some standard to keep important information fresher in their heads to help drop some of the mistakes they may make. Granted, this could also be that temporary workers are temporary for the purpose that they are-indeed-not "good enough" to be permanent workers and therefore more prone to make errors. However, I would be surprised if this was the case for a large number of those temporary workers.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

UPDATE: Physician Vehemently Opposes New Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines—Is He Right?

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

I reported one or two weeks ago that the United States Preventative Services Task Force ("US PSTF") said that healthy men should no longer get the prostate antigen specific blood test for prostate cancer; one of the effective testing procedures. Additionally last week, I noted some of the instances of over-treatment by getting prostate biopsies that result in increased infections but do not always accurately diagnose the condition; this is exactly the justification used by the US PSTF. When these reports came out, I expressed great disdain for ending such preventative screening-including that for breast cancer.

Now the director of the New Texas Institute for Robotic Surgery, Dr. Randy Fagin, who is also an urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, has an issue with the US PSTF's guidelines.

Particularly he noted that "[i]n the era before PSA testing, patients were typically diagnosed at a point that either they were never going to die of their cancer or there was nothing we could do about their cancer. It didn't provide us a large opportunity to be able to cure those folks that sit in the middle. PSA testing provides us that opportunity."
Moreover, Dr. Fagin aligns himself with the second part of my past argument as well. He specifically remarks that even though there is a high cost of this test and the potential for a false positive or infections, that the cost of saving a life cannot be enumerated. He says that "overtreating some individuals is worth the benefit you give to those folks who truly require it."

Dr. Fagin does acknowledge that there are problems with the PSA test and it is far from perfect, and insight I do not have. But he also did note-something I also do not have-that he and other skilled urologists and specialists can make better decisions for the patient that could be potentially life-saving.

Overall, Dr. Fagin echoes everything that I have written and, essentially, he validates my legal opinions with his medical opinions. But what do you think? I would REALLY love to hear from you! Please post a comment and express your views!

Additionally, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Foreign Survey: Large Portion of Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine—Is that True in the US Too?

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A survey originating out of Istanbul questioned 800 doctors from public and private hospitals and found that one-third of those responding to the survey refused to see patients with a serious condition requiring surgery or to perform a high-risk procedure. This was done to avoid the risk of losing the patient or being sued in the event of a mistake or complication that might arise in the difficult or risky surgery. This is a textbook example of defensive medicine.

Basically, defensive medicine is when the physician is not working to ensure the health of the patient, but to protect the physician against possible malpractice liability and is becoming more prolific in hospitals. Essentially, the fear is medical malpractice litigation.

But this is in another country. What about in the United States?

The study from the United States published last year found that most American doctors through their colleagues were ordering more patient tests and procedures than they actually needed, again, to protect themselves from lawsuits. In fact, researchers in a study found that 91 percent of 2,416 physicians though that defensive medicine was actually the NORM set forth.

So what does this mean for us? Most notably it costs about $60 billion in just defensive medicine alone just because doctors feel that they are vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits. But is this bad a thing?
On one hand, it is costing us a whole lot of money, which the current health care reform is trying to prevent. Additionally, some of the past posts I have written about in the past few weeks have shown the dangers of over-treatment and unnecessary treatment which can actually cause more harm than good (i.e., false positives for breast cancer screening, prostate biopsies causing infections).

On the other hand, physicians are cognizant of medical malpractice liability and are practicing more THOROUGH medicine. Isn't this what we ultimately want? Protective and thorough health care for all? Sure, it cost more money, but isn't our health priceless? We aren't just talking about basic health care for increased costs, but for more important and larger-scale procedures. I for one would rather see doctors practicing defensive medicine to the extent that it can protect people's health even if it takes a hit to their wallet. However, I would want to make sure that certain procedures, which could cause other false positives, are kept to a minimum.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds that One-Fifth of Doctors Disciplined are Repeat Offenders

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Between 2000 and 2009, one-fifth of the doctors disciplined were repeat offenders. More specifically, fifty-one doctors committed sixty-four of the offenses which turns out to be about twenty-percent of the total cases. In fact, seven of the doctors had even been disciplined three times and two others had been disciplined four times! While this study was based out of Canada, "[p]revious research in the United States corroborates the finding that a substantial fraction of previously disciplined physicians are subsequently disciplined at rates far higher than physicians with no discipline history."

Of those disciplined, ninety-two percent were men and the vast majority were family care physicians who had been practicing for a long time. This makes sense because family care physicians see the most patients, generally are the front line of defense when a patient needs medical attention, and the fact that most of them have been practicing for a long time just means that there has been a longer and greater chance for an error.

The most common violation, however, was sexual misconduct which resulted in about twenty percent of the cases. Standard of care issues and unprofessional conduct were also common. Of those, the three most frequent penalties were fines, suspensions, and formal reprimands. Throughout everything, only six percent lost their licenses due to the misconduct.

So what does this mean? It does suggest that there should be more oversight when it comes to monitoring "trouble" physicians if one in five will cause another disciplinable offense. It should also show that some physicians who violate the rules should have to do greater retraining to help prevent this problem.

You know what, I think more physicians should really face the threat of losing their license more. Now that might be biased because I am a lawyer, have a license, and honestly wouldn't advocate that in my profession. But I think it is much more important when you are dealing with health care-as opposed to legal issues-because that can alter something we cannot get back; our bodies. Yes, lawyers could harm our clients with great financial consequences, but a doctor's misconduct has much greater repercussions.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New Research: Hospital Safety Practices Don't Affect Patient Outcomes

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

New research published in the Archives of Surgery found that whether or not hospitals and other trauma centers meet national safety standards does not affect or alter the patient's risk of dying or getting an infection when there. Basically, quality measures meant to improve hospital outcomes may not actually be as effective as they are stressed and purported to be.

The new research looked at the hospital scores of the Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey and correlated them with death rates or hospital infections. The Leapfrog Safe Practices are adopted by the National Quality Forum, which is a non-profit organization that receives government and private fund to improve patient safety and quality. In the study, the researchers were unable to establish a direct connection between the scores and the rates of death and infection by the hospital.

Wow. For weeks I have noted the decrease in hospital infections, and the need for better safety guidelines and practices. This study essentially flips the myriad of other studies on their head. But there could be other factors are play. For instance, maybe the hospitals that have better hospital safety practices generally take in more complicated cases or patients with a lower prospect of recovery.

Another issue could be they way hospitals report the safety compliance. If it is the hospital themselves completing the report, wouldn't that normally create a conflict of interests? I think there needs to be a stronger auditor influence and more enforcement of the safety protocols before there can be such a definitive research report such as this one. I think there are just too many variables, and that the safety protocols must be effective in certain situations for some hospitals.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Jury Awards Nursing Home Malpractice Victim $23 Million; Kingston, Medical Malpractice Lawyer Weighs in

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

In a sister-state next to New York, a jury awarded a little over $23 million dollars to a woman who suffered at the hands of a negligent nursing home. The woman had to have both her legs and her finger amputated due to an infection that went septic and became gangrenous-a very dangerous infection. This all resulted when a home-care nurse-who was treating her for Crohn's disease-failed to timely report an infection in the woman's feeding catheter. In turn, this caused a dangerous bloodstream infection.

When that same nurse realized that the woman was having trouble breathing and began to have numbness in her lower extremities, the nurse finally contacted the hospital. But it was too late. The woman's symptoms quickly worsened and she was diagnosed with gangrene in her extremities and in a finger. This resulted in the amputations above the knee in both legs, as well as that finger on her hand.

The jury's award took into consideration the expensive medical bills, personal care expenses, and lost earnings.
But isn't this avoidable? ABSOLUTELY!! Nursing home and home-care is extremely expensive, particularly when the level of care required is so high. Shouldn't care-providers do everything and anything possible to care for their patients?! Providers really need to provide better care and cannot cut corners or turn a blind eye to certain conditions and situations that arise. I really hope this nurse, who slothfully sought assistance for this patient for a condition that was CLEARLY beyond the scope of their capabilities, received every repercussion possible the law could provide.

I know some states-including New York-have flirted with an absolute cap on medical malpractice cases. So far, it has not stuck in New York but it is inching closer, and closer. However, cases like this-even though not in New York-should really demonstrate why medical malpractice caps are not and should not be available; or at least not in every case.

The nurse here was grossly negligent and really altered the entire life of an individual patient but not doing something as simply as reporting to another authority of an infection. Or carefully monitoring the infection. Or even seeking basic medications to fight an infection. You do not have to be a trained, skilled nurse to know that infections are dangerous! Yet, in this case, and unfortunately like many others, have cost a patient who was in need, at a greater detriment because of pure laziness of their paid caretaker.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Preventative Mastectomies; Another Case of Too Much Treatment Causing Harm for Patients?

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Doctors have recognized a somewhat disturbing trend of the past few years. When women, particularly younger women, have cancer throughout a single breast-where a lumpectomy would not solve the problem-and a mastectomy is the only viable treatment, more and more women have the other breast also removed for preventative measures.

In fact, according to a study published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, between 1998 and 2007 this very scenario has increased ten-fold! Other studies have confirmed this growing trend including one finding that this happened about 7% of the time in 1997 and increased to 24% in 2005. Another study found that almost one-third of breast cancer patients had both breasts removed, whether or not they both needed to.

Understandably, one reason is to take control over the disease. If a patient gets breast cancer in their left breast, there will always been doubt, insecurity, if not outright fear about having it return-possibly detecting it when it is too late-in the future. Whether or not this is the case, doctors are conflicted.

This year, doctors from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital thought that young women were really undergoing unnecessary surgery. They remarked that in most women having the preventative mastectomies, they were not at a high risk for relapse in the first place. However when it comes to cancer, doctors cannot always predict who has the greatest risk of dying.

In the past few weeks I have particularly addressed unwanted, overly aggressive, or just downright unnecessary treatment and the fear that some medical care providers have. It is believed that now-a-days, too many patients are getting these unnecessary surgeries and in fact, they might be causing more harm than good. For example, having prostate biopsies on a regular bias can introduce infections and increase the harm down to the patient.

But should this practice continue? On one hand, if one is prone to breast cancer and had it once I really can understand that fear of it always lurking and possibly returning. However as doctors noting, a lot of those patients getting the preventative mastectomies are not prone to relapse. Now you are doubling the surgery, which is essentially doubling the chance of complications, chance for infections, and another important issue these days, doubling the costs.

Unless the mental/cognitive element of fear is really affecting the patient's life, I think that with the great technological and advancements in breast cancer detection that women who have found cancer in one breast and had/need to have removed, she should not automatically remove the other. Granted, if she is at a high risk for relapse, or if there are other compounding issues the medical staff strongly recommends a double mastectomy, she should get it. But if those conditions are not there, preventative mastectomies are just going to cause more harm than good to patients, increase the costs of health care, and limit the already scant resources available to patients who might really need such care (recall a few weeks ago my post on hospital drug shortages).

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Wrong-Site Surgery Costs Woman Healthy Organ; Damaged One Left Inside Her

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Diagnosed with a likely dermoid cyst, a usually benign growth, on her left ovary, a thirty-one year old woman underwent surgery to remove the cyst. Weeks after the surgery, she still had the same pain and tests revealed that her healthy right ovary was actually removed while the large cyst still remained on her left ovary. In fact, she even had two post-surgery follow-up appointments and the operating physician did not say anything until the pain came back.

She alleges the wrong-site surgery, and also that the surgeon continued to hide the mistake in those two appointments. Now she is faced with the proposition of losing her left ovary to take care of the large cyst.

While this sounds like a completely avoidable mistake-and it is-it is not necessarily a rare mistake. The nonprofit organization called the Joint Commissions Center for Transforming Healthcare predicts that about forty surgeries per week are incorrectly performed. This means that it is either on the wrong patient, the wrong procedure, or on the wrong body part. That equates to over two-thousand wrong-site surgeries a year!

There are many cases of wrong-site surgery littered throughout case-law and our judicial system as I write this post. In many studies, the main culprit appears to be miscommunication or lack of communication. Now there are many protocols that are in place to help identify the area to be operated on. Some of these protocols even include having the surgeon and doctor patient speak before going under, and the area being marked beforehand. For example, if a patient is going to have their right ACL operated in their knee, before going under general anesthesia, the surgeon would have the patient mark it with a marker.

What do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

US Man Receives Double Hand Transplant; Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Attorney Applauds Procedure

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

In 2002, an infection resulted in the loss of Richard Mangino's arms below the elbows and his lower legs. But after enduring a twelve hour operation, the 65 year old man got donated hands attached. The forty person surgical team at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston completed the procedure. That hospital is best known for their remarkable work with face transplants.

This was not the first double hand transplant, as twenty-one others had been done around the world with the very first done in Lyon, France in 2000. The procedure involves a painstaking amount of skill, patience, and accuracy to reconnect skin, tendons, muscles, ligaments, bones, and blood vessels.

Up until now, Mr. Mangino has been using prosthetic limbs to regain a normal life. However, he is elated to regain the feeling of touch. Particularly his grandchild to touch their little faces, play with their hair, and teach them many things like throwing a ball or possibility down the line play guitar like he had done with the prosthetics.

As of late, it appears that there has been a wealth of information regarding technological advances and medical working together. Granted, that this procedure was first done in 2000 and it can hardly be considered a major technological advancement today, I'm sure that some of the new surgical tools that were used made the surgery much cleaner, easier, and faster then was done eleven years ago. Moreover, just the amazing prospect of taking someone else's hands that were donated, and attaching it to another person's body to make them whole again is just simply astonishing.

As for medical malpractice purposes, this is a very difficult procedure with such a low rate of success and high risk. It would be very difficult to find liability if the double hand transplant failed. However, if that failure did result from something that could have been avoided or some protocol, guidelines, procedure, etc, that may give rise to liability. Particularly if the issue was due to infection, a wrongful discharge, incorrect medication administered, or something like that, it could create liability.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds that Prostate Biopsy Infections are on the Rise

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

According to a new study of elderly men published in the Journal of Urology, serious infections after prostate biopsies appear to be on the rise in the United States. The study noted that 6.9 percent of men who had prostate biopsies were back in the hospital within a month, while those who did not have the biopsy with similar demographics (age, location, health, etc.) were only 2.7 percent.

Of the more than a million prostate biopsies done each year on Medicare patients, the majority are just investigating a false from other prostate cancer screening procedures; something I wrote about last week. That study had said that about one in five men will have abnormal screening results which will trigger the biopsy.

More interesting is that of the biopsy groups, 4 out of the 1,000 were hospitalized with an infection within a month following the procedure. This is up from 2 out of 1,000 in the comparison group. The lead researcher was hesitant to state there was a correlation, but there may be some correlation. Particularly because the biopsy is done through the rectum, which could easily introduce bacteria to the prostate and cause the infection.

This appears to be a case of overtreatment causing problems for patients; another trend which I had recently written about and which has gained national attention. Particularly with the litigation surrounding the Affordable Care Act and the overall goals of the health care reform.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Explains Robotic Surgery

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Computer-assisted surgery is becoming more and more prevalent as technology advances and the medical field embraces such change. A physician controls a remote control-like device which can manipulate robotic arms to carry out the necessary movements to perform the surgery. The major and obvious advantage is that the surgeon does not actually have to be present, and the device-which is linked to a computer-can be accessed across the country. In fact, it can be used across the world as one surgery for an Iraqi citizen done be a doctor conducting the remote surgery did!

Another advantage-whether or not the physician is in the same room-is that some procedures like rib spreading can be done in a much smoother, and controlled manner by a computer-controlled device as opposed to the physician's own hands. This also includes advantages such as computerized precision, miniaturization, smaller and cleaner incisions, decreased blood loss, less pain, and all which help quicken healing time.

But what are the disadvantages? Cost is one. Each robot system costs about $1.2 million with each procedure requiring the "refurbishment" of the machine at $1,500. And then there are the costs for paying the physician for their time. Which, it can take more than twice as long to complete a procedure when the physician is still learning how to use this system as opposed to a traditional procedure. It is estimated that it can take as many as twenty procedures before the physician is adapted and competent to use system. This, however, creates twenty possible plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case.

Which it can happen with a robot! In fact, a physician using the system accidently nicked the bowel of a patient remotely and it was not found nor treated. It resulted in the patient's death, and subsequently litigation which is still ongoing.

Yes, the medical robots are a great advancement and will only get better as the current generation of doctors trains and learns on these machines alongside traditional operations. However, there are still dangerous limitations and disadvantages to this advancement. I foresee an increasing amount of patient injuries due to remote, robotic surgery in the future as this becomes more prevalent. But for every lawsuit, I anticipate many more successful surgeries that will save the life of a patient in New York, performed by the foremost authority of, say, nanosurgery in California, on that patient's brain. Possibly even an emergency surgery that yesterday the patient would have died, but with today's technology they would survive.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Most Serving New Guideline Panels Have Serious Conflict of Interests! What Does This Mean for the Patient?

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A study just published in the British Medical Journal found that there is a growing problem with doctors and researchers who help to make guidelines for patient care that have strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The study particularly looked at fourteen sets of guidelines from the United States and Canadian health care organizations in evaluating this issue and was shocked by the findings.

The finding denotes that eighty-three percent (83%) of panel members in Canadian specialty organizations have industry ties to the pharmaceutical company. And in the United States, fifty-eight percent (58%) of the panel members had the same kind of times.

These ties were particularly the strongest relating to diabetes and high cholesterol medications.

The lead researcher remarked that "[t]he concern is that compensation by the industry on some of these panels can pose a potential risk of industry influence on the guideline recommendations." She continued that "[g]uidelines serve to standardize care and inform evidence-based practice and ultimately to protect patients. Their freedom from bias is very important."

Some have tried to defend this study that it is impossible for the panel members to not have any ties because they are very active, and big name individuals in our health care system-of course they will have had some ties!

But that does not satisfy me, particularly because a few weeks ago I discussed how OB-GYN guidelines are mostly done through expert opinion as opposed to empirical data. Does this mean that such experts are just giving their opinion in what is best for their wallets? I recognize there are checks and balances here with the Institute of Medicine who publishes recommendations on how organizations should manage and combat conflicts of interests. However, this study took place over a ten year span-what happened there that more than half were missed?

I think this is a serious problem, and the legislature has clearly recognized that with the anti-kickback and stark laws they have vigorously enforced. But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study: Children's Chest Pain Rarely a Heart Problem

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A study published in the journal Pediatrics looked at the records over 3,700 children over age six who came to the Children's Hospital Boston for chest pain evaluations. Out of all those evaluations, only one-percent actually had an underlying heart condition. In fact, not a single child had died from an underlying cardiac cause during the ten-year period the study looked at. This is a fairly well-known statistic, as previous numbers of sudden death from cardiac arrest is not more than 6 deaths per 100,000; the majority were sport-related.

The lead researcher for the study remarked that the study should be very reassuring, and that "[c]hest pain in children is very common but the chance of a cardiac cause is very low." Moreover, the researchers noted that generally a physical exam, family history evaluation, and an electrocardiogram could be used to figure out if children need more extensive procedures to get to the cause of the chest pain.

One statistic which was a little disturbing, even though it was not dangerous, was that in fifty-two percent of the cases the cause of pain could not be pinpointed. Again, only one-percent of chest pain was actually a cardiac issue-and most were from sports-but this is still scary that as a parent, that your child has chest pain and a team of physicians and expensive equipment cannot tell you what is wrong. But in the remaining participants, most of the chest pain for the children evaluated was musculoskeletal such as respiratory and gastrointestinal conditions, and even anxiety.

In the end, the study noted that "[c]hest pain in children does not represent the same disease as chest pain in adults does." While we are trained to immediately be nervous when we or other older people suffer from chest pain, this study should make us feel much more comfortable.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Blood Infection Conditions Cost the Most for US Hospitals

Sun, 09 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported in their newest News and Numbers publication that Septicemia, a life threatening illness caused by blood infections with bacterial infections such as E. coli and MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus), is the single most expensive condition that hospitals in the United States had to treat-and pay-for in 2009 (the study year). In fact, it costs about $15.4 BILLION for hospitals to treat!

The report shows that between 2000 and 2009, septicemia hospital stays more than doubled from 337,100 to 836,000 admissions! In 2009, that made it the sixth most common primary cause for hospitalization in the entire United States! This also made the death rate for septicemia to be sixteen-percent for all in-hospital deaths.

Particularly, of those infected the elderly accounted for more than half of all patients. Actually, forty percent of the patients were aged between 65 and 84, with about fourteen-percent 85 years and older. Those patients aged 45 to 64 years old were only twenty-seven percent of the hospitalizations, with eleven percent being between 18 and 44 years old, and the last 1.6 percent to be those aged 1 to 17 years old.

I had written a few recent blog posts relating to this, and particularly that New York has decreased the rate of infection in recent years. This is something that can be managed and certainly lowered, however the issue with infections are that it cannot entirely be eliminated when there is the human element involved.

Study Finds that A Lot of Surgeries on the Elderly May be Unwanted!

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Britian's Lancet medical journal recently published a study finding that one out of three elderly Americans covered by Medicare underwent surgery in their last year of life, and one in five were actually in the last month of life. The lead researcher remarked that "[w]hile some of these surgeries are clearly needed and helpful to patients, probably a substantial portion are not." In fact, regions where Medicare there is high total Medicare spending tended to have the most surgeries for elderly patients in their last year of life.

The study looked at data from more than 1.8 million beneficiaries of Medicare-the government's health care plan for those who are 65 years or older-who died in 2008. It did find other regional differences. For example, end of life surgeries was three times greater in Indiana as opposed to Hawaii.

But also researchers also noted that decisions to perform surgery on the elderly were more likely influenced by their age, as opposed to their need or desire for such procedures. For example, thirty-eight percent of patients underwent surgery at age 65, thirty-five percent by age 80, and twenty-four percent had surgery when they were between 80 and 90.

The researchers noted that doctors should really consider carefully the benefits of surgery on elderly patients more carefully before performing procedures that may not improve their quality of life. Particularly considering the massive cost of health care, and the burden on the government already as it is, this should be carefully evaluated. A few weeks ago I wrote a blog on how there were a lot of unneeded stents and other procedures being performed, and now this particularly shocks-but does not surprise me-that it is focused on the elderly.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

US Panel: Healthy Man Do Not Need Routine Prostate Cancer Screening

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

The US Preventative Services Task Force provided a draft recommendation for public comment this week surprisingly stating that routine screening for prostate cancer does not help save the lives of healthy men. They continued that it often triggers the need for more tests and treatments actually.

These statements come from five clinical trials and conclude that healthy men of all ages without any adverse symptoms should avoid a prostate-specific antigen test, which measures the level of the protein in the blood. The reason? Just how yesterday I noted that some breast cancer screenings result in false positives, which result in more tests and more treatment. Other tests, such as ultrasound or digital rectal exams were also found to not be effective.

It is important to note that the recommendations do not, however, mean someone who has had prostate cancer or who has symptoms of it should not get tested. In fact, the panel recommended aggressive monitoring for those patients, which reasonably should extend to individuals who have a family history of it as well.

Immediately there was pushback because early state prostate cancer actually doesn't have any symptoms. By the time you actually begin to experience such symptoms, it may already be too late.

This is a classic example of the tension between health care costs and health care treatment.

Is this a good idea though? Well-I do not know how I feel about this. Part of me thinks that the agony of having multiple false positives throughout my lifetime will certainly NOT outweigh the agony of having a positive diagnosis when it is too late if I didn't get tests. Money is just a figure, it is material, and it can be replaced; my health at the late stage of an aggressive disease cannot. Particularly coupled with the fact that prostate cancer can be quite harmless if treated early and aggressively. However, caught too late it is rarely harmless and very dangerous. However, the other part of me understands that I am a lawyer and not a doctor-whom the panel is presumably composed of-and they would best be equipped to make this decision. Especially if they think that some screening is not even effective and could cause overtreatment, which could do more harm than good.

But what do you think? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds Early Breast Cancer Screening May Help Some

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A study published in the journal Cancer found that starting breast cancer screening as early as age twenty-five may help some women live longer. Particularly, early detection processes such as mammograms or MRIs were effective in women with certain gene mutations; BRCA1 and BRCA2. Each of these gene mutations is known to increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Only about one in ten women under forty with breast cancer actually had this mutation.

The study reported that compared to women who had no screening at all, those with annual screenings from age twenty-five on extended life by 1.3 to 1.8 years, while breast MRI every six months extended life by 1.5 to 1.7 years. However, these tests sometimes had flaws. For example, BRCA1 carriers typically had two false positives from the screenings when they annually used mammograms, and four false positives with MRIs. It was worse for BRCA2 carriers who had three-eight false positives.

Of course something that strikes my mind is what about cost? These tests are expensive, aren't they? The average MRI costs more than a thousand dollars per test, while mammograms cost two-hundred or less. But overall, a co-author of the study remarked that the screening will decrease the amount of breast cancer deaths.

But what do you think? I want to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York MedMal Lawyer Relays FDA Warning: Optometrists Need to Disclosure EVERYTHING Related to LASIK!

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Recently the FDA issued a letter to eye care professionals regarding the promotion and advertising of FDA-approved lasers used during refractive procedures such as LASIK. This letter was spurred by constant notifications to the FDA regarding improper promotion and advertising practices by optometrists. Particularly, the FDA harped on the inadequacy of risk information in their advertising and promoting of these procedures.

In 2009 the FDA issued similar letter to providers. However, the FDA is still reporting that they are receiving reports of misleading advertising and improper promotion of laser surgery. These misleading advertisements generally downplay the dangers of the eye surgery.

The FDA remarks that "[i]t is critical to disclose risk information appropriately and effectively to consumers in all advertisements and promotional materials concerning restricted devices, including the consequences that may result from the devices' use. Advertisements and promotional materials that do not include appropriate risk information may be misleading." Further, the FDA cited to various federal statutes under the United States Code which regulate restricted devices, such as lasers. One of the statutes provided that if the labeling or advertising is false or misleading, it is misbranded, which depends on whether labeling or advertising omits important information related to the device's limitations and risks.

In conclusion, the FDA proclaims that this will improve public health because patients can make better decisions. There are signs that this time the FDA is taking this more seriously, as they have set up a special website for consumers to report continuing problems by providers.

Of course this can also lead to medical malpractice lawsuits due to the complications that might arise, when the surgeons do not adequately provide these warnings. In fact, back in 2009 when the FDA issued the first warning, there were a slew of successful lawsuits brought.

Do you know of someone who had surgery on their eyes and had complications? Your eyes are important! Please do not hesitate and contact me immediately to know your rights! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Fun fact-did you know that LASIK stands for laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis?

MedMal Attorney Tips Hat to Three Nobel Medicine Prize Winners; One Passed Away Before Award Rewarded

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

This post is unorthodox but I think it is important to recognize the achievements of others, particularly those so worthy of a Nobel Prize. But since this topic is related to my blog of medicine and law, and has an unfortunate yet touching end.

Three scientists won the Nobel Medicine Prize on Monday for their work on the immune system. The three scientists are Bruce Beutler of the United States, Jules Hoffmann of France, and Ralph Steinman of Canada. The Nobel Prize committee noted that these three have "revolutionised our understanding of the immune system by discovering key principles for its activation." Their work had looked at the complex immune system and how it signals certain molecules that will unleash antibodies and killer T-cells to respond to invading microbes.
Their research created avenues for new drugs and therapy routines such conditions such as asthma, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, infections, inflammatory diseases, and most importantly, cancer.

However, scientist Ralph Steinman of Canada-who prolonged his own life using therapy and treatments he pioneered, sadly passed away on Friday at the age of 68; the Nobel Prize was awarded today on Monday. This created some confusion amongst the Nobel Prize committee because the award cannot be awarded to a deceased individual. However, after deliberation, the committee found that Steinman was chosen for the award before he passed away; essentially that the award was not given to him when he had been deceased, it was just not delivered to him yet.

Connecting him to the Capital Region, in 2009, Albany Medical Center awarded him Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research which he shared with Bruce Beutler. All of his achievements were downplayed as he was a humble individual doing miraculous research.

I salute Mr. Ralph Steinman - the fields of medicine and law, among other fields, needs more individuals like you. I am upset you could not receive your award, but I'm sure you understood you were likely to be recognized on the greatest stage for academics.

What do you think about the story of Mr. Steinman? Are there any individuals in law or medicine you want to recognize? I would love to hear from you! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Says Diabetes Drugs Increase Risk of Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer!

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

A study published in the medical journal Gastronenterology found that the diabetes drugs Byetta and Januvia caused a threefold increase of reported pancreatic cancer cases and a sixfold increased in pancreatitis! The study looked at data from 2004 to 2009 and evaluated reports by doctors and patients who used the drugs and submitted reports to the FDA's adverse event reporting system.

Now, the researchers do warn that this is not a causal link-a definitive link and cause between the drugs and the conditions-but there is a very strong inference or connection between thus far. The causal link could be for something else, for example, maybe the diabetes condition itself causes these conditions and it is not the actual drugs.

But this is not the second time a study as linked the two. Another study found a potential link between the two, and particularly noted that the drugs caused inflammation of the pancreas. In fact, these concerns date back to 2007 when the FDA linked the drug to about thirty reports of acute pancreatitis. A year later, the FDA linked two deaths to Byetta.

There have been lawsuits regarding Byetta product warnings and the complications, damages, and even deaths that resulted from it. These have been very difficult and long cases for attorneys to process. If you or someone you know have been on one of these drugs, please do not waste any time and give me a call immediately. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New Study Finds Fewer Orthopedic Surgeons Seeing Kids Nowadays; Why?!

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Researchers posed as parents trying to make an appointment for their 10-year-old child with a broken arm with an orthopedic surgeon. There were two rounds of phone calls made; first as privately insured, and second covered by Medicaid. Out of the forty-five practices called in the study, only nineteen offered an appointment for the privately-insured child within a week. When this study was conducted ten years ago, all fifty out of the fifty practices called were able to schedule an appointment!

Even more shocking-only ONE of the practices set up an appointment for the kid covered by Medicaid! Even when asked by the investigator if the office could refer to another orthopedic surgeon who took Medicaid patients, only nine of the forty-five offices could name one! While is should not be as surprising because it is well-known that people on Medicaid do have trouble getting health care-particularly because public insurance does not pay as much as private insurance-these children are in as much need for health care as the privately insured counterparts.

Further, both sets of children are insured. Yet, they still do not have unfettered access to medical care for treatment! One scary prediction by the lead researcher is that with the health care reform, which will increase the number of people insured, might lead to more clinics "ducking" away from certain patients! However, that was countered that as long as the health care reform also increases reimbursement rates for clinics there will be enough of an incentive to help overcome this issue.

What do you think? How does this make you feel? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Stroke Patients are Not Always Getting their Recommended Drug!

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association provides guidelines that say people who suffer from a stroke, and have atrial fibrillation ("AF"; a heart-rhythm problem), should take the clot-fighting drug Warfarin. Yet, a new study actually found that not all of those patients get that medication and even when they do, they just start the medication and quit it soon after!

The study noted that out of the 291 surveyed who suffered a stroke and had AF, only 85 percent of them were discharged from the hospital on Warfarin! An of that group, only 80 percent of them stayed on the drug for a year after the stroke!

AF, the condition itself, is when the heart's upper chambers abnormally contract and shake. This can, over time, create an increased risk of a stroke because the blood is not being efficiently pumped through the heart and it can actually clot in the heart. Warfarin helps to prevent clots, particularly these kind of clots.

This is absolutely scary! This either comes from doctors failing to prescribe it or not describing the dangerous of the patient's new condition. Now, it is certainly difficult to be on Warfarin because the patient needs to frequently go in to have blood work done to make sure it is working, and appropriately adjust the levels.

But could this lead to malpractice? Well, just using a guideline as an enforcement principle it could not, by itself, be evidence of medical negligence. However, if the standard of care in your hospital or geographical area is to prescribe Warfarin, and they do not, THIS could be evidence of medical negligence and be used against the doctor.

Has this happened to you or someone you know? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Study Finds Predictor of Mortality and Stents; Doctors to Blame?

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A new study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found shocking and significant data relating to the mortality rate of a neck stenting procedure. As it is, this procedure is controversial. But now, there is a clear predictor to death. In fact, one group had a 1.4-percent change of dying within thirty days after the procedure, while the other group was as high as 2.4-percent. While that does not sound like a large percentage increase, over the 25,000 procedures recorded-and many more done in the United States-that is a large amount of people who die in the second group as opposed to the first group. But what is the difference in the two groups?

The physician! Of course there is some correlation with the physician performing the operation. But it actually has nothing to do with medical school or training, but actually an even similar correlation; the number of times this year the physician had done the procedure. For physicians performing at least twenty-four of these neck stents per year had the lowest mortality rate, while physicians doing six or less a year had the higher mortality rate. Moral of the story-go to the doctor with the most procedures performed per year!

But what is a neck stent anyway? It is actually called carotid stenting. A doctor will clean out the cholesterol buildups in the major carotid arteries in the neck which supply the brain with oxygen-rich blood. These buildups are known to be a major cause of strokes, but a misstep in cleaning could produce a stroke immediately. That is because as the operating physician cleans the buildup and adds the stent-a small metal mesh tube to prop the vessel open-if part of a cholesterol deposit breaks off it could go right into the blood stream and into the smaller vessels closer to the brain. This will result in a much more dangerous buildup that, if it blocks that vessel, will cause a stroke. Generally, the danger period after this procedure is within thirty days after the operation.

Obviously, this could lead to medical malpractice liability. And if you know of someone about to receive a stent-whether or not it is in the neck-PLEASE make sure to check the doctor's "patient load." See how many procedures he or she is performing, particularly the procedure you are having. The more of them a year, statistically the better off you will be.

But if you know someone who has please make sure to give me a call! Liability to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit might be as short as two and a half years! The clock is ticking and please make sure to exercise your full rights affordable to you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Affordable Care Act Headed to the Supreme Court; Kingston, Medical Malpractice Lawyer Weighs in

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Late this summer the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's three-judge panel in Georgia struck down the Affordable Care Act's ("ACA") key provisions as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the Department of Justice, who is defending the Affordable Care Act, decided against asking the for a full panel appeal from the Eleventh Circuit. This should speed up consideration of the matter by the Supreme Court in the new term that actually begins next week. This could result in a decision at the end of June, when the presidential races will be in full swing.

Undoubtedly, the ACA was destined to be on the plate of the Supreme Court for final judgment. Early in the summer, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled different then the Eleventh Circuit did at the end of the summer. The Sixth Circuit literally found the opposite from everything the Eleventh Circuit did.

This is an exciting predicament because there is finally an end in sight now that it is likely to be taken up on expedited review by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the whole political implications when the Supreme Court does render its decision will be momentous for the winning party. Particularly, it will be interesting to see how the nation will respond to health care in general and to implement the provisions of the ACA.

But what do you think? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctors Surveyed Say Patients Get Too Much Medical Care; Medical Malpractice the Reason?

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A study published in the Journal of American Medical Association found that fourth-two percent of U.S. doctors surveyed believe that their patients are getting too much medical care. The other reasons noted by the doctors varied. Another fifty-two percent felt their patients were receiving the correct amount of care. And the very last six percent said their patients were receiving too little care.

Of the same doctors, twenty-eight percent said the reason was because they felt they were treating their patients too aggressively, which again could be that fear of medical malpractice. Another forty-five percent said that one in about every ten patients they say in a day had medical issues that could have been dealt with over the phone, by e-mail, or even through a nurse. One reason-or what is being claimed as the reason-is the fear of malpractice suits!

In a way that means I'm doing my job. But does that means that doctors are being sued too much? Recent news reports, none which I had blogged about, did note that while doctors might be sued a generous amount, very few of them are actually paying out claims. In fact, one blog post I did write three weeks ago or so did not that pediatricians, a specialty least likely to be sued, paid out claims most often. Whereas OB-GYNs, one of the most sued specialty, actually paid out the least amount of claims.

This study is particularly important because the U.S. is the world's highest health spending per capita among developed nation by a healthy (excuse the pun) amount. Currently, the cost of health care is swirling around the U.S. as well because the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is being contested.

What do you think? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New CDC Guidelines Target Organ Transplant Infections; A Good Idea for Kingston and Albany, New York

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and the Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") is releasing new public health service guidelines for reducing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through solid organ transplantation. Currently, the CDC is taking public comments on the draft guidelines before issuing the final version. These guidelines will not become federal or regulatory law.

According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010 there were more than 200 cases of suspected HIV, Hep B and C transmissions through JUST transplants. Unfortunately, some of these resulted in the deaths of the organ recipients. Even more scary is that the CDC found that only half of the organ procurement organizations in the United States voluntarily tested for HIV and Hep C on all or some of the potential donors since 2008. Isn't that scary?!

The new guidelines provide for this kind of screening for Hep C, but also Hep B in potential donors. Additionally, the guidelines seek for agencies to use more updated and modern screening tests for the organs which are to be transplanted. Moreover, the use of a revised set of donor risk factors will arm donors, recipients, and donor agencies with more information to make more educated decisions.

I think this is a great idea and much needed. Particularly because this research-unlike the OB-GYN guidelines I blogged about a week or two ago-are based on empirical, scientific information. This will certainly help eradicate some of those infections, but clearly cannot fix all. There is only so much you can do to prevent infections, and sadly, some of those infections will just come down to pure, human error; a variable we cannot fully purge. It is also important to note that guidelines are not mandatory or create liability. However, they could be evidence of medical negligence if they are not properly followed; they are just not definitive evidence of it.

What do you think? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Weighs in on Hospital Drug Shortages

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

In a recent study, almost two dozen experts have concluded that there is a growing crisis in the availability of various kinds of hospital drugs.

Particularly injected generic drugs-which are usually cheaper and more accessible-which are delaying surgeries and treatments while leaving patients in pain or having to resort to less-effective treatment. In fact, there have been fifteen deaths blamed on these drug shortages in a little over a year.

For example, a drug used to treat extremely high blood pressure that is normally priced at $25.90 per dose, now costs hospitals $1,200! The shortage drugs typically are for chemotherapy, cancer, infections, high blood pressure, and pain medication-among other ailments. And as you may have noticed, these drugs are typically for ailments that are in primitive stages of treatment, meaning we are currently working to improve treatment for them in trials. This is worrisome because I think it will affect future drugs and it will cause create a backlog. Actually, one expert noted that these shortages are not just hurting patients needing the current drugs, but also disrupting clinical studies of new drugs and treatments. This was actually called a "ripple effect" on future treatment.

Another concern I have is that hospitals are resorting to "grey market vendors," or companies who are not their normal wholesalers. These vendors buy the drugs from smaller wholesalers and resell them at their normal price; essentially generating their own business by taking up scare stock elsewhere. The problem is that many of these vendors are NOT licensed or authorized, which when you are talking about cancer chemotherapy drugs and other medications to treat dangerous ailments, I get scared.

Part of the problem, if you call it that, is that the FDA is very strict with drugs and if there is any contaminate or issue with a stock, they will discard them all. This clearly can create a deficiency, which it has. There is the delicate balance-if not an absolute tension-between the notion of protecting patients and providing adequate amounts of medication.

But what do you think about this? Does the drug shortage worry you? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Next Year Hospital Won't Hire Tobacco Users; Should New York Hospitals Follow? Will it Improve Patient Care and Satisfaction?

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Yesterday I mentioned the blog post relating to hospital employees' uniforms being soiled with dangerous bacteria and pathogens. That post noted that employees wear their uniforms out of the hospital to do errands, get lunch, and on breaks-including smoking breaks. Now a Texas hospital system, Baylor Health Care, is refusing to hire any tobacco users for new positions beginning next year. And for those employees hired who already use such products, they will have to pay an insurance surcharge of $650 a year!

The Human Resource Vice President, Becky Hall, stated that "[w]e know tobacco leads to many diseases and illnesses. We've got to practice what we preach. If we want to be one of those leading health care providers, we've got to be role models for our patients." But I like this because it will also improve patient care and satisfaction.
Why?

Well, isn't it frustrating when the smell of fresh cigarettes unbearably radiates from a health care worker-someone you are paying for to take care of you? What about when you're laying in a hospital bed waiting for your assigned nurse because you need her or him, but she or he happens to be taking another cigarette break? Particularly now that we know when the nurse returns, she or he will have even more dangerous pathogens after venturing outside the hospital.

I think this initiative is a good one and should be more seriously looked at in New York. While it may catch some flak, and has the potential for lawsuits relating to equal rights, substantive due process, or other similar employment challenges-which will inevitably arise (at least the threat of them) and may cost hospitals extra resources to defeat these challenges-this plan should overall help hospital care, promote a better image, and overall help lower hospital costs. That is because insuring employees who smoke could cost an additional $4,000 more a year!

What do you think? Should New York hospitals adopt this too? I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, Medical Malpractice Attorney Expands Report on Dangerous Pathogens on Hospital Fabric—this Time on the Curtains!

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Three weeks ago I reported a study that hospital employees' uniforms-particularly their scrubs and garb-were SIXTY percent likely to contain dangerous pathogens and deadly bacteria. Tuesday, I reported that New York hospital infection rates were falling. Now today I am reporting that privacy curtains at hospitals are covered in dangerous bacteria and germs. Talk about mixed signals! What does this mean?!

Well, the good news is that this latest study was conducted in Chicago and surveyed only in-state hospitals not in New York. The bad news is that this is not likely to be a situation unique to Illinois.

The study took 180 swab cultures from 43 different privacy curtains twice a week, for three weeks. Almost every single curtain tested-41 out of 43-were contaminated on at least one occasion. The tests detected bacteria such as MRSA, the dangerous methicillin resistant S. aureus strain, and another resistant bacteria, Enterococci. Doing the obvious, that is replacing the curtains, was also not a good fix. Within a week, almost all of the curtains just hung were again contaminated. It is even scary to think that some of the curtains had actually been there for three to four weeks!

So what does this mean? Patients should thoroughly wash their hands after touching the curtain, and health care workers should wash their hands before seeing (and touching) the patient. Moreover, better resistant curtains, fabrics, and even disinfectants, which will not cause complications to patients, should also be utilized to help decrease the current infestation on the curtains.

What do you think about hospital infections? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New York Hospital Infection Rates Falling; Kingston, NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Weighs in

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Hospital Acquired Infections ("HAI") are major public health problems, and so much so that in 2005, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Public Health Law 2819 requiring hospitals to report certain HAIs to the New York Department of Health ("DOH"). The type of infection and the number of infections is recorded, with a rate of infections and percent change since 2007 is calculated.

For example, the report looks at heart bypass surgery chest site, donor site, colon surgery site, hip surgery sit, central line infection, and C. difficile infection. The report, which has shifted through multiple "pilot phases," has just recently published its next 134-page edition for 2010 with positive news for New York hospitals.

All of the areas had decreased except for one, which had stayed the same. The largest drop was in central line infections, followed by heart bypass surgery for the donor site, then chest site. Most importantly, Capital Region hospitals performed well! In fact, most Capital Region hospitals performed at the state average. While hip infections at Glens Falls Hospital was significantly worse than the state average, Albany Medical Center and St. Peter's Hospital's heart bypass surgeries were significantly better than the state average.

Particularly, Albany Medical Center and St. Peter's had zero infections at the donor site of coronary artery bypass surgeries, while St. Peter's had only one central line infection at the chest.

These reports are important, and I welcome their publication. Infections are something that we cannot entirely eliminate, but we should be able to dominantly control. These numbers are a good sign for us. It is important to note that such infections can, depending how they occurred (i.e. not following hospital protocol or procedures), lead to medical malpractice! While it is certainly hard to prove, there is still viability in a claim if it can be shown the hospital or physicians/staff deviated from the acceptable norm.

If you are interested, please review the report for yourself! It is available here: http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/facilities/hospital/hospital_acquired_infections/2010/docs/hospital_acquired_infection.pdf.

So, what do you think?! I am really curious about this topic and I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

More Doctors Facing Charges Over Drug Abuse; Medical Malpractice?

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

To be honest, I first saw of this issue days ago but was recalcitrant to post regarding it. Particularly because it would loop back to the tired discussion of Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, and his plight with prosecutors. However, another recent study found that children are being overmedicated; not in general, but when they seek care say, for example, at hospitals. This is particularly dangerous because children are more likely to suffer the steep consequences from overdoses and aggressive medication regimens. So now, this issue has my attention.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fatal overdoses from just prescription painkillers has more than tripled from 1999 through 2006 in the United States; approximately 13,800 per year! Therefore, just how Dr. Murray finds himself in the crosshairs of prosecutors, many other physicians are being targeted for this as well. In fact, there is empirical evidence documenting this: between 1981 and 2001 there were just over two dozen instances of criminal cases against doctors for malpractice, but now between 2001 and 2011 there were 37 reported cases. The majority of these cases are indeed for doctors over-prescribing painkillers and other controlled substances/medications.

The temporally occurrence of prosecutors hunting doctors for drug abuse and children being over-medicated in hospitals are what concerns me. Researchers found that most children in the hospital were given five or more medications and drugs, with some receiving as many as thirteen different kinds! Of course, the most common was acetaminophen, a painkiller. There were two other medications commonly prescribed; one being for asthma, and the other being antibiotics.

This truly does scare me. I am behind prosecutors going after these physicians, particularly when children are involved. The medical implications can be much worse, and the amount it takes to overdose a child is significantly less than a full grown adult. Further, these doctors should face both civil and criminal liability. Yes, these doctors are being prosecuted through the criminal realm, but it is also possible for them to be liable in the civil realm. Both are medical malpractice-with slightly different "elements" to prove to a jury-but the underlying notion is the same. The patient was injured, caused by a physician not exercising the skill of a reasonably competent physician in the field.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by a zealous-prescribing physician, ESPECIALLY if there is a child involved, PLEASE contact me. The clock is ticking and medical malpractice claims are sometimes only viable for two and a half years.

Additionally, I would love to hear what you think about this topic. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Discusses the Significance of the National Database of Doctors Withdrawal

Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Established in 1986, the National Practitioner Data Bank is a massive "public use file" and is essentially a data bank of valuable information harvested from years of research and investigations of doctors. Particularly, disciplinary actions and malpractice awards are given special attention. The data bank itself is very detailed but it does, however, have the physician's names and addresses redacted to protect their privacy; that information is kept on the full data bank not accessible to the public. Yet, the Health and Resources and Services Administration, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, just removed the "public use file" from the website.

But why?!

Well, a neurosurgeon from Kansas sent a complaint to Health and Resources and Services Administration after a journalist wrote a particularly damaging-and aggressive-article regarding him. The physician had paid out a malpractice claim, but had not been disciplined by the state. Since this information is particularly detailed in the public use file, it was easy for the journalist to recognize this inconsistency; shouldn't someone who pays out a medical malpractice claim be disciplined by the state? A physician could pay out a claim when forced by the jury, or could do so in a settlement (probably forced by their insurer). So how did the journalist connect this to the particular physician?

Using another resource-court documents, research by state agencies, and looking at hospital actions or curative actions. Through this method, the journalist was able to connect the more detailed information in the public use file without the physician's name, to the court documents, state agency research, and hospital actions which did contain the physicians name but without the particular details of the incident. And this is not the first time this has happened.

Immediately after being pulled, multiple journalist organizations protested removing the public use file. The agency responded that it is taking it down to re-evaluate how to better protect the private information of physicians, and estimates that it will be approximately six months before the website is back up. However, a spokesman did note that he was unsure what changes would take place and how it could be changed.

While I certainly advocate an increases transparency in the health care system-a goal of the Affordable Care Act and the health care reform as a whole-I think this was the correct thing to do. While now it might be journalists uncovering the private information of physicians, all it takes is one aggrieved patient in a medical malpractice case to also connect the dots and learn the private information of a physician. Inevitable, it would put physicians and their families in jeopardy. It might be easy to say that a physician should practice medicine much more carefully and do everything they can to prevent harming patients. Yet, a lot of physicians are indeed sued (I just wrote a post on this early last week) but very few of them actually pay out a claim. Therefore, the scenario is actually perfect for a patient to sue the physician for what they think is a viable claim, yet it turns out to not be, and the patient seeks to vindicate the issue themselves. Trouble!

But fixing this system will not be easy-there are plenty of ways to circumvent this systems, just as the journalists did. But how would you do it? What do you think? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

FL Wrongful Birth Medical Malpractice Case Yields $4.5 Award; Repercussions in New York?

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Parents brought a wrongful birth medical malpractice lawsuit against an OB-GYN in Florida and just received a $4.5 million award from a Florida jury. The parents successfully alleged that the OB-GYN failed to diagnose their son, who is now approaching three years old and was born with no arms and only one leg. They claimed that if they the OB-GYN competently conducted a thorough sonogram, this would have been apparent and the parents would have aborted the son to prevent his suffering. Essentially, their claim is that the ultrasound technician failed to properly examine the mother during the pregnancy and detect the three missing limbs that the baby had. Making matters worse, the OB-GYN and ultrasound technician confirmed in an examination report that they did indeed see all four limbs.

A wrongful birth is a legal cause of action where the parents of a diseased or severely handicapped child claim that the medical team failed to properly warn them of the risk of conceiving or giving birth to such child. This cause of action is hotly contested, and many religious and political groups alike condemn this practice. However, it is certainly a viable action today in some states-and some countries-as it was here in Florida.

Yesterday I wrote about the weaknesses of OB-GYN guidelines and how only thirty-percent is proven with "gold-standard" medical evidence and controlled trials. Immediately today we see a follow up to the concerns I expressed yesterday. Coupled with another blog post from last week, the concerns of medical malpractice and OB-GYNs should be coming clearer.

The $4.5 million in damages awarded to the patents will go towards the costs of caring for the child, particularly for the prosthetics, wheel chair, and extensive medical and therapeutical care the child will need to cope with such birth defects.

The reason why such wrongful birth actions work is because it is negligent in the physicians who should have given the parents a proper diagnosis to meet the acceptable standard of medical care. Therefore, the parents were without the ability to make a truly informed decisions about whether or not to have the child which such significant defects. While Florida is just one of the twenty-five states permitting such an action, New York has been hesitant to allow such an action, but the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), has allowed it in Mickens v. Lasala, 8 A.D.3d 453 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).

Whether or not you agree with the outcome, should such an action exist? Is this just arming the abortion debate with empirical data on economics and quality of life for the child and parents, justifying an abortion? What do you think? Shouldn't there be more established guidelines? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Most OB-GYN Guidelines are Based on Opinion and Weak Information!

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A frightening study found that less than one-third of the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ("ACOG")--the United States' leading group of OB-GYNs--are based on what is called "gold-standard" scientific experiments! In fact, most of the guidelines are based on expert opinion, which will certainly be informative but is also subject to personal bias and does not always translate into what is actually best for patients. So it is no wonder why OB-GYNs are among one of the medical specialties that are the most likely to get sued. The rest of the information is based on weak research data and attenuated evidence; not exactly what we want to hear when we trust these physicians during childbirth.

What the study did was go through almost 720 practice recommendations from ACOG and thoroughly evaluate each of them, accessing where such guidelines came from. A measly thirty percent of the guidelines came from solid, empirical research and controlled experiences, or trials. Another thirty-eight percent came from observational studies which has limited value, is relatively weak research, and is not repeated in controlled experiences (trials) or replicated. The remaining thirty-two percent came purely from expert opinion.

To defense, other experts countered that sometimes there is just not enough information available and-while it is certainly a shame-there is nothing that they can actually do. Moreover, some of the information that is empirically supported might be disputed or disagreed with by other experts in the field. Furthermore, some says that the OB-GYN guidelines are much more favorable than some other specialties and we should not be so critical.

But I think we should. I recognize that medicine, unlike law, is constantly in flux, changing, and evolving whereas law is more stable and calculated. Yet, people have always given birth (chicken or the egg anyone?)--this is not a new phenomenon. It is highly suspect that we cannot establish more empirical and "gold-standard" evidence for more than thirty percent of the time! One may speculate like I do that, if there were more rigid, proven, and tested guidelines, the medical malpractice claims against OB-GYNs may shrink. Or at least there would be an impact on the field, and hopefully protect one additional child from a birth-injury that could have been prevented if we weren't, essentially, guessing on the guidelines more than sixty percent of the time.

What do you think? Shouldn't there be more established guidelines? I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Laywyer: Cosmetic Surgery Becoming Cheaper, Faster, Deadlier!

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Health care critics are calling the spike in cosmetic surgery a dangerous commodity, and I for one agree! In the past, cosmetic surgeries required multiple and length consultations with plastic surgeons, diagnostic tests, and long cost-benefits analysis. Most often now consultations are not with a plastic surgeon but another staff member acting as a salesperson, procedures are rushed and typically done in small offices, and generally cost significantly less money than the "going rate" for the surgery actually should cost. Therefore, most of the centers do not sufficiently screen patients for complications or problems prior to the procedure, there is inadequate follow-ups conducted, and procedures are either unnecessary or will simply not get good results; something the staff may already knows! This is evidenced by a 77% increase in cosmetic procedures last year alone!

But what could be the risks? One individual from Florida underwent liposuction that was more than 50% cheaper than the next-cheapest alternative, but ended up in the hospital with severe pain in her leg and almost $50,000 in hospital bills-none which insurance will cover because it was elective surgery! Another individual underwent a speedy, cheap facelift but ended up with loose flaps of skin on her neck and even lopsided ears. In another liposuction case, an individual died from an embolism due to complications from the liposuction. While such embolisms are a risk and unavoidable in liposuction, the risks were unnecessarily increased because the procedure was not done in a hospital. Other noted deaths are from a pain medication overdose and a blood poisoning from a wound infection after the cosmetic surgery. In fact, there have been many cases of wound infections that have actually requires intensive care at the hospital, something patients who go to these cosmetic clinics likely wanted to avoid.

These are all clear instances of medical malpractice that is actionable! While some officials, including Governor Cuomo, have taken a stance against such facilities, there needs to be greater protections for patients. Stricter regulations need to be adopted and aggressively enforced to make sure such facilities do not cut corners on screening, treatment, and follow up checks on patients.

If you have had a cosmetic surgery that went horribly wrong, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your claim can only be brought within a limited timeframe; generally as short as 2 ½ years! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Astonished by How much Hospital Readmissions Cost New York; You Will Too!

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A report by the New York State Health Foundation released a report this week finding that hospital readmissions costs New York $3.7 billion per year! In fact, this translates to nearly 15% of all initial hospital stays resulting in a readmission, or an additional 274,000! Essentially, a hospital readmission is when a patient returns to the hospital within 30 days of the initial hospital stay for further treatment.

The report further broke down some of the details. It noted that approximately 4% of all initial hospital stays resulted in a readmission related to complications or infections which costs New York about $1.3 billion each year; this accounts for nearly 6% of the total hospital costs. Specifically by the type of stay, 66.8% of all readmissions were for medical reasons, 19.2% for surgical reasons, 12.1% for behavioral health reasons, and 1.9% for maternity reasons. The vast majority of all readmissions, 52.4%, were for individuals who were 65 years or older. The region with the highest rates of hospital readmission rates was New York City, but all of the other regions-including the Capital Region-had an annual readmission rate of at least 13.6%.

President and CEO of NYSHealth, James R. Knickman, remarked that "Hospital readmissions are a key indicator of health care quality and, as we see in this report, a key driver of health care costs." He continued that "[i]n New York, high readmission rates are not an isolated problem at just one or two hospitals. They are common and costly to every region of the State." This is not the first time that New York has been criticized for having high readmission rates though. In 2009, another study ranked New York 29th on 30-day hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients.

Recently, I have written a few posts regarding the quality of health care. While readmissions are not the most clear-cut indicator, even though President Knickman believes so, it is certainly influential. The report suggests that payment incentives can help reduce readmissions and costs, but how could that possibly be implemented in New York-particularly with the fog-of-war regarding the Affordable Care Act provisions which will most likely be tested within the coming year in the Supreme Court. The report notes that there should be an incentive/decentive system in place to help combat hospital admissions. That hospitals would face a reduction in payments for higher readmissions rates, and an incentive for keeping their rates low. This is a laudable suggestion, but entirely burdensome to implement and certainly more costly to enforce. When individuals come into hospitals, they are paid either as part of a diagnosis-related group (DRG), which pays per condition, or through some kind of capitation hybrid with insurance and Medicare or Medicaid. If hospitals were paid more initially for the initial visit, they would have less incentive to-essentially-get rid of the patient as fast as they can. Therefore, the patient could stay longer, get better treatment, and if an incident arises that would have resulted in a readmission, the patient is still there for treatment. In the long haul, this may help reduce the $3.7 billion costs that readmissions cost our state but paying a little bit more money initially to hospitals.

If you are interested, please review the report, "Reducing Hospital Readmissions in New York State: A Simulation Analysis of Alternative Payment Incentives," available at http://www.nyshealthfoundation.org/userfiles/NYSHF_Mathematica%20Final_v5.pdf. I'd love to hear what you think. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Foreign Objects Left in Patients After Surgery Getting Worse in New York!

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

The fear of undergoing surgery is enough for any of to become anxious. But the thought of harboring a foreign object left in our bodies mistakenly after the surgery is downright horrifying. Recently released statistics by the Niagara Health Quality Coalition ("NHQC") computed that there were 95 cases of foreign objects in New York hospitals during 2009. That is 11 more instances of foreign objects than the previous year!

A foreign object is essentially something that the surgical team did not intend to deposit in the patient's body, but it was mistakenly left inside of the patient's body at the conclusion of the surgery. While this may seem unbelievable that today-with such technological, medical, and training advancements-that surgical teams still leave foreign objects in patients it really shouldn't. Some surgeries can involve hundreds of medical sponges to stop bleeding and help keep the surgeon's "workspace" as clear as possible. Coupled with the myriad of instruments used in a procedure, it is actually a surprise it doesn't happen more often. Actually, the current estimate is that foreign objects are left behind in 1 out of every 10,000 surgeries. Moreover, a foreign object left inside of a patient's body following a surgery is a clear textbook case of medical malpractice. This is a very serious situation, and there are many documented cases of foreign objects left in patients that have resulted in death! In addition to the obvious physical problems that arise, mental anguish can also occur, especially if a second surgery is needed to rectify the mistake.

Amongst Capital Region hospitals, there were four cases of foreign objects at Albany Medical Center. The first involved a guide wire left in during a dialysis catheter placement, which was subsequently discovered in a chest X-ray and was immediately removed. Second, a fetal scalp probe's wire was accidently severed in an emergency Caesarean section. Again, a subsequent X-ray was performed revealing the wire, which was also removed. Third, a small, medical clip (Yasargil clip) was left in a patient during a major surgery. The team knew that the clip was left behind, tried to find it, but could not locate it during the surgery. Last, a piece of plastic sheeting about the size of a Post-it note was left inside of a patient's throat. The sheet was discovered and removed when the patient was rushed to the emergency room with an infection.

St. Peter's and Ellis Hospital also each had a foreign object case. At St. Peter's, it was more of a definitional incident of a foreign object. A sponge had gone missing during a surgery and the team ordered an X-ray to locate it, but before the X-ray could be performed, the tissue had to be closed which made the missing sponge technically a foreign object. It was located in the X-ray, and immediately removed before the patient left the hospital. At Ellis Hospital, a small tube was left after a laparoscopic surgery which was subsequently removed with another laparoscopic surgery.

With the help of organizations such as NHQC publishing such research, has gotten the hospitals to reflect on their procedures. Albany Med and Ellis have undertaken changes and review of their surgical procedures to decrease the rate of foreign objects left behind and to combat this problem in New York, which has only increased since the last report.

Do you know anyone who had a foreign object left in them? Please contact me! I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. If you are unsure, you are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

NY Nursing Homes Rank Among the Worst for Support and Family Caregivers!

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

AARP published an annual nursing home report card was just posted online and the stats don't bode well for New York. Each year, the State Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) Scorecard provides a multidimensional approach to measure state-level performs of LTSS systems that provide assistance to older people and to adults with disabilities. It focuses on "four dimensions": (1) affordability and access; (2) choice of setting and provider, (3) quality of life and quality of care; and (4) support for family caregivers. The report can be accessed here: http://www.longtermscorecard.org/.

The top states are Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon while the lowest states are Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia. Unfortunately, New York is closer to Mississippi then Minnesota; the overall combined ranking of New York is just a abysmal 41st.

Particularly when it comes to support for family and caregivers, New York ranks 48th! Additionally, New York ranks last many important sub-areas, such as "median annual cost for private-pay nursing home resident, as percentage of median household income, age 65," "percent of adults age 18 with disabilities living in the community who usually or always get needed support," "percent of home health patients with hospital admission," and "percent of caregivers who usually or always get needed support, while also ranking 43rd in "assisted living and residential care units per 1,000 population age 65" and 44th in "legal and system supports for caregivers."

The news isn't all dim. The brightest spot New York has is that they are second best at enrolling low-income disabled adults in Medicaid. But the tradeoff here is that New York ranks amongst the worst regarding private-paying patients.

What will this score card do? Hopefully help Governor Cuomo's Medicaid Resign Team mobilized to press more sweeping changes in New York. Moreover, this might rotate the spotlight on some of the under-performing nursing homes or home health care agencies and put more pressure on them to improve their standard of care. A solution particularly combating New York's weak ranking of support services for caregivers could relate to another post I recently wrote regarding CareBridge.org. Such a website functions almost as a "Facebook of Recovery," permitting patients to post blogs, stories, and pictures during their illness.

This news, hopefully, we be the impetus New York needs to improve the care to our state's aging population. With a rank so low, this only will increase the amount of medical malpractice, negligence, and harm done to the ones we should be respecting the most. What do you think? I'd love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Doctors and Dentists Misdiagonsis Oral Lesion Often; Medical Malpractice?

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

According to researchers from the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, general practitioners correctly diagnosed only about half of all oral lesions they biopsied. The study also found that dentists and oral surgeons were only slightly better at it. More specifically, general practitioners misdiagnosed 45.9% of the oral lesions they submitted, whereas the dentists and oral surgeons misdiagnosed the oral lesions 42.8% of the time.
The conditions misdiagnosed were hyperkeratosis (thickening of skin; 16% of the time), focal inflammatory fibrous hyperplasia (firm growth or bump, 10%), fibroma (growth of fibrous or connective tissue, 8%), periapical granuloma (growing mass around tooth which could kill the tooth "pulp," 7% of the time), and radicular cysts (cyst around tooth that causes pain, 6% of the time). While these conditions are generally benign, malignant lesions were misdiagnosed 5.6% of the time. But what is the significance?

The study's authors noted that "[t]he relatively high rate of clinical misdiagnosis of oral lesions biopsied and submitted for histologic diagnosis by dental practitioners suggests that there is probably an even greater rate of error occurring in clinical practice." If this allegation is true, it is quite scary! Particularly because most of the lesions, while not malignant, are certainly common. Why should the most common conditions be the most diagnosed?

This study suggests that if a doctor is not sure, they should biopsy the lesion. In fact, even if they are sure the doctor should biopsy it. However, patients are afraid of that word "biopsy," as it generally connotes cancer or another serious condition. With dentists specifically, most often biopsies are not covered by insurance and the patient has to pay for it out of pocket. Moreover, doctors generally fail to well-enough explain to patients why a biopsy needs to be done.

Shouldn't these doctors-specifically dentists who should be specializing in oral lesions-be more liable? Aren't we as patients more deserving of a better standard of care by such physicians? Absolutely! There needs to be more controls, more studies such as this one, and more repercussions against doctors who misdiagnose these conditions. Even if the lesions are benign, more than 5% of that time a malignant lesion is misdiagnosed and that could seriously alter a patient's life! Doctors should be liable now, because that scenario arises!

But is this even medical malpractice? It certainly can be! If you have a malignant lesion which is misdiagnosed as a benign one and not treated, it could develop into a very serious condition where you might have a remedy at law. Don't you agree? I'd love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Health Care Horrors; 91 Medicare Fraud Indictments Alleged to Cost Us $296 Million!

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services' ("HHS") Medicare Fraud Strike Force launched a massive, multi-agency team involving more than 400 federal, state, and local law enforcement agents who investigated and charged doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals all over the United States. In eight cities, a total of 91 defendants were indicted on Medicare fraud schemes which results in approximately $295 million in false billing and false claims. There were forty-five defendants in Miami, two in Houston, ten in Baton Rouge, six in Los Angeles, three in Brooklyn, two in Dallas, eighteen in Detroit, and four in Chicago. In addition to the arrests, a total of eighteen search warrants were executed.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that those arrested are jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's health care system. HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that the law enforcement initiative is a powerful warning to those who would try to defraud taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, Sebelius recognized that the controversial health care bill last year-which I wrote on yesterday-created one of the strongest anti-fraud laws in history. What the Affordable Care Act does is create much longer prison terms for health fraud, increased the power of these strike force teams which helped carry out these national arrests, and it provided funding for new technology that allows investigators to see claims as they happen.

The allegations against the defendants ranged from healthcare fraud-related crimes such as conspiracy to defraud the Medicare program, healthcare fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes, and money laundering. These charges spanned from medical treatments, to home healthcare services, many times of therapy such as physical, occupational, and psychotherapy, as well as mental health services.

The largest allegation of fraud was against a doctor and nurse in fraud schemes involving $159 million in false bills for home healthcare, mental health services, and occupation and physical therapy.

For one, I am happy that there are more aggressive actions being taken against those who seek to cheat the rest of us. Particularly because doctors, those considered to be a part of the social elite and looked up to, should not be taking advantage of our reverence. Don't you agree? I'd love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Fourth Circuit Renders Affordable Care Act Decision; But for Who?

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Controversy and the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") are no strangers to each other. The United States is currently entrenched in one of the most influential reform in our history. Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit out in Cincinnati, Ohio upheld the ACA-particularly the individual mandate-constitutional under the Commerce Clause power. In short, the Commerce Clause is the enumerated powered in Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution permitted Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes." However, recently the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia, found that the same individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause power. Today, the Fourth Circuit rendered their tiebreaking decisions-but which way did they go?

Out of Richmond, Virginia, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the challenge from the state Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli and Liberty University to the ACA. While this provides a numerical victory for the Obama Administration, 2 upholding and 1 striking down, the case was inevitably already going to the Supreme Court anyway and this is nothing more than another symbolic victory. The Fourth Circuit noted several aspects which other courts have not previously noted.

For one, the court noted that the State was ineligible to challenge the law because the individual mandate only applies to the actions of individuals and not for the state. Second, the court remarked that a Virginia law-where the suit originates-enacted a law that no Virginia resident shall be required to purchase health insurance and therefore, there is no reason to address the ramifications of the ACA. This logic is flawed. As this law will, inevitably, also be called under a frustration of purpose preemption argument; this essentially means that the state law is nullifying the effect of a federal law, and therefore is unconstitutional. Third, the court concluded that if they allowed this suit to go through, that it would allow any state to challenge laws against their citizens, no matter how attenuated the connection be. Fourth, and most striking and worrisome for anti-ACA individuals, the court found that the ACA was a valid tax and not a penalty, which every other court had previously found! Moreover, the court held that the tax issue could not be litigated until it was actually in effect.

But this decision may not have been a real surprise. All three judges on the bench were Democratic-appointed judges and voted along party lines. While this was not the case in the Sixth Circuit (Republican-nominated judge ruling in favor of the ACA) and in the Eleventh Circuit (Democratic-nominated judge ruling in against the ACA), the thought of partisanship on the way to the Supreme Court reenters the realm of discussion. While the Supreme Court has five Republicans-appointed and four Democratic-appointed Justices, one Republican-appointed Justice, Chief Justice Roberts, is notorious for being wildly unpredictable in his decision-siding methodology; he likely may be the decision vote if the ACA sinks or swims.

Overall, this decision is not a good one. Nor was the Eleventh Circuit's. The Sixth Circuit's decision is the most viable and well-though out, surprising convincing opinion thus far regarding the ACA. Should the Supreme Court hear the case, the logic of the Sixth Circuit coupled with the composition of the Justices, with the rogueness of the Chief Justice, should spell victory for the Obama Administration.

What do you think? I'd love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New York Hospitals Receive Report Cards, How Did Yours Do?

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Each year the official New York State Hospital Report Card is published on MyHealthFinder.com, which is sponsored by the Niagara Health Quality Coalition ("NHQC"). NHQC is a non-profit, independent organization based out of Western New York, and operates on a half-million dollars budget each year. Additionally, it does not accept money from hospitals or facilities that is evaluates.

The Hospital Report Card project is a truly unique and laudable project. It reports on the quality of care and provides ratings for every New York State hospital on a wide array of procedures, conditions, and other relevant categories. The goal is to provide patients with the information they need to find high quality care, and provide hospital quality leaders with technical assistance to improve quality measures.

In the capital region there are four hospitals; St. Peter's Hospital (Albany), Ellis Hospital (Schenectady), Glens Falls Hospital (Glens Falls), and Albany Medical Center (Albany). All but one of these hospitals was rated on the Safest Hospital list this year, while another again was named to the Watch List. Can you guess which one?

For the third year in a row, Albany Medical Center was named to the Watch List with deficiencies in "postoperative deaths from treatable complications," "postoperative bleeding," postoperative respiratory failure," "foreign bodies left behind," and "transfusion with wrong blood type." The other hospitals, while each having 1-3 deficiencies, also each had 2-4 strengths compared to only 1 strength at Albany Medical Center. But what does this mean and are these even a good idea?

Yes! They are a great idea and should be implemented on a wider, national scale for not just each hospital, but for any health care facility. For the patient who is able to choose a hospital for treatment, she or he could choose that hospital by looking at the listed strengths and weaknesses of each hospital with the data. However, for the patient in need of urgent care, the list would not be as useful. Moreover, hospitals under-performing may have to answer to the state and face budgetary repercussions. Isn't this what we want? Hospitals and health care officials not acting how they feel fit, but answering to us-the patients!

What do you think? I'd love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can drop me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Physician Rating Websites, a Good Tool for the Patient?

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A few days ago I posted about online patient journals which are said to improve patient satisfaction. This integration of technology into the health care is surely a boon, but where else does it come into play? There are websites, such as Vital.com or Healthgrades.com, that permit users to rate physicians. We have all done it for other services online-whether it is through e-Bay, Amazon, or other-like websites. So is this the next great tool for patients to rate and review physicians in an effort to protect yourself from potential malpractice claims?

Probably not.

While the websites serve a laudable function, they are quite capricious if not downright deceptive. One study conducted by the Journal of General Internal Medicine identified several deficiencies in these types of websites. For one, the websites permit for anonymous ratings. The study found that some physicians had indeed rated themselves, and of course each review had been "glowing." Another doctor, criticizing the system and the weaknesses of it, was able to raise his rating significantly by posting multiple positive reviews about himself. Even though most websites can block "similar" IP addresses to prevent this, the critic submitted reviews on his mobile phone, laptop, iPad, and then desktop to exhibit a way around this safeguard. Not only could a boosting physician do this, but so could an aggrieved patient-or even worse, a competitor-carrying out a vendetta against a good physician.

Another major flaw relates primarily to how capricious the rating system is. What may be rated as "good" or 4 stars to you, may be "excellent" or 5 stars to me; there is no criterion available for accurately rating the physicians. Complicating this is that the same questions and criteria are not specialty-specific. The duties of a neurosurgeon, pediatrician, and pathologist all differ greatly and cannot simply be summed with such basic questions, but this is how those websites are setup.

Moreover, the volume of ratings itself leaves most physician ratings with such a small sample size it is almost guaranteed to be deficient. Especially considering those ratings will likely be A) an aggrieved patient or B) a self-boosting physician. In fact, the study found that only three out of every 250 physicians had been rated five or more times. Further frustrating the websites' purpose, almost ninety-perfect of all review were positive!

While the current health care reform seeks to improve transparency of the health care industry, these websites are likely causes more vagueness than clarity. But they may not even be serving a strong purpose anyway. A study found that eighty-percent of Californian adults looked to the internet for health care related information, but only twenty-five percent looked for physician rating websites. Of that, a de minimis two-percent made physician changes based on such internet data.

When it comes down to choosing a physician, do your research online but make sure to branch out from there; it should not be your only source of information. If you feel you have been aggrieved by a physician, do not rant about it in a review online as it has the potential to defeat attorney-client privilege-an important protection in litigation. But do make sure to speak with a trained professional to sift through the facts, and to build your case based on the law. Please call for a free case evaluation today!

Doctor Forgets to Gather Umbilical Cord Blood, Cause for Malpractice?

Sun, 04 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Planning ahead is important when you have children, especially your first child. That's why one Florida couple recognized the great utility of collecting their child's umbilical cord blood to store for later in his life. In fact, they had even signed a contract with the Cord Blood Registry and filed a birth plan ordering the collection of the cord blood.

In recent years, science has concluded that vital stem cells could be harvested from umbilical cord blood and possibly used to treat certain times of cancers, diseases, and other disorders for the child later in life. Stem cells are essentially blank cells which can assimilate themselves with other like-cells in the area they are transplanted. These means they can become specialized cells, and even produce more stem cells.

Services such as Cord Blood Registry provide storage of umbilical cord blood under payments plans, commonly per month. After birth, the blood is delivered and ultimately stored in scientifically proven methods to preserve the potency of the cord blood for future use, if ever required.

So what was the problem in Florida? The doctor forgot to collect the umbilical cord blood! The hospital responsible for the mistake acknowledged they had no procedures in effect to prevent mistakes, but would not further comment on the situation. With the advances of science and more powerful technological ability, why are hospitals falling behind the curve?

Could this doctor be liable? It is absolutely possible! While there are many theories of liability (medical malpractice, medical negligence, tortious interference of a contract, industry practice deviation, etc), it is best determined by an experienced professional with years of litigating medical malpractice claims. Particularly because this is an emerging issue within the medical malpractice field, and not well settled, it would be entirely fact dependant. If this happens to you, please make sure to call for a free case evaluation!

What kind of doctors are most likely to be sued? Click here to find out!

Sat, 03 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

According to a new study released by the New England Journal of Medicine, certain kinds of doctors are much more likely to be sued than others. The study looks at just how often doctors are actually being sued, and what kind of monetary repercussions they actually face. The study broke down medical malpractice claims to insurance companies into the three following parameters: the proportion of doctors who face a malpractice claim in a given year; the proportion of doctors who actually make a payment on a claim and the actual amount of that payment; and the risk each doctor facing a medical malpractice claim during their whole career. Further, the study included over 41,000 doctors over 24 different specialties from 1991 to 2005. The results are quite interesting, and might surprise you!

Overall each year, 7.4% of all doctors faced a medical malpractice claim. While this sounds fairly low-and granted it is a reassuring number-the difference between specialties was vast. Only 2.6% of psychiatrists faced a medical malpractice claim, whereas 19% of all neurosurgeons did. The difference could be inherent to the difficulty in neurosurgery-still young and growing-whereas psychiatry is more malleable. In that, a mistake in psychiatry can be adjusted and is more likely to, eventually, yield that satisfactory result, while neurosurgery is a very complex and difficult undertaking for a doctor to perform.

Another interesting finding was that only 1.6% of doctors each year made an indemnity, essentially a payment sum as compensation to another. Not surprisingly, this also varied throughout the practice areas. Notably, gynecologists were the most likely to make such an indemnity payment, however, were only 12th most likely to actually be sued for medical malpractice.

The average amount paid in a claim was $274,887. While this did vary as to the specialty, surprisingly the most likely to be sued, neurosurgeons, on average paid less than other specialties! Most comfortably-for us and doctors in these fields-most internal medicine, family medicine, and pathologists did not face a single medical malpractice claim in their entire career!

This research and the statistics provided will hopefully make patients more cognizant of medical malpractice. But these findings are not dispositive! If you believe you have been wronged in anyway, but know the statistics are not in your favor, don't make the decision yourself! Make sure to call for a free evaluation of your claim to protect your rights.

Local Hospital Seeks to Improve Patient Satisfaction with Online Journals

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

Just this week Glens Falls Hospital announced that it will use CaringBridge.org's services to offer their patients online journals to record their experience with the hospital. In fact, more than a dozen hospitals already in New York provide this service to their patients. The goal is to increase patient satisfaction while providing friends and family a convenient location to find updates on the patient's recovery through the internet.

CaringBridge.org is a free service that a patient can create a personal journal and upload photos, exchange messages, and constantly update their page without the hospital's assistance. Patients can also password protect or limit their personal journal to enhance patient privacy. CaringBridge.org purports that their service can improve a hospital's patient satisfaction scores and decrease staff time in coordinating communication with the patient's family and friends, without costing the hospital any money. But does this actually improve patient satisfaction?

Well according to a study by CaringBridge.org, ninety-one percent of the patients using their service did say that it made their health care experience easier. An even higher number, ninety-three percent, rated the quality of care from the healthcare facility were as "Very Good" or "Excellent." With more than 278,000 personal journals registered--creating website traffic of half a million hits every day--the statistics provided by CaringBridge.org is truly impressive.

Following suit, there are other similar websites like CarePages.com and Inspire.com which provide similar services. For example, Inspire.com allows for members to find each other with similar conditions to talk and support each other during their recovery.

While these websites serve laudable functions, are they really as good as they say that they are? Don't websites like this tailor themselves towards patients who are ill, but still able to function well know to post online, upload pictures, and communicate with family and friends through the internet? Aren't these patients more likely to be easily healed, and more likely to say their health care was very good? So are these websites really helping increase patient satisfaction because the health care is better, or because patients now had an easier tool to communicate with friends and family?

We want to hear from you! Have you used a patient journal? What are your experiences?

Most Health Care Workers' Uniforms Test Positive for Dangerous Pathogens!

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:00:00 EST

A recent study published in the American Journal of Infection Control has found that sixty-percent of health workers' uniforms sampled by researchers harbored dangerous pathogens which could cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections, and drug-resistant infections, among other potentially dangerous bacteria. The very people taking care of you are more likely than not to introduce you to a host of nasty pathogens!

While the study was careful to not to hastily connect the germy uniforms to actual patient infections, the response by practitioners and patients alike has been strong. Even seasoned medical professionals were shocked and appalled by the findings. Particularly being questioned is the practice of health workers wearing their uniforms out into public (wearing them to work, errands at the store, out on walks, smoking breaks, etc), essentially swabbing the environment of such pathogens and bringing them back directly to patients. Some commenters even remarked that they always knew this could be a problem, but what is being done about it?

The Association of periOperative Registered Nurses has especially taken a strong position seeking the creation of rules governing hospital workers' attire in an effort to reduce pathogen exposure to patients as best as possible. Some hospitals, like the University of Rochester Medical Center, already instituted a policy prohibiting employees from wearing uniforms outside of the premises. While specific data from them is unavailable regarding their contamination rates, one would surely think it would be less than a hospital with no such restriction.

Certainly the main focus of preventing infection revolves around other contamination sources around patients, but the mere fact that such dangerous and potentially deadly pathogens reside on hospital employees' clothing is quite disturbing. Shouldn't more health care facilities institute uniform restrictions such as the Rochester? If it could potentially reduce the amount of dangerous germs on health care employees' uniforms, and it is neither burdensome nor costly, why wouldn't there be restrictions? Sure there might be more contaminated surfaces, but facilities have advanced so far already in sanitizing them, why can't they tackle an easier enemy? What do you think?

New study reveals that cigarettes are the smoking gun behind more than half of bladder cancer cases in the United States

Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:00:00 EST

Smoking increases the risk of bladder cancer, but a new study reveals that the link is much stronger than thought, possibly because cigarettes are more toxic today than ever before.

Smoking increases the risk of bladder cancer much more than it did decades ago

Everyone knows that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer, but what about other types of cancer? A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that tobacco smoking is the main cause of bladder cancer. The study was conducted by the National Institute of Health and the AARP and took data from more than 450,000 participants between 1995 and 2006.

The study revealed that smoking has become far more lethal than ever before. Decades ago, smoking was believed to cause 20% to 30% of bladder cancer cases among women and now, that figure is 52% due to changes in cigarette design, according to the author of the study. While tar and nicotine concentrations in cigarettes have fallen over the past 50 years, levels of specific cancer chemicals have increased. They include beta-napthylamine, a known bladder carcinogen. "Changing the composition of cigarettes may be associated with the strengthening of the association between smokking and bladder cancer risk", according to study author, Neal D. Freeman, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Compared with "never smokers", former smokers had more than double the risk of bladder cancer and for current smokers, the risk was four times higher. According to the American Cancer Association, there were 69,250 new cases of bladder cancer diagnosed in 2011 and about 14,990 deaths from bladder cancer. Pretty scary stuff.

It's not all bad news for smokers. Smokers who kicked the habit were much less likely to develop bladder cancer. Current smokers can split their risk of bladder cancer in half simply by kicking the habit.

If you have any questions about bladder cancer or just want to chat, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website, www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Are medical malpractice victims really cashing in? The answer will surprise you.

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:00:00 EST

Only 1 in 5 medical malpractice claims against doctors leads to a settlement or other payment, according to a new study, "Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty", published on August 18th by the New England Journal of Medicine. The author of the study, Amitabh Chandra of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, expressed surprise that "so many claims did not result in payment".

The study took a detailed snapshot of U.S. medical malpractice claims, awards and frequency by specialty and was based on data provided by a physician-owned liability insurer between 1991 and 2005. Specialists in neurosurgery and cardio-thoracic surgeons had the highest incidence of malpractice claims, while psychiatrists and primary care physicians had the lowest percentage of malpractice claims. Data showed that just 1.6% of physicians in any given year faced a claim that resulted in payment.

The author of the study concluded that our malpractice system is inefficient since only roughly 1 out of 5 claims is paid, and he concludes that the unpaid claims are meritless. Au contraire, my naive friend. The fact that a claim is unpaid often has very little to do with the merit of the case. Today, juries are very cynical of malpractice cases and the common perception is that malpractice victims are looking to cash in a lottery ticket. It is common that even the strongest and most obvious cases of malpractice are lost at trial, often due to the biases of the jury against the malpractice victim.

The author's conclusion that the unpaid malpractice claims are meritless is a faulty premise to say the least. If the author spent a single day in a courtroom, he might get a better appreciation of the reality of the U.S. malpractice system. Just a thought.

If you have any questions or just want to chat, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request a FREE copy of my book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website, www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer speaks at Marist College

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:00:00 EST

On July 27, 2011, John H. Fisher spoke at Marist College at their "Project Upward Bound Career Fair" in Poughkeepsie, New York.

The career fair entailed three 25-minute speeches with high school students from Poughkeepsie and Newburgh. Mr. Fisher answered the students' questions about his career as a medical malpractice lawyer. The emphasis of John's speeches to the students was to "find what you love doing and make it your career". The hours of a lawyer are long and the work is not glamorous, but if you love what you do, you won't work a single day in your life.

Mr. Fisher gave the students free copies of his book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, and he discussed the most common misconceptions about medical malpractice and injury law.

Are You More Likely To Develop Bed Sores Because Of The Color Of Your Skin? Click Here To Find Out!

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

The care you or a loved one receive at a nursing home may vary with the color of your skin. A recent study published in the Journal of American Medicine entitled "Association of Race and Sites of Care With Pressure Ulcers in High-Risk Nursing Home Residents" authored by Dr. Yue Li found that black nursing home residents are more likely than white nursing home residents to develop bed sores.

Bed sores, also known as pressure ulcers or decubitus lesions are skin lesions that can develop on any part of the body as a result of unrelieved pressure, friction, humidity, and a number of other factors. Bedridden nursing home patients are particularly prone to developing bed sores as they are often lay in the same position for a long period of time. Nurses are advised to turn patients regularly (typically every two hours) to relieve any pressure that may cause a sore. If not treated, bed sores can lead to potentially life-threatening conditions such as gangrene, bone and muscle damage, and sepsis.

Previous studies suggested that black nursing home residents develop more pressure ulcers than white patients. The objective of this study was to determine whether that disparity has decreased with recent efforts to improve the quality of nursing homes. The study analyzed the cases of patients that had reportedly developed pressure ulcers from over 12,000 nursing homes from 2003 to 2008. The case sample consisted of about 2.5 million patients that were at a high risk of developing pressure ulcers.

Although the overall rate that patients received bed sores decreased from 2003 to 2008, the study showed that black residents are still more likely to develop pressure sores than white residents. The rate among white residents decreased from "11.4 percent in 2003 to 9.6 percent in 2008", while the rate among black residents decreased from "16.8 percent to 14.6 percent".

The researchers also found that the highest rate of bed sores occur among black residents in nursing homes housing the highest percentage of black residents. Conversely, the lowest rate was among white residents in nursing homes with the lowest percentage of black residents.

These results may be due to a number of factors. The nursing homes with the highest concentration of black residents may not be as well funded or staffed as those housing mostly white residents. Research as shown that the facilities that tend to house a large concentration of black residents tend to be not-for-profit or urban facilities. Dr. Li suggested that these facilities are most likely lacking in adequate number of nursing staff and nursing assistants needed to attend to bedridden patients. In addition, Dr. Li argued that more research should be conducted to take into account factors such as mattress quality and disposable undergarments.

I would be extremely interested hearing the results of more research addressing this topic. I urge researchers expand on Dr. Li's findings and look more closely at the differences in care at urban and not-for profit nursing homes and private nursing homes. Have you or a loved one received care at a nursing home and seen a disparity between the care received by black residents and white residents? Do you think that your care suffered because of the color of you skin. Please feel free to call me toll free at 866-889-6882 to discuss your experiences and the legal options available to you.

Does Your Doctor Think That You're A "Difficult Patient"?

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

Did you know that your physician is required to complete a certain number of educational lecture credit hours per year to keep his license active? The exact number of credit hours required varies by specialty. However, your physician has a number of ways in which he can complete them: he or she can (1) attend conferences where live speakers lecture on specific topics and procedures over a course of a few days, (2) purchase a DVD lecture series, watch it, and then take a short quiz to prove that it was viewed, (3) attend various live lectures sponsored by organizations such as the New York Medical Society or, (4) view lectures online sponsored by a physician-to-physician learning collaborative where physicians are encouraged to share and learn from one another's experiences.

One physician-to-physician learning collaborative, QuantiaMD, is causing outrage among patient advocates after airing its newest lecture series: " Managing the Difficult Patient: The Five Faces of the Difficult Patient". The series consists of five segments: "The Angry Patient", "The Legal Risk Patient", "The Patient Who Knows Too Much", "The Chronic Pain Patient" and "The Patient For Whom Nothing Works". In particular, "The Patient Who Knows Too Much" has garnered the most anger from patients and patient advocates. While thousands of doctors have flocked to the site to view the lecture with positive reviews on the series, patient advocates think that it drips with condescension and criticism towards patients that have sought to educate themselves about their health.

The lecture opens with a picture of a cartoon patient holding a computer. With large black glasses, a bad haircut, and a collared-shirt buttoned all the way up to his chin, he is without a doubt meant to be portrayed as the stereotypical "nerd". The moderator of the lecture series, Dr. Richard G. Roberts, President of the World Organization for Family Doctors voices over the picture to inform the viewer that the patient's name is "Will" and is a "computer engineer" who "downloads the most current information" from the internet before visiting his doctor. "Will" then bombards his doctor with questions about "one disease or another" during his visit.

Next, three lecturers, Dr. Joseph Scherger, Vice President for Primary Care at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, California, Dr. Leonard Haas, Clinical Psychologist and Health Behavior Coordinator at VA Healthcare Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Dr. Gerald B. Hickson, Director of the Center for Patient Professional Advocacy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine address the challenges that Will poses to his treating physician and how one should best handle him.

According to Dr. Scherger, patients who know too much often "consider themselves an expert yet often their true medical knowledge is quite limited". Scherger suggests that treating physicians should promote a healthy lifestyle to this type of patient as they are typically "very overweight...out of shape...[and] on the Internet all the time". Dr. Haas states that "patients who present their expertise as telling you how to practice medicine are implicitly discounting your expertise". All three lecturers harp on the fact that internet-educated patients take up a large amount of time during their visit which can prove frustrating for busy doctors.

Patient advocates argue that while patients that research possible conditions may be frustrating or annoying, researching their health could save their lives. For example, Jill Raleigh, executive director of the LAM Foundation, a group for patients with the rare lung disease, Lymphangioleiomyomatosis, argues that most LAM patients' physicians know very little, if anything, about the condition and that the patient is usually the one who must educate his or her doctor on the latest treatments and developments for the disease.

Mary Modahl, chief communications officer with QuantiaMD, says that QuantiaMD now realizes "The Patient Who Knows Too Much" is a "poor title" for the lecture and that "certainly a patient can never know too much." She argues that the purpose of the lecture was to teach doctors to deal with patients suffering from panic disorder who visit their doctors frequently with a variety of different complaints and have sought the advice of numerous specialists.

After reading a number of different articles on this lecture series, I decided that I just had to see it for myself. So I logged into the site (it's free) and watched it. It appears that QuantiaMD has taken some of the criticism to heart, as ‘The Patient Who Knows Too Much" has now been renamed "The Cyberchondriac". However, I don't believe that the change in title was enough. The lecture is exactly the same and the most offensive portions still remain (such as when Dr. Scherger states that most internet educated patients are overweight). Although watching the lecture as a whole versus reading small snippets of the dialogue in articles did make the lecture seem less offensive, on the whole it does take an alarmingly condescending tone towards patients that are most likely very concerned about their health and are just trying to receive the best treatment available.

I also watched a number of other segments in the series including "The Patient For Whom Nothing Works". This patient is represented by a cartoon picture of an elderly woman and is characterized as a patient for whom treatment doesn't work and is "likely not following the advice of her physician". This segment actually bothered me even more than "The Cyberchondriac" because the lecturer seemed to just assume that any type of treatment failure is the fault of the patient when nothing seems to work on his or her condition.

I think that doctors who condemn patients "for whom nothing works" or who are "over-educated" are climbing a slippery slope in dismissing the validity of their complaints. I think that doctors that assume that these types of patients are simply either hypochondriacs or are not following treatment orders run the risk of missing life threatening or rare disorders. While its true that these types of patients may be frustrating for physicians, let's face it, the bottom line is that physicians are paid to treat and deal with patients...no matter how frustrating they may be. I acknowledge the fact that QuantiaMD may have been trying to educate doctors on how to deal with patients that may be frustrating to them; however, I really don't think they did it with the amount of tact and skill required. What do you think? Should QuantiaMD change their lecture series or was a title change all that was required to make the series less offensive? Check out the series by logging into QuantiaMD here: http://www.quantiamd.com/!

Smoking and Birth Defects Are Now Definitively Linked! Click Here To Find Out More!

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

Do you or a loved one smoke? Were you exposed to firsthand or secondhand cigarette smoke while pregnant? Was your child born with a heartbreaking birth defect? The two may be linked! A new study released this month entitled "Maternal Smoking in Pregnancy and Birth Defects" and written by researchers from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology has definitively linked smoking to certain birth defects after the researchers conducted the first comprehensive review of past scientific studies on the matter. The birth defects identified include: heart defects, limb defects, digit anomalies, facial abnormalities, such as cleft lip or cleft palate, eye defects and gastrointestinal defects such as gastroschisis and umbilical hernias.

According to an article on the study by Melanie Rosen of Parenting.com, the research team reviewed observational studies published between 1959 and 2010 including 101 research studies. The researchers' systematic review of this past data also showed that women who smoked were more likely to have children with more or one birth defect.

Need more reasons to quit smoking? Another study published this week by the American Academy of Pediatrics demonstrated that children exposed to secondhand smoke at home have a 50% increased risk of developing two or more childhood neurobehavioral disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than children not exposed to smoke within the home.

The study, conducted by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Tobacco Free Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, analyzed 2007 data from the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics. The researchers estimated that "nearly 5 million children younger than 12 are exposed to secondhand smoke at home and up to 8% of them suffer from learning disabilities like ADHD and other behavioral disorders".

In addition, researchers found that children exposed to second hand smoke are more likely to receive behavioral counseling and that about 4.8 million American children under 12 years old live in homes with a smoker and are being exposed to dangerous levels of secondhand smoke every day.

If you're a smoker and are pregnant or have children, I urge to consider the data published in these two studies. Smoking may not only cause birth defects in newborns, but also be a cause of sudden infant death syndrome, asthma, and respiratory infections. If you think that you were exposed to a large amount of secondhand smoke during pregnancy and your child was born with a birth defect, I urge you to call me toll free at 866-889-6882 to discuss the legal options available to you.

Doctor's License Revoked For Performing Inappropriate Procedures!

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

A few days ago, I blogged about a new study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors of the study, which was conducted by professionals of six leading heart health organizations including the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Association for Thoracic Surgery and the American Heart Association, determined that half of all angioplasties performed to widen arteries in non-emergency situations may be unnecessary or "inappropriate".

An angioplasty, also known as a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, is a procedure which widens blocked or clogged arteries. A collapsed balloon catheter is inserted into the blood vessel using a guide wire, then inflated. The inflation causes the fatty deposits within the vessel to be crushed and allows for improved blood flow. The balloon catheter is then deflated and withdrawn.

In my blog on the topic, I urged patients and the medical community to keep researching the impact of these inappropriate procedures on patients. Coincidently, right after I posted it, I was sent a number of emails in response from a number of readers about a doctor whose license was just revoked for performing unnecessary angioplasties.

Dr. Marc Midei, the head of the cardiac catheterization clinic of St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, Maryland was "blasted" by the Maryland Board of Physicians in an 88 page report for allegedly performing hundreds of unnecessary surgical procedures on his patients. Ultimately, The Board found that Midei violated five provisions of the Medical Practice Act including provisions prohibiting unprofessional conduct, gross overutilization of health care service, violations of the standard of quality care and failure to keep adequate medical records. His license was officially revoked on July 13, 2011.

According to the report, the State Board of Physicians found that in "four of the five patients cases they reviewed, Midei "willfully fabricated information about the severity of arterial blockages" and unnecessarily implanted stents within their blood vessels. According to the State Board, "In every one of the patients, he falsified the extent of blockage of the patients' coronary arteries by reporting that it was 80% when it was in reality lower - and in most cases much lower. In three patients, he also falsely reported that they suffered from unstable angina when in fact they did not." As a result of the findings, a total of 585 patients were sent letters by the State Board warning them that Midei may have unnecessarily inserted a stent into their body. A stent is a medical device used to open blocked arteries. Midei is now facing hundreds of civil suits and patients are gunning for him to receive criminal sanctions.

Midei's actions generated a large amount of revenue for St. Joseph Medical Center. The hospital reportedly received $10,000 to $15,000 for each stent inserted. Furthermore, his actions prompted a December 2010 U.S. Senate Committee on Finance to report on improper cardiac stent implants. The Committee determined that St. Joseph billed private and public insurers more than $6.6 million for potentially unnecessary stents and that Medicare paid 3.8 million, more than half of that amount.

The decision, coupled with the recent study I blogged about a few days ago, has sent waves of panic throughout medical communities all over the county as many physicians re-evaluate their methods of determining what procedures are truly necessary for their patients. Message boards on the decision have become congested as both patients and doctors weigh in on the divisive decision of the State Board with the majority of commentators finding Midei's actions to be "shameful", "disturbing" or "shocking". Unfortunately, Midei does have a handful of supporters, mostly from the medical community, that argue that the patients should have received "second opinions" before undergoing the procedures that Midei suggested.

Personally, I find Midei's actions unethical, disturbing, and potentially life-threatening. I also find Midei's supporters' assertions that patients should have known they needed to get a second opinion shocking. Midei was the head of the cardiac catheterization unit of St. Joseph Medical Center. Determining whether a patient has a severely blocked artery and needs a stent inserted is not typically difficult decision for a competent physician with a lot of experience to make. Midei's patients had every right to expect that the head of a large catheterization unit would know what he was doing in these cases. I hope that Midei is punished to the full extent of the law both civilly and criminally.I also hope that physicians all around New York State hear about this case and take it to heart. What do you think? Leave me a comment and let me know what you think of this important decision by the Maryland Board of Physicians. Furthermore, if you think that you have received a potentially life-threatening unnecessary procedure, such as an angioplasty, please call to discuss your legal options. I can be reached toll-free at 1-866-889-6882.

Was Your Angioplasty "Inappropriate"? Discover The Truth Here!

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

Have you recently had a non-emergency angioplasty and suffered uncomfortable side effects? According to a new study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, half of all angioplasties performed to widen arteries in non-emergency situations may be unnecessary or "inappropriate". An angioplasty, also known as a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, is a procedure which widens blocked or clogged arteries. A collapsed balloon catheter is inserted into the blood vessel using a guide wire, then inflated. The inflation causes the fatty deposits within the vessel to be crushed and allows for improved blood flow. The balloon catheter is then deflated and withdrawn.

Artery blockages may be caused by a number of factors including cardiovascular disease, smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, or a diet high in saturated fat. Typically, angioplasties are performed on patients that have suffered a heart attack, angina (chest pain caused by a lack of oxygen to the heart muscle) or patients with non acute heart disease where only part of an artery or arteries is blocked.

The study was conducted by professionals of six leading heart health organizations including the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Association for Thoracic Surgery and the American Heart Association. These researchers analyzed more than 500,000 angioplasties performed in 2009 and 2010 which were performed at over a thousand hospitals.

According to the researchers, 50% of the procedures were deemed "appropriate," 38% were deemed "uncertain" and 12% were declared "inappropriate". Almost all of the inappropriate procedures were done on patients with low-risk heart conditions. These results varied dramatically from the results pertaining to angioplasties done in emergency situations. In those cases, 98% were deemed "appropriate".

While the authors of the study aren't clear on the overall impact of their results, some commentators have suggested that patients are being forced into unnecessary angioplasties to generate revenue for the doctor and the hospitals these procedures are performed by. The study showed that 71% of patients who had "inappropriate" angioplasties were privately insured. According Caleb Hellerman, CNN's Medical Senior Producer, this is significant because patients that are privately insured are "better able to pay the cost of the procedure, which can run up to several thousand dollars". He suggests that reducing the number of unnecessary procedures could save "hundreds, if not billions" of dollars.

The real question on my mind however is not the financial impact of these "inappropriate procedures", but whether these excessive procedures are harmful to the patients. In other words, does inappropriate mean dangerous? That questions wasn't fully address within the study. One might think that if a patient has a partially blocked artery, it is better to be safe than sorry and just unblock the artery to prevent a future heart attack. However, upon further inspection, that isn't necessarily the case. Patients are at an increased risk of suffering from deadly post-operative side effects including blood clots, bleeding, and pain after having an angioplasty. For this reason, I suggest that you discuss with your doctor the benefits and drawbacks of having a non-emergency angioplasty and whether the procedure is really "appropriate". I also urge the medical community to continue their research on this issue and better clarify how these unnecessary procedures impact patients' lives.

"We'll Be Right With You" ... How Much Longer Do I Have To Wait Before I Can Bill My Doctor For Wasted Time?

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

Have you ever had to wait a half hour...an hour...two hours...or more to see your doctor? Even though you had an appointment? Did you ask for an explanation and all you received in return was a half-hearted apology or nothing at all? And at the end of the day you still had to pay the same amount despite the wasted time that you could have spent going to work, spending time with your family, or otherwise enjoying your morning? Didn't you wish you could do something about it? Well Elaine Farstad of Everett, Washington has found the solution. She billed her doctor.

Farstad, an IT specialist at Boeing, waited nearly two hours before being seen by her physician despite the fact that she had a scheduled appointment. Outraged by the time away from work that she had to miss, Farstad decided to take matters into her own hands -- she figured out what her hourly wage working as an IT specialist was, then doubled that number. She then mailed the invoice to her doctor. Farstad was quoted as saying "If you waste my time, you've bought my time...It's ludicrous -- why would I wait for free?"

From a legal standpoint, one would think that Farstad would be out of luck. Under current case law, her physician doesn't have to pay her back for the time she waited. According to the handful of cases on this issue, courts would not force Farstad's doctor to pay her for the time she spent in his waiting room for a couple of reasons. First, she had chosen her physician herself; if she didn't like how her doctor did things, she could just go to another one. Second, Farstad was at her doctor's office out of her own free will; she didn't have to stick around the waiting room for two hours. She could have rescheduled the appointment or found a different doctor.

However, Farstad's doctor felt that her bill was justified. Within a few days, he had sent her a check for $100, the full amount that she had requested. According to Elizabeth Cohen, Senior Medical Correspondent for CNN, there is a growing trend in which tardy doctors have been giving their patients gifts or money to make up for the time they had to spend in the waiting room. For example, Dr. Timothy Malia, a primary care physician in New York, gives each of his patients $5 bill if he keeps them waiting more than fifteen minutes. Dr. Pamela Wible of Eugene, Oregon gives her patients a handmade soap or bottle of lotion if they wait more than ten minutes. This isn't the first time Farstad has billed a late doctor. Over the years she has billed six doctors who were more than thirty minutes late. Half have paid.

Personally, I think that Farstad came up with a great idea. Although not all doctors may respond with monetary compensation like Farstad's, billing your doctor may get your message across that he or she needs to work on the wait time in the office. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of mailing them an actual bill, there are other things that you can do to call your doctor's tardiness to their attention, such as calling this blog to their attention the next time you're in their office, blogging about your experience, or simply making a joke to your doctor about how you're going to bill them the next time you have to wait over a half an hour.

If you would like more tips on how to reduce your waiting room time, check out tomorrow's tip sheet: " Can You Bill Your Doctor For Waiting Room Time? Tips To Reduce Your Time In The Waiting Room!". If you would like to discuss this or any other blog posting with me, feel free to call me toll free at 1-866-889-6882. I look forward to hearing from you!

Can you blame the jury for the verdict in Casey Anthony's murder trial?

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

The public is scratching their heads in disbelief at the not guilty verdict in Casey Anthony's murder trial in Clearwater, Florida. A CNN reporter, Julie Chen, broke into tears reading the verdict, while many believe that a murderer has been let free. A commentor referred to the verdict as "OJ #2"--a reference to the not guilty verdict in OJ Simpson's trial in 1995. But should everyone be outraged? Let's take a closer look at the facts the jury had.

Casey's Lies

So what proof did the prosecution have? Caylee's decomposed body was discovered in the woods near her grandparent's house on December 11, 2008, almost five months after she was reported missing by her grandmother.

The first piece of circumstantial evidence was that Casey Anthony failed to report her daughter missing.

During a deposition in her civil trial, Casey Anthony testified that Caylee had been kidnapped by her nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, after she had left her daughter with the babysitter. This later turned out to be a fabrication, as "Zanny" does not exist.

At the criminal trial, Casey Anthony's defense lawyer claimed that Caylee accidentally drowned in the family pool and the death was covered up to avoid accusations of child neglect. This new argument directly contradicted the testimony given by Casey Anthony at her deposition in the civil lawsuit.

The Prosecution's Proof: Circumstantial Evidence

The prosecutors claimed that Casey Anthony used chloroform to render Caylee unconscious before putting duct tape over her nose and mouth to suffocate her. In support of this claim, the prosecution offered evidence that Casey Anthony's family computer had been used for Google searches for the following keywords, "neck breaking", "how to make chloroform" and "death". Other Google searches on the family computer related to the use of chloroform and how to make it.

Casey's mother, Cindy Anthony, testified that she used the family computer to search for chloroform. However, the computer records indicated that the Google searches about chloroform were made while Cindy Anthony would have been working.

The prosecution pointed to the odor in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, which their experts concluded was consistent with the smell of human decay. There was no DNA or fingerprints in the trunk.

The prosecution showed photographs of Casey Anthony smiling and partying at a nightclub during the first month that Caylee was missing and a tattoo reading, "beautiful life", that she got the day before law enforcement officials learned that Caylee was missing.

A medical examiner was never able to establish how Caylee died.

The Jury's Response to Public Outrage

A female juror told reporters that the jurors were "sick to our stomachs" over the verdict. The juror explained that, "I did not say she was innocent. I just said there was not enough evidence."

This was the consensus of the other jurors interviewed after the verdict, to wit, in this "CSI age", they expected DNA and fingerprints from the prosecution. There simply was not enough evidence to conclude that Casey Anthony committed the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

My take on the verdict

The public's reaction was understandable, yet misguided. The public wants someone to be held accountable for Caylee's death, as it is very likely that she was murdered.

The proof against Casey Anthony was entirely circumstantial. There was no evidence explaining how the two year old child, Caylee, died and there were no witnesses to the alleged murder. There was no evidence of a motive for the alleged murder.

While there was serious issues about Casey Anthony's credibility and inconsistent versions of what happened to Caylee, was that enough proof? Make no mistake--this was not "OJ #2" (sorry OJ, you were guilty as sin--a perfect example of a jury that ignored the evidence).

If the job of this jury was to decide whether it was more likely than not that Casey Anthony murdered Caylee, there is little doubt Casey would have been found guilty. Instead, the jury applied the burden of proof that applies to criminal trials, namely, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in this author's opinion, they arrived at the right result.

You are always welcome to call me on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 to speak with me about your thoughts concerning this controversial verdict.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer, John H. Fisher, receives highest "AV" rating from Martindale-Hubbell's Peer Reviewing Ratings

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

On July 8, 2011, Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer, John H. Fisher, received an "AV" rating from Martindale-Hubbell's Peer Review Rating for legal ability and ethical standards.

Martindale-Hubbell, whose 140 year history began in 1868, has long been the gold standard for assessing the legal ability and ethical standards in the legal profession. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the legal profession and the judiciary and attest to a lawyer's legal ability and professional ethics. The selection process is random and provides an objective indicator that a lawyer has the highest ethical standards and professional ability. A lawyers' peers--the persons best suited to assess legal ability--are directly involved in the process.

Legal Ability ratings are based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These key areas are Legal Knowledge, Analytical Capabilities, Judgment, Communication Ability and Legal Experience. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating includes an average numeric rating, a rating term and may include a certification mark in the following categories: AV Preeminent (4.5 - 5.0), BV Distinguished (3.0 - 4.4) and Rated (1.0 - 2.9).

John H. Fisher received a numeric rating of 4.7 out of 5 and a rating of "AV Preeminent". Throughout the years, holders of Martindale-Hubbell's "AV" peer review rating include President Barack Obama and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

John H. Fisher is the author of a book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, in which he explains the ins and outs of a New York medical malpractice claim and the misconceptions of consumers about malpractice law. Mr. Fisher offers his free of charge as a public service to patients and their families.

Does cancer screening save lives? The new government study answers your question.

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:00:00 EST

Do we really need proof that cancer screening saves lives? Well, if you are still on the proverbial fence and unsure whether you should be screened for cancer, our friendly government answers the question for you.

Colon cancer is the #2 cancer killer in America, but it doesn't have to be

A new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed some great news: new cases of colon cancer decreased by 66,000 from 2003 to 2007, and deaths dropped by nearly 32,000 during that time. Those are some pretty heavy numbers!

The author of the government study remarked that "a remarkable increase in the level of screening" over the past decade--almost two-thirds of Americans ages 50 to 75 were screened for colon cancer by 2010 compared with 52% in 2002--saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans from colon cancer. Colon cancer screening is up, and the incidence of colon cancer and deaths caused by colon cancer are down significantly.

What is the strongest risk factor for colon cancer? Would it be a family history of colon cancer? How about a personal history of smoking, obesity or poor diet? Might it be polyps in the colon or rectal areas? No, guess again. The strongest risk factor for colon cancer "is not being told to be screened by your doctor", according to the author of the study. As pointed out by a leading gastroenterologist, "The vast majority [of colon cancer deaths] are totally preventable."

The bad news? The CDC reported that colon cancer screenings may be "leveling off". In 2010, 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 50 and 75 were not up-to-date with recommended colon cancer screening. There are still more than 22 million eligible adults (between the ages of 50 and 75) who are still not being screened.

There are many reasons: some doctors don't recommend screening; some patients are uninsured or only see their doctor when they are sick; and failing to follow recommended guidelines for periodic screening after one colonoscopy. Most of the persons who are not screened for colon cancer fall in the lower income population. Further deaths and new cases of colon cancer can be prevented through better insurance coverage and more diligence by patients.

Colon Cancer Screening Saves Lives!

If you think that colon cancer screening is inconvenient or a waste of your time, check out the statistics from the CDC's study. There were 32,000 fewer deaths from colon cancer in 2007 than there had been four years earlier in 2003 and there were 66,000 fewer new cases of colon cancer in 2007 than in 2003 (that's right, colon cancer can be stopped even before it begins). Even with the higher rates of screening, colon cancer still kills nearly 600,000 Americans every year.

This cancer can be stopped before it starts. Screening can find precancerous polyps (abnormal growths on the inner lining of the colon) so they can be removed before they turn into cancer. Screening can also find colon cancer early when it is easiest to treat and highly curable. Screening is important because early stages of colon cancer may not present any symptoms.

According to the CDC, if everyone aged 50 or older were screened regularly, 60% of the deaths from this cancer could be avoided. If you do the math, 60% of 600,000 colon cancer victims is a pretty big number.

What you can do if you want more information about screening for colon cancer

If you want more information about screening for colon cancer, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, from the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Huge discrepancy in prices for the same medical service raises eyebrows

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

A new study by a national health care group raised serious questions about medical prices charged by physicians and hospitals. According to the study, patients can pay as much as 683% more for the same medical procedure, such as a MRI or CT scan, in the same town depending on which medical facility they choose.

Some patients pay a percentage of their medical expenses, instead of a co-pay, and they may spend hundreds of dollars more for a certain procedure than if they went some where else in the same town. The study compared medical prices for the same test or procedure within a 20 mile radius.

The health care group, "Change: healthcare", looked at claims data from May, 2010 to May, 2011 for 82,000 employees of small businesses to determine price differences for MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and PET scans. For a pelvic CT scan, one person paid $230 for the procedure and just a few miles away another paid $1,800. The cost of a brain MRI in the town ranged from $1,540 to $3,500.

The worst part is that patients rarely are informed about the cost of a procedure until after it has been performed. Hence, there is no basis for patients to compare medical costs from one medical facility to the next. The patient only learns the real cost of the medical procedure when he/she gets the bill in the mail.

The authors of the study found a possible $30 billion in cost savings over the one-year study, and even one health plan could save $500,000. The author of the study gave the following advice to patients: "It's important to ask questions. Don't assume that the provider you're going to is the best economic deal." Boy, that's an understatement.

Lesson for the day: If you are responsible for paying a portion of your medical expenses, i.e., a large deductible where you pay a certain percentage of a medical expense, shop around first before selecting a medical provider. There can be huge differences in the prices charged by medical facilities and doctors for the same medical procedure or test.

If you have any questions or just want to chat, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net.

What is legal malpractice? The criminal defense lawyer for ex-Governor Blagojevich gives us a perfect example

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

It was not terribly surprising when ex-Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was found guilty of corruption charges on Monday. The charges against Blagojevich included trying to sell or trade President Barack Obama's old Senate seat. What was notable about the trial was the strategy of Blagojevich's lawyers in choosing to have Blagojevich testify.

Jurors at the first trial came back deadlocked after deliberating for 14 days. The jurors agreed on only one of twenty-four counts, convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI. At the first trial, the defense rested without calling any witnesses and Blagojevich did not testify despite proclaiming that he would. Given the result, the defense lawyers made a great strategic decision in keeping Blagojevich on the sidelines--"less is more" and "keep things simple stupid" are cliches that come to mind.

What is baffling is the decision of the defense lawyers' to put Blagojevich on the stand at the retrial. In the second trial, known as the "retrial", Blagojevich testified for seven days, denying wrongdoing. Even though the prosecutors had proof on audiotape, during which Blagojevich calls the Senate opportunity "f----ing golden". At the retrial, Blagojevich looked in the eyes of the jurors and denied all of the allegations, telling the jury that his statements on the audio recording were "mere brainstorming" (what does that mean? I guess you had to be there).

The jury didn't buy it. Would you? The defense lawyers put Blagojevich on the witness stand even though he was contradicting audio recordings that seem impossible to explain. What makes this decision even more difficult to understand is the fact that the defense succeeded in the first trial with their strategy of muzzling Blagojevich. What were the defense lawyers thinking? Maybe they weren't thinking at all.

By allowing Blagojevich to fumble through seven days of trial testimony, the defense lawyers made a monumental mistake (not that defending this charlatan was an easy task). Instead of keeping the simple and effective strategy of attacking the prosecution's case, the defense made the case complicated by putting Blagojevich on the stand. Lesson learned: if you have a clueless moron for a client, don't let him testify.

If you have any thoughts or questions, I would love to hear from you. I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or by e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net.

Got A-Fib (or know someone who does)? Make sure you discover the new anti-clotting drug

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

If you have atrial fibrillation (A-Fib) or know someone who does, a new anti-clotting drug has been shown to prevent more strokes with less bleeding risk than the existing treatment, according to the drug makers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Considering that 2.2 million Americans have atrial-fibrillation, this could be good news.

Atrial fibrillation is an abnormal heart rhythm that causes blood to pool in the heart's atrium, instead of passing fluidly from one chamber of the heart to the other. When blood stagnates in the atrium, the blood is more prone to clot, which in turn can lead to a devastating embolic stroke. Anticlotting medicine is designed to minimize the risk of blood clotting in the heart. Studies have shown that the anticlotting medicine reduces the risk of a stroke by seven-fold for persons with atrial fibrillation.

Warfarin has been the drug for anticlotting purposes for decades (over 50 years). But warfarin requires frequent monitoring to assure patients are not taking too much, which increases the risk of bleeding, or too little, increasing the risk of a stroke. The new drug, Eliquis, may work better than warfarin in reducing the risk of a stroke and minimizing the risk of internal bleeding.

The drug makers' study of Eliquis against warfarin included 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one other risk factor for stroke. The clinical studies show that the new drug, Eliquis, has a better effect in lowering the risk of stroke with less risk of internal bleeding. If true, this could be a breakthrough drug for millions of persons diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.

The drug, known as apixaban, or the brand name of Eliquis, has not been submitted for approval to the Food and Drug Administration and the full study results will not be released by the drug companies until August 28th. Eliquis was approved in Europe last month to prevent blood clots in patients receiving hip or knee replacement surgery.

If you or a loved one has atrial fibrillation, speak with your doctor about making the switch from warfarin to Eliquis.

If you have any questions about atrial fibrillation, or just want to chat, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 1-866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net.

Wrong-site surgeries: Can this happen to you in Kingston, New York?

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

Seven years ago, the Joint Commission, the group that accredits hospitals, issued mandatory rules to prevent operations on the wrong patient or body part. The rules require preoperative confirmation of important details, such as marking the surgical site and a "timeout" to verify the details of the operation before it begins. This week the Joint Commission revealed that the mandatory rules have failed to reduce wrong-site surgeries and such medical errors are increasing.

Don't think a wrong-site surgery can happen to you? Guess again

The problem of wrong-site surgery has not improved and may be getting worse, according to patient safety experts. The Joint Commission estimates that wrong-site surgery occurs 40 times a week in the U.S. hospitals. Wrong-site surgeries have multiple causes: mixing up the left and right sides, marking the incorrect vertebrae in spinal surgery, and neglecting to mark the site. A prime example is three men in Colorado who underwent prostate cancer surgery although tests revealed that they were cancer-free.

Last year a jury returned a $20 million verdict against Arkansas Children's Hospital for surgery on the wrong side of the brain in a 15-year old boy who was left psychotic and severely brain damaged. The trial testimony revealed that the error was not revealed to the boy's parents for more than a year after the operation.

The problem, according to the President of the Joint Commission, is that doctors resist checklists, underestimate their propensity for errors and resist standardized procedures. Studies of wrong-site errors have revealed a failure of physicians to participate in a "timeout" as required by the universal rules. Doctors resent the rules even though studies show that orthopedists have a 25 percent chance of making a wrong-site error during their career, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

The legal system has not fixed the problem. One study found that only a third of wrong-site cases result in a malpractice suit. The average payment was less than $81,000 in cases resulting in a lawsuit and $47,000 in those resolved without litigation.

What can be done to prevent wrong-site surgeries?

Unfortunately, the rate of wrong-site surgeries are hard to track because half of the states do not require reporting of medical errors. In those states that require reporting of medical errors, the reporting is "spotty" at best with many medical errors unreported. The number of reported cases is "clearly the tip of the iceberg", according to patient safety experts.

Wrong-site surgeries are the "health-care equivalent of plane crashes", according to Kenneth W. Kizer, who nearly a decade ago coined the term "never events" as the head of the National Quality Forum. While the airlines have numerous mandatory checklists before a plane can move, physicians routinely flout the rules. So, what can be done about this?

Reducing the number of wrong-site surgeries requires tougher reporting rules and mandatory reporting of wrong-site surgeries to a federal agency so that the cases can be investigated and the results publicly reported. There should be tough financial penalties for hospitals and physicians who fail to report wrong-site surgeries, such as fines and possible revocation of their eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Until the federal government imposes mandatory reporting of wrong-site surgeries to a federal agency, the "plane crashes" of wrong-site surgery will remain a serious problem. If you don't think a wrong-site surgery can happen to you or your loved one, you might want to think again.

If you want more information, here's what you can do

If you have questions or want more information about wrong-site surgeries, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. If you send me your name and e-mail address, I will include you on my e-mail newsletter list.

New Study reveals Antipsychotic Drugs Hazardous to the Elderly in Nursing Homes

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

Antipsychotic drugs are commonly used for nursing home residents. Doctors use antipsychotic drugs to settle outbursts related to psychiatric disorders, including attention deficit disorder and Alzheimer's Disease. Nearly one in seven elderly nursing home residents (nearly all of them with dementia) are given powerful antipsychotic drugs even though the medicines increase the risk of death and often are not approved for such treatments, according to a new government study.

Here's why this should matter to you. Antipsychotic drugs double a patient's risk of dying from sudden heart failure and elderly patients are particularly susceptible to the drugs' side effects. Antipsychotic drugs can affect heart rhythm, particularly in elderly patients. The higher the dose of the drug the higher the risk of sudden death. Under FDA requirements, all antipsychotic labels must contain a warning that the drugs have a heightened risk of heart failure in elderly patients. Another common side effect (if this wasn't enough) is weight gain.

The Government Study that should make you Outraged

Despite the risk of sudden heart failure associated with antipsychotic drugs, the use of these medicines is commonplace in nursing homes today. Making things worse, more than half of the antipsychotics paid for by the federal Medicare program in the first half of 2007 were "erroneous", the government audit found, costing taxpayers $116 million. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services made a strong statement against antipsychotic drugs in nursing homes: "Government, taxpayers, nursing home residents as well as their families and caregivers should be outraged...."

The Inspector General remarked that antipsychotic drugs, such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon, are "potentially lethal" to the patients and some drug manufacturers market these drugs "putting profits before safety". The government's auditors found that of the 2.1 million elderly residents of nursing homes in the first six months of 2007, 304,983 had at least one Medicare claim for an antipsychotic medicine.

Here's the shocker: according to the audit, 83% of antipsychotic prescriptions for elderly nursing home residents were for uses not approved by federal drug regulators, and 88% were to treat residents with dementia, for whom the drugs can be lethal.

Federal rules require that any drugs that are paid for by the government are given only for uses that are approved either by the government. The government auditors found that 51%, or 726,000 of 1.4 million, claims for antipsychotic medicines did not meet this criteria and were paid for by the government improperly.

Government rules ban drugs that are used in excessive doses or duration, even when the patient has a condition for which the drug is appropriate. Government auditors found that 22%, or 317,971 of 1.4 million claims for antipsychotic medicines did not meet this standard.

In response to the audit, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stated that the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in nursing home residents is the result of drug makers' kickbacks to nursing homes to increase prescriptions for the medicines. Omnicare, Inc., a pharmacy chain for nursing homes, paid $98 million in November, 2009 to settle claims that it received kickbacks from Johnson & Johnson and other drug makers for antipsychotic prescriptions.

What you can do to protect your Loved One in a Nursing Home

What does this mean for your loved one in a nursing home? If your loved one has been diagnosed with dementia, or altered mental status, such as confusion, ask the Medical Director of the nursing home whether he/she is getting antipsychotic medicines. If so, ask the Medical Director for the dosage of the medicine and the length of time your loved one has been receiving the antipsychotic medicines.

You should make sure that your loved one's physician has done a very careful cardiovascular evaluation before prescribing antipsychotic drugs. If the antipsychotic medicines are used, the doctor should pay careful attention to using the lowest possible dose. As the dose of the drug increases, so does the risk of sudden cardiact death.

If you want more information, this is what you can do

If you have questions or want more information, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882 or you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net. You are always welcome to request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

New option to reduce risk of breast cancer

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

For those at high risk for breast cancer, annual mammograms are a must. But did you know that a new medication can cut your risk of developing breast cancer in half? That's right, according to a new study.

Pfizer's new drug, Aromasin, cuts the risk of developing breast cancer by more than half, without the side effects that have curbed the use of other prevention drugs. Hormone-blocking pills, called aromatase in inhibitors, are used to prevent recurrences in breast cancer patients who are past menopause and doctors suspect they prevent new cases of breast cancer too.

The prevention study involved 4,560 women from the U.S., Canada, Spain and France. All of the test subjects had at least one risk factor for breast cancer--being 60 or older, a prior breast abnormality or pre-invasive cancer, or a high score on a scale that takes into account family history of breast cancer. The women were given daily doses of Aromasin and others were given placebos, or "dummy pills". Over the course of the three year study, there were only 11 cases of invasive breast cancer for those women who took Aromasin compared to 32 of the women who took the placebos. That worked out to a 65 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer for those on the drug, Aromasin.

The prevention drug, Aromasin, is not recommended for women at average risk for breast cancer. However, the drug is recommended for women at high risk of breast cancer because of gene mutations (BRAC). This breast cancer prevention drug is considered safer than other hormone-blocking pills because those drugs carry the risk of uterine cancer, blood clots and other problems.

If you have a family member at high risk of breast cancer, make sure you send them this article about the breast cancer prevention drug. If you want more information or have questions, you can send me an e-mail at jfisher@mmolaw.net or call me on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882.

Lesson to be Learned from Congressman Weiner

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

Can we learn anything from U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner's sexting on Twitter? A picture is worth a thousand words, and no, I'm not referring to the Congressperson's lascivious Twitter photos.

Check out U.S. Representative Weiner's facial expressions during his public mea culpa and what do you notice? Pursed lips, a tight forehead and solemn eyes, as observed by Albany Times-Union staff writer, Kristi Gustafson. According to body language experts, "the lip pursing results from a half, or partial truth, and suggests there is more." In other words, Congressman Weiner is withholding some information even as he claims to be "coming clean".

The facial expressions of Congressman Weiner, President Clinton, Elliott Spitzer and Brett Favre have one common trait: compressed or retacted lips. Body language experts say that "compressed or retracted lips most often occur when someone is forced to discuss something he doesn't want to talk about--or when he is holding something back." The pursued lips and tight forehead is "an attempt to hide many intense emotions; sadness, fear and anger", according to the expert. Suppressed fear, disgust and anger often accompany this look.

Watch the facial expression of the next fallen movie star or politician and watch carefully for the pursued lips, tightened forehead and half smile. The facial expression tells more than the actual words. Now, take these body language cues to your next trial, or better yet, when teaching your witnesses what they should avoid when testifying.

If you would like to get regular updates about medical malpractice, I welcome you to join my e-mail list on the home page of my website.

Soon you will know exactly who is looking at your medical records...if new law is passed

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EST

Want to find out who is looking at your medical records? Soon you might be able to.

A proposed federal rule will require hospitals, doctors' offices and insurers to inform patients of anyone who has accessed their electronic medical records upon request. Under the rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, health care businesses must identify everyone in their company, including data-entry clerks, who have accessed a patient's electronic records and when. Under the new rule, you can find out exactly who is looking at your medical records and when. This is great stuff!

Why should you care? If you are in a bitter divorce and your husband works at the local hospital, you can find out if your husband has been checking your electronic medical records. You can find out how many times your spouse viewed your electronic medical records and the dates and times that he accessed your records. Good stuff, right?

In malpractice cases, an important issue is often whether the attending physician reviewed the patient's past medical records. For example, a pivotal issue in a malpractice may be whether the attending physician checked the prior medical records for similar complaints or symptoms that bear on the patient's current condition. Of course, the doctor testifies that he "always looks at the medical records of prior hospital visits" and you're supposed to accept his word for it. Yeah, right! With this proposed rule, you will have a way to confirm whether your doctor reviewed your past medical records and the date and time that he looked at your electronic records. Pretty nice, right?

Since 2005, hospitals have had to keep an internal log of who accesses electronic records. However, hospitals usually do not give patients the right to review the internal log or find out who is reviewing their electronic medical records. Now, this is set to change.

The Department of Health and Human Services listed the proposed rule on the Federal Registry for public comment by August 1st. If approved, the rule would go into effect in January, 2013. If someone is snooping and looking at your private medical records, you can find out who is violating your privacy rights and file a complaint with the HHS's Office of Civil Rights.

This proposed rule should be passed with flying colors! I love this rule. Finding out who is checking your medical records and when is an important right for patients and one that I highly endorse. Great job to the federal agency and let's hope this rule gets approved.

If you have questions or want more information, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882. You are welcome to join my e-mail newsletter list and receive weekly updates by e-mail about current events impacting patients' rights. Thank you for reading my blog.

What can you do to discover whether you hospital, doctor or insurance company keeps your medical records confidential?

Tue, 31 May 2011 08:00:00 EST

A new government website, known as "The Wall of Shame" among federal health officials, will tell you whether your doctor is keeping your medical records confidential. The website lists the doctors, hospitals and insurance companies that have had breaches of unsecured health information affecting 500 or more persons. The website lists the name of the hospital, doctor or insurance company, the date of the breach, type of the breach, the location of the breached information and the number of persons affected.

The government website lists nearly 300 doctors, hospitals and insurance companies that have reported significant breaches of medical privacy in the last couple of years. In the last two years, personal medical records of at least 7.8 million people have been improperly revealed, according to the government.

It's time to pay the piper for lax security over medical records at hospitals and insurance companies. In March, the Office of Civil Rights at Health and Human and Services, which handles enforcement of HIPAA, imposed a $1 million fine on Massachusetts General Hospital after a hospital employee left paper records of 192 patients on a Boston subway train. Earlier this year, the civil rights agency fined a Maryland health plan, Cigna Health, $4.3 million, for denying patients the right to see their own records in violation of the HIPAA law. It was the first civil penalty imposed under the HIPAA law.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have shown that at least 30 people and organizations have access to the health data of a typical person with private insurance through an employer. The organizations range from pharmacies and drug companies to an employer's wellness program. Confidential medical data is shared widely among organizations unbeknownst to the patients.

HIPAA, the federal privacy rule for medical records, was designed to ensure better protection of patients' medical records. However, with the advent of electronic medical records, lapses in patient confidentiality are more common through computer hacking into the confidential medical database at hospital and insurance companies. Many hospitals and insurers do not encrypt the electronic medical records to keep them private from computer hackers.

You will be shocked by how many different entities are sharing your medical records. Do you care? Maybe not, but if a prospective employer has access to your private medical data and uses the data in making a hiring decision, that might tick you off a little...right?

At least the federal government's website gives you a way to check to find out whether your hospital, doctor or insurance company has had breaches of patient confidentiality. It's a decent decent for anyone concerned about the confidentiality of your medical records.

If you have any questions or want more information, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882. You can always request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website at www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Does screening for ovarian cancer cause more harm than good in Kingston, New York?

Sat, 21 May 2011 08:00:00 EST

New study reveals that screening tests for ovarian cancer may do more harm than good. Ovarian cancer is serious business--it kills more than half of patients within five years of the diagnosis. Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed when it has already spread and it's too late for a cure. Many women want to be screened for ovarian cancer, but the new study raised questions about screening.

Screening for other types of cancer in the colon, breast and cervix have saved many lives. So, what's wrong with screening for ovarian cancer?

New study raises doubts about screening for ovarian cancer

The 18-year old study revealed that women who were screened for ovarian cancer died of the cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened for ovarian cancer. The study was done by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and included 78,216 women.

The two tests used to screen for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women are an ultrasound and a blood test called CA-125. The study reported that these tests aren't very accurate and sometimes produce false alarms. Some benign conditions, such as an ovarian cyst or a twisted fallopian tube, can cause elevations in the CA-125 protein.

The study reported that the false alarms can cause more than just anxiety about ovarian cancer. Nearly 3,300 healthy women had unnecessary surgery and 166 developed surgical complications, according to the study.

Robert Berger of Pennsylvania's Fox-Chase Cancer Center stated that screening for ovarian cancer is not effective, since this cancer follows an unpredictable growth pattern. Berger stated, "There's no convincing evidence that these (ovarian) tumors progress in an orderly way. What we see is an explosive onset, almost like an earthquake."

Should you stop screening for ovarian cancer? This answer, in this author's opinion, is "no". Ultasound has no adverse side effects, i.e., radiation, and the CA-125 blood test does not harm the patient. There is no downside to screening for ovarian cancer with these tests (despite the study's findings). The only downside is an operation that my be unnecessary due to false results that can happen with these tests.

My advise: Do the tests, but tread carefully with the operations that may be recommended for suspected ovarian cancer. Speak with your doctor about the possibility of a false positive result from the tests. If you have risk factors for ovarian cancer the operation may save your life.

If you have questions about ovarian cancer, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882. You can always request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims at the home page of website at www.protectingpatientrights.com. I welcome your comments about this blog.

The Death of the Class Action Lawsuit

Sat, 14 May 2011 08:00:00 EST

In landmark decision of AT&T Mobility v. Concepion, the United States Supreme Court dealt a death blow to class action lawsuits in its 5-4 decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that provisions in consumer contracts that waive the consumer's right to bring a class action lawsuit are valid and enforceable.

Here are the facts: Vincent and Liza Concepcion signed a two year agreement with AT&T cellphone service. As part of a promotion by AT&T, the Concepcions received two free cell phones and they were then charged $30.22 by AT&T in sales tax for the phones. Since the cell phones were "free", it did not make sense to the Concepcions that they had to pay a sales tax. The Concepcions sued AT&T for fraud in federal court and their case was joined with other lawsuits in a class action lawsuit.

In the class action lawsuit, AT&T argued that the Concepcions waived their right to bring a class action lawsuit by signing a written agreement requiring "individual arbitration". In other words, the Concepcions were prohibited from being a member of a class action lawsuit and they should be forced to bring an "individual" claim for $30.22 against AT&T.

The federal courts in California ruled against AT&T. The federal courts held that the provision in the AT&T contract requiring "individual arbitration" was "unconscionable" and they allowed the Concepcions to move forward as members of the class action lawsuit. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take action.

In a dramatic example of judicial activism, Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court. Justice Scalia held that the provision in AT&T's contracts requiring individual arbitration was enforceable and furthermore, he specifically ruled that class-based arbitrations would not be permitted. In essence, Justice Scalia's decision dealt a death blow to class action lawsuits.

Why should any of this matter to you? If you have a claim against AT&T (or any company for that matter) for $30.22, what rational lawyer will agree to represent you for fees arising from a $30.22 claim? No one! The fact is that no lawyer would agree to take on such a minor claim and few people have the knowledge or willpower to pursue the claim on their own for such a small sum. In other words, AT&T will not be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

AT&T gets to cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually very small sums of money and get away with it. This is not just limited to AT&T. Now that such waivers of class action lawsuits have been recognized by the US Supreme Court as enforceable, every major corporation in America will add such clauses to their consumer contracts. Every time you sign a boilerplate contract the next time you go to the store, you will be signing away your rights to bring a class action lawsuit.

So what does this mean for you? Does this only mean that you're out $30.22? In the bigger picture what this means is that corporations have been given a license to cheat you out of very small sums of money (which can amount to millions of dollars for the corporation) without any risk of being held accountable. There will be virtually no way to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing when they rip you off. That's a shame.

If you want more information or have any questions, I welcome your call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882. You can always request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website, www.protectingpatientrights.com.

Obama cutting Medicare payments for bad hospitals: a step in the right direction

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:00:00 EST

Do you want to improve the care provided by hospitals? Cutting the Medicare reimbursement rate based upon patient care is a good start!

President Obama finalized plans to reward hospitals that provide good care that changes the way that the federal government pays for health care. Under the initiative, Medicare will pay more to hospitals scoring well on a series of patient care measures and pay less to those institutions that do not score well. This is new for the nation's hospitals, who previously got paid regardless of the quality of care they provided.

Hospitals who fail to meet the patient quality standards can lose as much as 1 percent of what Medicare would pay them in 2013. Not so bad, right? Actually, hospitals receive $150 billion in Medicare payments from the federal government. 1% of $150 billion is how much? Well, you get the point.

Medicare provides insurance to 50 million elderly and disabled Americans and paid for 12.4 million hospitalizations in 2009, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Many of these paient receive poor care, which increases the costs by requiring additional hospital stays and more treatment. A recent study by the journal, Health Affairs, estimated that 1 in 3 hospital patients had an "adverse event", such as being given the wrong medication acquiring an infectin or receiving the wrong surgical procedure.

The report card for hospitals will include 12 process measures, whch tracks patient quality care measures, such as how quickly heart attack victims are given anti-clotting medications and how quickly surgical patients receive antibiotics after surgery to reduce infections. In 2014, the Obama administration will expand the report card to include outcome measures, such as mortality rates for patients after they leave the hospital and the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections and pressure sores.

At a time when our nation is at risk of having its credit rating lowered, these steps are a great step in reducing Medicare expenses and improving the quality of care at hospitals. Nice work, President Obama!

If you have any opinions on this subject (good or bad), I will appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to read this blog.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer reveals why the nurse practitoner law in New York is much to do about nothing

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:00:00 EST

A new law in New York will free nurse practitioners from doctors. The legislation, known as The Nurse Practitioner Modernization Act, eliminates the physician supervision and the collaborative agreement requirements for nurse practitioners.

A nurse practitioner is a registered nurse who has a master's degree. Nurse practitioners practice medicine in different medical specialties, such as primary care, geriatrics and pediatrics, and they can even operate their own medical office without a physician. Talk about practicing medicine without a medical degree--no wonder physicians are upset!

There are two small "buts"--nurse practitioners are required to have a written practice protocol and a practice agreement with their "collaborating physician". A written practice protocol is a written agreement prepared by the "collaborating physician" that spells out the scope of the nurse practitioner's authority, i.e., what she can do, such as prescribing narcotic medications, admitting patients to a hospital, performing spinal taps, etc. The practice agreement is a written agreement prepared by the collaborating physician that governs the relationship between the nurse practitioner and the collaborating physician, i.e., chart reviews of patients, what to do if there is a disagreement about a plan of treatment, etc.

Roughly half of nurse practitioners ignore the legal requirement that requires that they have a written practice protocol and a written practice agreement! If you ask a nurse practitioner about her written practice protocol, she may look at you with a blank expression on her face (maybe half kidding) as if to say, "what's that?" (I'm no longer surprised by that response).

Here's the reason the new law is totally and completely meaningless: nurse practitioners already practice medicine independent of their "collaborating physician".That's right--there is no supervision of nurse practitioners by physicians except perhaps in the very rare medical practice. Despite what they say, nurse practitioners consider themselves the equal of physicians and they resent it when you ask to see a physician.

Even worse, doctors rarely review the medical charts of patients' who are seen by nurse practitioners. Even though the law in New York requires a physician to review the nurse practitioners' medical charts at least once every three months, that almost never happens. Nurse practitioners and their collaborating physicians are often unaware that the law requires chart reviews by a physician at least once every three months. It is stunning how little nurse practitioners and their collaborating physicians know about New York law.

By the way, why does it even make a difference if a physician reviews a nurse practitioner's charts once every three months? By the time the physician reviews the medical chart every 90 days, patients might be dead. True oversight requires daily monitoring of treatment provided by nurse practitioners and this is accomplished by physician reviews of the medical charts at the end of each work day.

The most common mistake I see in primary care practices is a nurse practitioner taking care of a patient with a complex medical condition. Forget about physician supervision--a nurse practitioner should NEVER treat patients with complicated medical conditions. Hell, a primary care physician should rarely treat complex medical conditions! If you have a complicated heart abnormality, you should be treated by a cardiologist, a specialist in treating heart conditions.

So what can a good patient do? If you have a simple, routine medical condition, there's no need to worry--a nurse practitioner will do just fine. If you have a medical condition that is more complex, such as diabetes or heart failure, you must insist that you are treated by a physcian--in other words, someone with an actual medical degree.

If you have any questions or want more information, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882 or you can always request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website, www.protectingpatientrights.com. Thank you for reading my blog! I welcome any comments or observations to this blog.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer answers ethical question: should death row inmate be permitted to atone for his sins by donating his organs after his death?

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:00:00 EST

In Oregon, death row inmate, Christian Longo, 37, made an unusual last wish before his execution: he wants to atone for his sins (he murdered his wife and children) by donating his organs after his execution. Mr. Longo figures that he can save eight lives through his death, offering his heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and other tissues. This would be a tiny dent in the national waiting list, which totals 110,772 candidates, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.

The State denied Longo's request. The State called Longo's request to donate his organs as "morally reprehensible".

Ethicists agree with the State. "I don't think we want the kind of society that takes organs from prisoners." said Dr. Paul Helft for the Center for Medical Ethics at Indiana University. The opposition of ethicists seems to be that prisoners should not use organ donation to gain an advantage in their criminal case and that permitting Mr. Longo to donate his organs will set a dangerous precedent. Ethicists point to China, where the majority of donated organs come from prisoners who are executed.

Transplant advocates state that increasing the supply of available organs is the most important thing. A person dying of kidney or heart failure cares little who provides the organ that saves their life.

Here's my take on this ethical issue. The death row inmate, Mr. Longo, wants to accomplish a noble goal by donating his organs and in his case, he is not using the donation to gain an advantage in his criminal case. There is no question that a prisoner should not be permitted to donate organs to gain an advantage in a criminal case, but that is not the case for Mr. Longo. If a death row inmate has no ulterior motive for donating organs and simply wants to atone to some degree for his past sins, where is the crime in that?

Without the organs from Mr. Longo, sick persons in need of transplants will die unnecessarily. That is the real shame. The medical ethicists are not the persons in need of a life-saving organ--if they were, you can bet they'd see this issue differently. Medical ethicists need to wake up to the consequences that this ridiculous decision will have on sick and dying persons in need of organ transplants.

If you have any opinions on this subject, I welcome your comments. Thank you for taking the time from your day to read this blog.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer reveals how you can prevent hospital-acquired infections

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:00:00 EST

Hospital infections kill more Americans each year than AIDS, car accidents and breast cancer COMBINED! A recent study of Veterans Administration hospital highlighted a big reason for hospital-acquired infections--hospitals do a lousy job of cleaning rooms.

Unclean hospital rooms cause deadly infections

The number one cause of hospital-acquired infections is poor room cleaning. Unclean hospital room raise the risk of contracting many different kinds of hospital infections. The number one predictor of a hospital-acquired infection is who occupied the patient's room in the prior two weeks, when three or four patients could have occupied the room.

When hospitals do a poor job cleaning a hospital room, germs get left behind by past patients and those germs are lying in wait for the next patient. Patients are at great risk for infections when placed in a room where a previous patient had an infection. A study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine revealed that a patient's risk of picking up the drug-resistant MRSA is much higher if the previous occupant of the hospital room had it.

Being placed in a room where the last patient had Clostridium difficile (C-diff for short), more than doubles the risk of getting the infection, according to a new study in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. C diff is the most common hospital acquired infection in parts of the United States. C diff can cause life-threatening diarrhea and cause havoc in your gastrointestinal system. Bad stuff, especially considering the hospital can prevent it by keeping the hospital room clean.

How do germs spread in an unclean hospital room?

How do you pick up infections in a hospital room? Patients pick up invisible bacteria when they touch surfaces in their room, then eat food with a contaminated hand and swallow the bacteria along with the food.

According to a Tufts University study of 36 hospitals from Boston to Washington, D.C., cleaners routinely overlook half the surfaces in patients' rooms. Toilet seats are cleaner than telephones and call buttons.

Doctors and nurses may clean their hands when entering the room, but they often recontaminate them when they touch privacy curtains or bedrails. The doctor then touches the patient and germs enter the patient's body via an IV, or surgical incision.

What you can do to prevent hospital-acquired infections

Hospitals won't tell you who occupied the room before you, so what can you do about it? If you're visiting a family member or friend at a hospital, take gloves and a can of bleach wipes. Germs left behind by other patients are lying in wait, so you should go to work to clean every surface in the room.

You should insist that doctors and nurses wash their hands before touching your loved one. Doctors may not like you telling them what to do, but WHO CARES! Hospital-acquired infections can kill your loved one, so a gentle reminder to the doctor to wash his hands is a small request.

What you can do if you want more information

You can visit my educational website, www.protectingpatientrights.com if you want more information about hospital-acquired infections and what you can do to prevent them. You can request my FREE book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website and you can always call me on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882 if you have any questions.

Kingston, New York medical malpractice lawyer critiques President Obama's ambitious plan to prevent medical errors

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:00:00 EST

President Obama's administration announced a broad new plan to tackle medical errors. The Obama administration plans to spend $500 million to test models for reducing nine types of medical errors, including surgical site infections, pressure ulcers and complications from childbirth. Top on the list of goals is the prevention of hospital-acquired infections and a reduction in the rate of hospital readmissions.

In the April edition of a journal, Health Affairs, it was estimated that one in three patients admitted to a hospital experience what is known as an "adverse event", such as being given the wrong medication, acquiring an infection or receiving the wrong surgical procedure. That's not a misprint--one out of every three people suffer a mistake during a hospital stay.

President Obama's ambitious plans are noble, but he is reinventing the wheel for no reason. The experiment to reduce medical errors was implemented during an 18 month study by Johns Hopkins University between 2005 and 2006. For 18 months between 2005 and 2006, more than 100 Michigan hospitals enrolled their intensive care units in the initiative known as the Michigan Keystone ICU Project. The project targeted a specific type of infection that ICU patients can get while in the hospital: catheter-related bloodstream infections, and involved having ICU personnel use a five-step safety checklist when inserting catheters into patients.

The simple five step checklist required ICU personnel to take the following steps when placing a central line catheter: (1) wash their hands; (2) wear a mask, hat, gown and gloves; (3) put sterile drapes over the patient; (4) clean a patient's skin; and (5) remove the catheter as soon as it is no longer needed. The results were amaizing.

The five-step checklist virtually eliminated bloodstream infections in the hospitals' intensive care units to zero. Of the 127 intensive care units participating in the project, 103 Michigan intensive care units reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections to zero and up to 66% sustaiend the zero rates during the 18-month study period. This led to the near elimination of catheter-related bloodstream infections.

Does the President need a $500 million study to reduce medical errors? Why re-invent the wheel? The work has already been done by Johns Hopkins University in the Michigan Keystone ICU Project. It's real low-tech: make sure anyone who touches a patient washes their hands and follows the five-step checklist usedin the Michigan Keystone ICU Project.

But you might ask: isn't it kind of awkward to ask a doctor or nurse to wash their hands? There is no question that it is very difficult to question physicians. Many doctors are not welcoming and don't want you to question them. You might get the cold shoulder, but who cares? By politely asking the physicians and nurses to wash their hands, you could very well prevent a hospital acquired infection that could lead to your loved one's death.

Forget about the feelings of the medical providers. You must be pro-active in making your your loved one gets the best medical care. If you don't speak up, who will?

If you have any questions or want more information, I welcome your phone call on my toll-free cell at 866-889-6882 or you can request a FREE copy of my book, The Seven Deadly Mistakes of Malpractice Victims, at the home page of my website, www.protectingpatientrights.com. If you think this blog might interest someone you know, please share it with them.