Make no mistake about it, aortic dissection is a dire emergency requiring immediate medical intervention.

In the Kentucky medical malpractice cases involving failure to diagnose aortic dissection cases I have handled, one of the key issues is the time between the failure to diagnose and the death of the victim. In other words, was there enough time to make a difference? Based on conversations I have had with experts on the subject, cardiologists and thoracic surgeons, if the misdiagnosis and the death are more than an hour or two apart, it is virtually certain that there was enough time to treat the condition appropriately and prevent the patient from dying.

I assume this will be one of the key issues in the Ritter case.

Watch the video.

$15.3 million in asbestos case

January 31, 2008

A Baltimore jury ordered a sealant company yesterday to pay a 73-year-old man $15.3 million after determining that he developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the company, the plaintiff's lawyer said.

It seems that nursing homes have been inserting language into their ad mission agreements that conflict with Federal and state law. In many instances, the agreements contained arbitration agreements. What nursing home neglect victims and their families don't often realize is that such provisions are almost universally unenforceable.

Clauses in nursing home agreements may violate the law
Kansas City Star, MO - Feb 2, 2008
... complex nursing home agreements, according to a new study. Although most presented few problems, some admission agreements skirt state and federal laws, ...

Click here to download the entire study

Read the opinion here: Carmical v. Bullock

In other dog bite news, my partner Vanessa Cantley recently appeared at a Metro Louisville subcommittee hearing on the new dog ordinance. She has proposed a change to the dog ordinance which would require landlords/homeowners in Metro Louisville to provide insurance to cover tenants’ dogs in case of attack or require their tenants to maintain renter’s insurance which would do so. Kudos to Vanessa for taking a stand for dog bite victims.

Download the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services press release or visit the website for more information.

New York Times Article

Medicare Says It Won’t Cover Hospital Errors

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: August 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — In a significant policy change, Bush administration officials say that Medicare will no longer pay the extra costs of treating preventable errors, injuries and infections that occur in hospitals, a move they say could save lives and millions of dollars.
Skip to next paragraph

Eileen O’Neill-Pardo’s mother, Margaret, died after an infection developed at a hospital.

Private insurers are considering similar changes, which they said could multiply the savings and benefits for patients.

Under the new rules, to be published next week, Medicare will not pay hospitals for the costs of treating certain “conditions that could reasonably have been prevented.”

Among the conditions that will be affected are bedsores, or pressure ulcers; injuries caused by falls; and infections resulting from the prolonged use of catheters in blood vessels or the bladder.

In addition, Medicare says it will not pay for the treatment of “serious preventable events” like leaving a sponge or other object in a patient during surgery and providing a patient with incompatible blood or blood products.

“If a patient goes into the hospital with pneumonia, we don’t want them to leave with a broken arm,” said Herb B. Kuhn, acting deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The new policy — one of several federal initiatives to improve care purchased by Medicare, at a cost of more than $400 billion a year — is sending ripples through the health industry.

The report, compiled and authored by Jay Angoff (former Missouri Insurance Commissioner), surveyed annual reports from 15 medical malpractice insurers.  Agnoff’s conclusion is that insurers raised MDs’ premiums without reason and have perpetrated a lie by claiming that a so-called “malpractice crisis” exists.

For a copy of the report “No Basis for High Insurance Rates: An Analysis of the 15 Largest Medical Malpractice Insurers 2006 Financial Statements”, visit www.justice.org/pressroom/angoff

Here, he discusses a surgical error:

Six months ago, I was performing a thyroid operation on a teacher my age and damaged a nerve that led to her vocal cords. This woman can no longer talk and has had to give up work. The only way I can live with myself is to try to do all I can for her and understand what I did wrong and do better next time. Being sorry is not enough.

The Guardian has an interesting article on Gawande and the book. An interesting read.

New York lawyer Tom Moore apparently knows the answer to that question. I have seen Tom Moore speak at seminars on numerous occasions. I have watched trial tapes from a few of his trials. He is as passionate a lawyer as I have ever run across. Anyone who has seen him in action will agree. It comes as no surprise that he settled a case this week in excess of $3 million dollars involving a woman who died during a facelift.

But wait! There is a twist. The surviving husband is a physician. I have to wonder what his stance on tort reform was prior to this tragedy. Reminds me of Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire and "friend of the people" Rick Santorum, whose wife filed a medical malpractice suit in 1999 for over $500,000.

Can you say Hypocrite?

I would be very interested to know what kind of warnings accompany these shoes. There may indeed be a very good basis for a products liability suit. These shoes may be unreasonably dangerous.

Do you think "Heelys" will go the way of the lawn dart?

And justice eluded my client.  “Unfairly so”.  No perhaps about it.

Malpractice Juries Tend to Side More With Doctors, Researcher Finds

Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law Journal
April 26, 2007

Popular belief, at least in medical communities, holds that juries in medical malpractice cases tend to side with plaintiffs, even where the case against a doctor is a weak one.

But jurors actually tend to believe doctors more than they do plaintiffs, says a law professor who examined numerous data on medical malpractice litigation, including cases in New Jersey.

Philip Peters Jr., of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, concluded that juries treat doctors favorably, "perhaps unfairly so," and are more likely than even fellow physicians to defer to a doctor's opinion.

Law.com - Malpractice Juries Tend to Side More With Doctors, Researcher Finds.

Citing the high cost of medical malpractice insurance, more than a dozen ob-gyns have joined Obstetricians & Gynecologists Risk Retention Group of America (OGRRGA), a new Montana-based company that is reportedly reducing their premiums by about 50 percent. As part of their participation in the group, these physicians are requiring patients to sign agreements stating that they will pursue any subsequent disputes through binding arbitration.

They also must agree that pain-and-suffering awards will be capped at $250,000.

Turns out my skepticism was well-founded. White and O'Connell had numerous witnesses come forward, including former employees of Jewish Hospital, to describe the deplorable conditions at the hospital.

Lawsuits vs. Jewish Hospital defended

“And the hospital's lawyers said in interviews yesterday they were disappointed that White and O'Connell are trying to re-litigate the underlying cases, which they have already lost.”

I bet they are.

Steve Frederick

Very interesting read from “The Complete Lawyer”

The Four Styles Of Communication
Recognizing someone’s style — and being able to flex your own—will help your relationships with clients, colleagues, friends and even your own family members

The Complete Lawyer - Volume 2 - Number 4.