A jury awarded a Maryland Heights man and his wife $6.4 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit against the man’s physician after he suffered a stroke in 2007. The plaintiffs alleged the stroke could have been prevented if the physician had properly diagnosed and treated a bacterial infection on the man’s heart valve. The physician had diagnosed the plaintiff with mitral valve prolapse (a condition in which a heart valve does not close tightly, resulting in a blow flow backward into the heart) in 1996. The condition continued to show up on tests until 2001. The plaintiffs alleged the physician did not order any follow-up echocardiograms (tests which would properly show the condition) after 2001 and the condition was not brought up again by the physician as if it no longer existed. In mid-2007, the plaintiff became very ill with fatigue, loss of appetite, and abdominal pain, which he brought to his physician’s attention. The physician referred the plaintiff to multiple doctors but did not refer him to a cardiologist or order any tests that would examine his heart. One month later, the plaintiff’s wife requested the physician admit her husband to a hospital because of his deteriorating conditions. The physician allegedly responded to the wife’s request by telling her to wait for the test result from a hematologist. The plaintiff suffered an acute stroke two months after the initial complaint which resulted from the infection on his heart valve. The stroke left the defendant with restricted mobility on the right side of his body, damage to his short term memory, and difficulty processing words. These disabilities have resulted in the plaintiff being unable to work. The attorneys for the physician and medical practice argued a lack of evidence that could prove negligence or negligence that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs with a $6.4 million verdict; a verdict that is noted as one of the largest medical malpractice awards in the state of Missouri.
A 66-year-old man and his wife have filed suit against a Missouri hospital and two physicians claiming that they failed to provide emergency treatment to prevent the spread of flesh-eating bacteria.
Plaintiff was seen in the hospital emergency room with complaints of perirectal abscess and cellulitis. He was given a painkiller and oral and intravenous antibiotics and discharged an hour and a half later. He was told to follow up with the doctor’s office the next day. When he tried to get an appointment for the following day, the office would not agree to an appointment until four days later.
Plaintiff’s expert has testified that one of the physicians made “egregious errors” by failing to immediately order lab tests and radiology procedures that would have determined the severity and extent of the Plaintiff’s infection. He further claims that a surgical procedure should have been performed within 24 hours, that Plaintiff needed immediate attention.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved a new robotic surgery for certain gynecological procedures. The oophorectomy, removal of an ovary, is only the second FDA approved, robotic single-site gynecological surgery, with the first being a hysterectomy.
The procedure is performed through a one inch hole in the belly button and takes about an hour. In most circumstances a patient can go home that day or the next, and back to work in a week or two.
A new report suggests that a number of serious and potentially life-threatening complications from robotic surgery may be avoidable with the use of a safety checklist, before and during an operation. Sounds simple, but true.
A study published this week in Patient Safety in Surgery, researchers from the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine found a decrease in problems stemming from robotic surgery when checklists were used during lengthy procedures, a time of “time out” before and during the surgery.
Including things such as checking pressure points to prevent nerve damage, checking for corneal abrasions, and checking patient positioning, doctors have found a decrease in the number of complications with the robotic surgery.
Now we know that checklists help doctors. This is not exactly breaking new ground. The Checklist Manifesto, a great book, showed us the stunning studies that show just how often patients are better served when doctors override their judgment in favor of an old school checklist. But it appears that with da Vinci surgeries, the need for a checklist is particularly acute.
A settlement has been reached in the medical malpractice case against St. Joseph Medical Center and the doctor that allegedly placed unnecessary heart stents in patients between 2007 and 2009. A federal investigation and hospital review found hundreds of cases where stents were placed in patients’ arteries that were not medically necessary.
The medical malpractice case began in court in early April and was expected to last about three to six months. But an attorney for the 21 plaintiffs involved in the suit said that a successful resolution has been reached. The details of the settlement have not been disclosed yet.
St. Joseph has had its fair share of trouble. In late 2010, St. Joseph Medical Center agreed to pay the United States $22 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act that it paid kickbacks and violated the Stark Law when it entered into a professional services contract with MidAtlantic Cardiovascular Associates. The settlement resolved allegations of the payment of kickbacks under the guise of professional services agreements in return for the group’s referrals to the medical center. The settlement resolved issues related to 11 professional services agreements that were being investigated for being above fair market value, not commercially reasonable, or for services not rendered.
A Missouri lawsuit has been filed against a hospital and neurosurgeon for allegedly operating on the wrong side of a woman’s skull and brain.
Approximately five years ago, after a series of mini-strokes, 53 year old Plaintiff began having health issues. Plaintiff was scheduled for a “left-sided craniotomy bypass” – instead, she received a “right-sided craniotomy surgical procedure.” The second, and correct surgery, was performed six days later. The craniotomy bypass surgery was intended to prevent further strokes.
Her speaking ability had previously been affected, but prior to the recent surgeries, her speech was understood by family members. Now, she is unable to speak intelligibly. It is alleged that before the incorrect surgery, Plaintiff was mobile, cognizant, and able to care for herself. She now requires around-the-clock care for her basic needs. Just an awful story.
A lawsuit filed against the Cleveland VA Medical Center has settled for $500,000.
The lawsuit was filed after the death of a 59 year old veteran, who was being operated on to repair a hernia. What he was not told was that the VA surgeon had only been licensed for a few months, and that this was the first time that he had ever performed the procedure by himself. Experience matters is such a cliche. In surgery, data shows time and time again that experience is everything.
Sadly, a hole was made in the deceased man’s intestines during the surgery, allowing the contents of his bowel to spill out into his abdomen – a hole which the VA hospital failed to recognize for several days. The deceased became very sick after developing an infection, and died several months later.
The 6th Circuit on Monday affirmed summary judgment in a bizarre lawsuit against a Michigan medical examiner accused of improperly disposing of the plaintiff’s mother’s body.
Technically, a medical malpractice claim, this case was anything but. The decedent was a 88-year-old woman who hit her head in a nursing home and died two weeks later in the hospital. After her death, the medical examiner performed an autopsy in an effort to determine when the head injury caused the woman’s death. The doctor returned the body but kept the brain for further study. When the family learned that the brain had been kept and then disposed of, she filed a lawsuit.
The District Court certified a question to the Michigan Supreme Court on the issue of a next-of-kin’s property interest in a decedent’s organs following an autopsy. The Michigan high court shot down the plaintiff’s claim, finding that a decedent’s next of kin does not have a right under Michigan law to possess the brain in order to properly bury or cremate the same after the brain is no longer needed for forensic examination. So when the case came back, the trial court granted summary judgment.
In Oceanus Insurance Company v. White, a Texas appellate panel reminds doctors that if you even think you might get hit with a lawsuit, you should put your medical malpractice insurer on notice. Quick.
In this case, the insurance company’s provided a cover page to the doctor’s malpractice policy that stated, “The coverage of this policy is limited for only those claims that are first made against the insured and reported to the Company while the policy is in force.”
The doctors’ defense was the obvious: “C’mon, where is the prejudice?”
Plaintiffs’ lawyers lose yet another “savings statue” case in Nevada. Malpractice lawyers just file too many cases way too late. This is a dangerous practice in any personal injury case because there are too many things that can go wrong filing a lawsuit at the last minute. But the problem is particularly pronounced in medical malpractice cases.
In Wheble v. Grzeda, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death medical malpractice lawsuit without attaching an expert affidavit as required by Nevada law (and Maryland). Plaintiffs then filed a new complaint after the statute of limitations had passed reasserting the dismissed claims.