Practice Areas
- Medical Malpractice
- Car / Truck Accidents
- Birth Injuries
- Brain Injuries
- Spinal Cord Injuries
- Catastrophic Personal Injuries
Blog 
Medical Malpractice
- Retained Foreign Object Cases Remain A Patient Safety Risk
- 529 Medical Errors Reported in the District of Columbia In One Year
- Preemption of Tort Litigation
- Medicare Stops Paying for Medical Errors
- Serious But Preventable Medical Injuries On The Rise
Brain Injuries
Catastrophic Personal Injuries
Public Health Safety Annoucements
- Anti-Patient Bill Fails In Virginia General Assembly Subcommittee
- New Study Offers Reminder to Parents to Secure Medications at Home
- Patient Follow-up Is Vital
Insurance
General
- It Is The Insurance Industry That Is In Dire Need Of Reform
- New Harvard Study Deals Another Blow To Tort Reform Advocates
- Frivilous Lawsuits Myth Debunked
- Are Insurance Companies Shedding Their Role As Risk-Bearers In An Effort To Become Profitable Financial Institutions?
- Study Finds Type Of Health Care Inusrance Affects The Quality Of Care Patients Receive
News
- Government Study's Findings About The Prevalence Of Hospital-Based Infections Called "Astonishing"
Posted on 8/27/2009 - Study Finds Radiation Risk for Patients
Posted on 8/27/2009 - FDA Panel Recommends Lowering Daily Dose of Acetaminophen
Posted on 7/6/2009 - Studies Call Into Question Value Of Prostate Screening Test
Posted on 7/6/2009 - Study Shows Link Between Death and ADHD Drugs
Posted on 6/17/2009 - New Research Challenges Wisdom of Routine Removal of Ovaries
Posted on 4/21/2009 - "Best Lawyers in America" recognizes all three Shevlin Smith attorneys
Posted on 12/4/2008 - Federal Court Strikes Down Dangerous Trucking Law
Posted on 12/4/2008 - Lives Saved in 2007 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking Age Laws
Posted on 12/4/2008 - World Health Organization Issues a Checklist to Make Operations Safer
Posted on 12/4/2008
Library
Old Firm News
- Tom Smith Named Super Lawyer
- Shevlin Smith Moves Office
- Virginia's Largest Verdicts of 2006
- Virginia's Largest Verdicts of 2005
Brain Injury
Medical Articles
- Report to Congress on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Steps to Prevent a Serious Public Health Problems
- Elective C-sections performed too early 36% of the time
- Experts Worry About Rise In C-Section Births
- Millions of Seniors Use Risky Drug Combinations
- "Repairing the Damaged Spinal Cord"
Significant Court Decisions
- Virginia Supreme Court Issues Important Decision For Disputed Wrongful Death Cases
- Virginia Supreme Court clarifies the foundational requirements for the admissibility of medical literature
- Virginia Supreme Court addresses damages issue in truck accident wrongful death case
- Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds That A Doctor's Responsibility Goes Beyond Patients
- Trial Court Order Awarding Plaintiff Costs and Attorney's Fees As A Result Of Defendant's Refusal To Admit An Uncontested Fact
Car / Truck Accidents
- Large-Truck Crash Causation Study: An Initial Overview
- Speeding Triples The Chances of an Auto Accident
Tort Reform News
- Insurance companies drastically raise insurance premiums for doctors despite a fall in the number of medical malpractice case filings
- The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America
- "The Fairness of Malpractice Settlements"
- Harvard School of Public Health study: "Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation"
Shevlin Smith Blog
Brain Injuries
Concussions Can Cause Severe Brain Injury
Personal injury claims involving brain injury are some of the most contested cases in the legal field. Insurance companies and their attorneys are often skeptical of traumatic brain injury claims and the devastating effects that brain injuries have on the injured and the injured's families. Today, there is further compelling evidence that these injuries are not only very real, but of severe consequence. A new study by the Center for Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (CSTE) has looked at the brains of dead athletes and found overwhelming evidence that repeated concussions can cause severe brain damage.Several findings from the recent CSTE study are significant for not only athletes but anyone who has suffered a concusion:
- The researchers found that the brain damage was extensive and clearly visible. The damage was found throughout the brain including in deep layers. The damage was not limited to only the superficial tissues of the brain.
- Degenerative brain disease caused by brain trauma is known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is the only known form of dementia that is fully preventable.
- The location of the brain damage is to areas that control a person's emotional response, rage, and breathing. This finding helps explain some of the personality changes seen in persons who have suffered a concussion.
Catastrophic Personal Injuries
Virginia Supreme Court Decisions A Big Victory For Plaintiffs
Last week, the Virignia Supreme Court released its decision in Centra Health, Inc. v. Mullins. The end result is a big victory for plaintiffs in death cases where the cause of death is contested.The Central Health case resolved a long-standing issue under Virginia law -- whether a plaintiff has the right to submit both a survival action and a wrongful death action to a jury for resolution at the same time. Plaintiff's lawyers have long advocated for this right in order to prevent the injustice of picking the wrong cause of action to submit to a jury, and losing a case, not because the defendant did not negligently cause harm, but because the wrong cause of action was chosen.
Until the Central Health decision, a plaintiff's nightmare scenario occurs under the following facts. The defendant negligently injures a person and everyone agrees that the defendant was indeed negligent in injuring the other person. The injured person then dies some time after the initial injury. The plaintiff and defendant disagree whether the defendant's negligence actually caused the injured person to die, or whether the injured person died from some other cause. Based upon these facts, two different causes of action were available to the plaintiff - (1) a wrongful death claim in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant caused the death of the injured person' or (2) a survival action claim inwihch the plaintiff alleged that the defendant caused injury to the injured person but did not cause death. Prior to Central Health, some trial courts were requiring the plaintiff to elect only one of the two claims to submit to a jury. The injustice arose when the plaintiff elected the wrongful death claim, but lost at trial because the jury felt the defendant negligently injured the injured person but did not cause that person's death; or when the plaintiff elected the survival action claim, but lost at trial because the jury felt the defendant did negligently cause the injured person's death.
In Central Health, the Virginia Supreme Court recognized the right of plaintiffs to submit both claims to the jury, and allow the jury to decide which of the two claims was the right one under the evidence presented. Under this decision, plaintiffs no longer face the prospect of losing a case where the defendant is admittedly negligent on the grounds that the wrong type of claim was elected.
Patient Advocacy: A Growing Business
How many of us have gone to a emergency room, or even to a doctor's office, and waited for what seemed to be an eternity to be examined? How many of us have been in a hospital or a doctor's office but felt that the staff was not hearing our complaints? Unfortunately, these experiences can be all too common. In our legal practice, we often see the tragic consequences that can result from long delays and failure to listen to patient complaints. Sadly, we have handled numerous cases in which patients have died or have suffered life-changing injuries from conditions that were treatable with earlier intervention.Recently, we have been reading a great deal about an emerging business industry - patient advocacy. A recent article in the Arizona Daily Star discussed the role and merits of patient advocacy. The patient advocate works on behalf of a patient to ensure that the patient receives the best possible medical care. These advocates can help monitor patient medication, review patient treatment plans, provide detailed patient medical histories, alert overworked nurses when vital signs go bad, coordinate care as nurses and doctors change shifts, and look out for patient comfort, hygiene and mobility. The use of patient advocates appears to be most prevalent during hospitalizations and nursing home visits.
For more informaton about patient advocacy, check out these websites below. We do not have any affiliation with these companies, but found that their websites provide helpful information for you in considering whether to hire or use a patient advocate.
Patient & Family Advocates, LLC
The Family Advocate
COPE Patient Advocates
Please note, however, that a patient advocate does not always have to be a hired advocate. Family members can always serve as an effective advocate if they are willing to become actively involved in the care of a loved one.
Medical Malpractice
Retained Foreign Object Cases Remain A Patient Safety Risk
The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) accredits and certifies more than 15,000 hospitals and other healthcare organizations in the United States. Its mission is to improve the safety and quality of care patients receive at these entities. It tracks "sentinel events," which it defines as "an unexpected occurrence involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk thereof." Such events are called "sentinel" because they signal the need for immediate investigation and response.One type of sentinel event that JCAHO tracks are retained foreign objects. Retained foreign objects are surgical items left in patients following surgery. Estimates indicated that surgical items are left in 1,500 people per year in the United States, including surgical sponges, surgical towels, and surgical instruments such as clamps and retractors. These items are most often left in the abdomen or pelvis (54% of the cases), the vagina (29%) and the thorax (7%). Mortality rates resulting from the unintended retention of foreign objects are as high as 11% to 35%. In virtually all cases, the patient is required to undergo a second (needless) operation to have the foreign object removed.
The JCAHO has issued strategies in an effort to prevent, or at least reduce, the occurrence of retained foreign object events. Hopefully, the implementation of these strategies, and dilgence by health care providers in the operating room, will
increase patient safety.
If you or a loved one has been the victim of a retained foreign object, and you like to know more about your legal rights, the attorneys at Shevlin Smith would be happy to speak with you.
529 Medical Errors Reported in the District of Columbia In One Year
Unless you or a loved one has been a victim of medical negligence, you have probably never given much thought to how often medical negligence occurs. You probably have never considered how preventable the medical negligence was. The Washington, D.C.'s Department of Health's annual report sheds light on those issues.The city's Department of Health reported that for the 12 months between July 2007 and June 2008, there were 529 "adverse events" in District of Columbia hospitals and clinics. At least 14 of these errors resulted in the death of the patient.
The underlying nature of the adverse errors was alarming. At least seven people died because they were given the wrong medicine or given the wrong dose of medication. Another adverse event involved surgery performed on the wrong breast of a woman. Another involved the death of patient who, while in respiratory distress, was hooked up to a ventilator that was broken.
Sadly, the 529 adverse events are probably an understatement of the number of actual medical errors that occurred during the reported 12-month period. Only 10 of the District's 15 hospitals participated in the report, and only two of the District's 21 nursing homes reported.
So, the next time you hear about a medical malpractice case that has been filed, don't be so quick to judge it as frivolous. Ask questions about its underlying facts. You might be surprised just how preventable the medical error was and how needless a patient's death or injury was.
Serious But Preventable Medical Injuries On The Rise
Previously, we have cited the landmark study by the Institute of Medicine published 2001 titled "To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System" as proof that preventable medical errors occur at alarming rates. That study estimated that preventable medical errors caused 98,000 deaths per year. It did not estimate the number of non-death injuries caused by preventable medical errors.Today, seven years later, there is evidence that the rate of injury due to preventable medical errors continues to rise. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that since 2002 the number of preventable serious medical injuries in Utah hospitals has increased by over 50%. This figure is limited to "never events" which are defined are events that are never suppose to occur. Such events include surgeries done on the wrong body site, surgeries in which instruments are left inside the patient, blood transfusion using the wrong blood type, and medication errors.
Is there too much medical malpractice litigation or is there too much medical malpractice?
In his book, "The Medical Malpractice Myth," Tom Baker seeks to answer the question whether there is too much medical malpractice litigation in the United States or whether there is too much medical malpractice. His answer may surprise you. Tom Baker examines every relevant study performed in the last thirty years on the issue of medical malpractice. Most of these studies were conducted by health care providers, including physicians, hospitals, and nurses. Based upon those studies and other data he has gathered on his own, Tom Baker concludes that there is an epidemic of medical malpractice in the United States. His figures are staggering. Doctors and hospitals injure about one out of every twenty-five hospital patients. Negligence is the cause of injury in about one of every four of those cases, meaning that one patient in every 100 is the victim of medical malpractice. Of note, more people are killed by medical malpractice than are killed by auto and workplace accidents combined. Other significant findings include:* Compared to the amount of medical malpractice, there is very little medical malpractice litigation. The evidence shows that very few victims of medical malpractice actually file lawsuits. Data show that there are approximately seven proven medical malpractice injuries for every one medical malpractice case that is filed.
* The number of medical malpractice lawsuits is not growing. Similarly, the overall size of the lawsuit settlements and verdicts is not increasing, particualry once the rising medical care costs for treating medical malpractice victims is taken into account.
* Medical malpractice lawsuits and jury verdicts are not to blame for the recent medical malpractice insurance crisis. In reality, the culprit for the insurance crisis is the boom-and-bust cycle in the insurance industry that has been an inherent part of the insurance business for over a century.
* Medical malpractice lawsuits are not depriving Americans of access to health care. The evidence shows that the costs associated with medical malpractice litigation are less than 1% of the entire cost of the health care system.
* Medical malpractice lawsuits actually do good. An example of this is the American Society of Anesthesiologist's closed case study of all past medical malpractice claims filed involving anesthesia. This study led to significant changes in how anesthesia was practiced in the United States. For example, better anesthesia equipment was developed and new practice guidelines were implemented. The end result was better health care for patients and lower insurance premiums for anesthesiologists.
* Medical malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers is not as high as commonly reported. The average insurance premium paid per doctor is less than $12,000.
How Can A Medical Malpractice Case Be Called Frivolous When Expert Medical Testimony Is Required Before A Lawsuit Can Even Be Filed?
If you have read our previous blogs, you have noticed that we take great issue with the tort reformers' claim that our legal system is plagued with frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits. We have previously cited on our website numerous studies that debunk this claim.Now, there is additional support for our position. This time it comes from an article written by physicians in the December 2007 issue of the medical journal, Plastic & Reconstructive Sugery.
In an article captioned, "Expert Witness Reform," the authors correctly note that a lawyer cannot bring a frivolous claim to trial without a physician expert witness stating that the claim is not frivolous. Thus, as the authors conclude, it is the expert physician, not the attorneys, who define "meritless" and "frivolous" claims.
In Virginia, the protections against frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits are even greater. Under Virginia law, a lawyer cannot even file a medical malpractice lawsuit without a physician expert witness certifying that the case is not frivolous.
Labels:
Shevlin Smith's Praise for "A Call To Action For Doctors"
Dr. SreyRam Kuy, a medical doctor, recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times entitled "Stand up for Patients." We found this physician's perspective on the current status of our nation's health care system and the response of doctors to be both refreshing and enlightening.Dr. Kuy noted that physicians are increasingly outspoken on issues such as tort reform and cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, both of which affect physicians' income. However, there seems to be relative silence about reports of poor health care or medical negligence in the United States. He cites the report compiled by the Institute of Medicine regarding statistics of medical negligence, which our firm has previously cited and discussed in prior blogs). He also pointed to the recent Commonwealth Fund's national score card showing that the U.S. ranks last among 19 industrialized nations on infant mortality, and 15th on "mortality from conditions amenable to healthcare" — that is, early deaths that might have been prevented with proper care. Dr. Kuy boldly reminds colleagues that a physician's first loyalty should be to his or her patients, rather than to bolstering personal income, stating that physicians hold a "sacred trust" to protect their patients' health.
Dr. Kuy cites a positive example of physicians with the proper motivation that recently occurred in California. Blue Cross of California requested physicians to disclose any medical conditions that might enable it to cancel patients' medical coverage. Dr. Kuy praises the California Medical Association and the physicians who protested this outrageous request, which was so obviously not in the best interests of the patients.
Although Dr. Kuy seems sympathetic to the low morale of physicians, he suggests that a fight for the patients rather than for greater income is the better way to boost morale. We certainly agree that the medical community would be better served, both in its public image and its own morale, if it were better policed from within.
As we have pointed out before, the drop in physician income has very little, if anything, to do with medical malpractice lawsuits, and has everything to do with how insurance companies choose to compensate physicians for patient care and how insurance companies choose to charge physicians for medical malpractice insurance. The enemy is not the legal system, which seeks to provide recourse for patients who have been injured by the negligence of physicians and other health care providers. The true enemy is insurance companies who consistently put their corporate profits ahead of everyone else -- physicians, other health care providers, patients, etc.
Unfortunately, physicians certainly feed the public and political outcry against cases of medical negligence. Innocent victims of negligence in other types of cases, such as automobile accidents, are not nearly as denigrated. At Shevlin Smith, it is our position that a victim is to be assisted and compensated, regardless of the origin of injury. Dr. Kuy took brave steps toward encourgaging his colleagues to abandon prejudice against medical reform when he insisted that the patients' best interest must come first.
Labels:
Preemption of Tort Litigation
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on an extremely important case concerning the rights of Americans. The case is Wyeth v. Levine. The case involves a 62-year-old woman (Levine) who was given the drug Phenergan by "intravenous push." The intravenous push allowed the drug to enter Levine's arterial blood system, which caused injury and ultimately led to the amputation of her hand and forearm. A jury found Wyeth (the manufacturer of Phenergan) negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings concerning this possible danger, and awarded Levine compensation for her injuries.The Wyeth v. Levine case involves the legal doctrine of "preemption." Preemption is the concept that federal law takes precedence over state or local law. When properly invoked, it stands for the proposition that when federal law regulates certain activity then that regulation supercedes any conflicting state law.
In the context of the Wyeth case, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency that regulates the labeling of drugs. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) is the federal law that applies to drugs such as Phenergan. Wyeth argues that that FDA approved the drug label for Phenergan, which permitted the administration of the drug through intravenous push, and that therefore state law should not permit a tort claim. In contrast, Levine argues that the FDA never considered, much less rejected, a label that would have prohibited intravenous push administration, and that Wyeth should have added that prohibition to its label on its own in light of Wyeth's knowledge of its risks. Additionally, Levine argues that the FDCA does not have any express preemption clause, which indicates congressional intent to have the FDCA trump state law.
The significance of the Wyeth v. Levine case lies less in the legal doctrine at play, but more on who is best able to protect Americans from known dangers of drugs and other products. The United States Supreme Court's decision will have a profound effect for patients and drug safety. If the Court decides in favor of Wyeth, then the FDA will become the sole protector of patients. The problem is that the FDA is not equipped to evaluate the safety of drugs and its warning labels. Moreover, given the approval process for drugs in the United States, many safety problems are never discovered until after a drug's approval, and then only if the drug manufacturers report such problems voluntarily. The United States has a long tradition of relying upon the tort system in general, and upon the state tort system specifically, in order to protect the safety of Americans from unreasonbaly dangerous drugs and products. The tort system has demonstrated itself to be effective in undercovering adverse drug reactions and manufacturer delay in responding.
In support of the tort system, a recent article appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This article was written by physicians, and supported the notion that the FDA is not capable of protecting Americans on drug safety issues. They argued that patients are best served by the tort system. Let's hope that the United States Supreme Court listens, if not to the lawyers, than at least to the physicians.
Three Virginia Nursing Homes Listed Among Nation's Worst
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released its list of the worst nursing homes in the United States. Among the 131 nursing homes cited were three from Virginia -- Beacon Shores Nursing & Rehabilitation in Virginia Beach, Ruxton Health of Woodbridge, and Harbour Pointe M & R Center in Norfolk.Nursing homes were placed on the list based upon findings made by inspection teams. Criteria employed by the inspection teams included: (1) whether a nursing home had more deficiencies involving quality of care matters than an average nursing home; (2) whether a nursing home had more serious deficiencies involving quality of care matters than an average nursing home; and (3) whether a nursing home had a pattern of serious problems that has persisted over a long period of time.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services make the following suggestions regarding the selection of a nursing home:
- Visit the nursing home and talk to staff, residents and other families
- Ask to see the results from the last State or CMS survery
- Look at the survey history of the nursing home on Nursing Home Compare to see what areas may be problematic
- Ask the nursing home staff what they are doing to improve quality of care for residents in the nursing home
- Call the State survey agency to find out more about the nursing home
- Look to see if the nursing home has been placed on the the Special Focus Facility (SFF) Initiative by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the past and see how long the nursing home remained on that list
- Call your local State Ombudsman, Administration on Aging, and local groups to find out about the nursing home
- Use the "Nursing Home Brochure" found at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/nursinghome.pdf and "Guide to Choosing a Nursing Home" at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf02174.pdf
Medicare Stops Paying for Medical Errors
On October 1, 2008, Medicare enacted a new policy concerning its payment of medical care costs caused by hospital errors. Under this new policy, Medicare will not pay for medical care costs that occur as a result of 10 reasonably preventable events. These events are often referred to as "never events" because they should never occur. These never events include complications arising from when patients receive incompatible blood transfusions, second surgeries necessitated by foreign objects left behind in a patient from a prior surgery, second surgeries necessitated by certain infections, surgeries performed on wrong body parts, complications from serious bed sores and falls that occur in the hospital, and urinary tract infections caused by in-hospital use of catheters. Most importantly from a patient perspective, Medicare's new policy also prevents hospitals from billing patients directly for costs generated by such errors.Prior studies have shown that the occurrence of "never events" has huge consequences both financially and for patient well-being. For example, one study has found that the occurrence of never events account for 2.4 million extra hospital days, $9.3 billion in extra charges, and 32,600 deaths.
An interesting side issue to watch is what effect will Medicare's new policy have in the ability of patients to prove medical malpractice cases when these "never events" occur.
Website Allows Patients To Compare Hospital Ratings
Until recently, it has been virtually impossible for patients to gather information that allows them to compare the quality of care that hospitals provide. Now there is Hospital Care. This website, which is hosted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, provides scores for more than 30 measures of care and service. CMS officials hope that the website will encourage hospitals to improve their quality of care. There is another laudatory benefit to the website, however. It helps patients compare hospitals against other hospitals on issues such as how each hospital treats certain health conditions and which medical procedures each hospital performs. This information enables patients to make better hospital care decisions.Labels:
Another Frivilous Lawsuit Myth Debunked
In previous blogs, we have disputed claims by proponents of medical malpractice tort reform that insurance premiums are rising as a result of an increase in medical malpractice claims. A recent study out of the Suffolk University Law School offers further support for our position.Examining malpractice insurance premiums in the State of Massachusetts from 1975 to 2005, the authors of this study found that medical malpractice premiums have actually declined from 1990 to 2005 for virtually all physicians practicing in Massachusetts. The authors noted that because Massachusetts has the fourth-highest median malpractice payouts of all states, if there was a premium crisis due to the number of lawsuit settlements, it should logically occur in Massachusetts
The authors proved yet again that malpractuce premiums are not higher than ever and that there is no premium crisis. Their study demonstrates the fallacy of such arguments, noting that the proponents of such arguments fail to account for inflation, discounts offered by insurance companies to increase their market share, and the historical rise and fall cycle in insurance underwriting.
Moreover, national figures published by the American Medical Association support the fact that malpractice insurance premiums do not have a significant impact on a physician's ability to practice medicine. These figures show that premiums make up 7 percent of total practice costs for all physicians.
Insurance
America's Ten Worst Insurance Companies
The American Association for Justice recently published a report entitled "The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America." The companies identified were:1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. Wellpoint
7. Farmers
8. UnitedHealth
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual
Is Insurance Company Greed The Reason For Higher Premiums?
Advocates for tort reform consistently claim that lawsuits are the reason that Americans face increasing insurance premiums. This claim has consistently been refuted by statistics that prove the number of lawsuits filed in the United States have been decreasing over the last 20 years, and that jury verdicts in favor of injured people have not been increasing over the last 20 years.Now, there is additional proof that lawsuits have nothing to do with the increase in insurance premiums charged by the insurance companies. J. Robert Hunter in his study entitled "Property/Casualty Insurance in 2008: Overpriced Insurance and Underpaid Claims Result in Unjustified Profits, Padded Reserves and Excessive Capitalization" discovered that insurance companies are paying 20% less in benefits to its own insureds now as compared to 20 years ago. He also discovered that insurance companies have earned unprecedented profits in each of the last four years, which is remarkable in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Florida hurricanes. Mr. Hunter concludes that the property/casualty insurance industry has been highly effective in maximizing profits through rate increases, coverage reductions, inappropriate claims practices and by shifting high risks onto taxpayers.
Of note, Mr. Hunter was a former Texas insurance commissioner charged with ensuring that insurance rates are fair, and that insurance companies are financially stable and able to pay claims as promised.
Anecdotal support for Mr. Hunter's findings can be found in Allstate Insurance Company's long-standing refusal to comply with court orders demanding the production of the "McKinsey documents", which allegedly show how the company profited at policyholder's expense. In an effort to protect these documents from production, Allstate Insurance has incurred millions of dollars in fines. Recently, the Florida Insurance Commissioner went so far as to ban Allstate from writing new insurance business because of its refusal to produce documents or testimony to clarify its procedures for paying claims.
Public Health Safety Annoucements
Anti-Patient Bill Fails In Virginia General Assembly Subcommittee
Victims of medical malpractice gained an important verdict this month when an anti-patient bill failed to garner any support in the House Civil Law Subcommittee of the Virginia General Assembly. House Bill No. 306 sought to create a pilot program to assess the creation of disclosure programs in health care facilities that were designed to encourage the disclosure of adverse medical outcomes between health care providers and patients.At first glance, many of us would concede that a bill that aims to encourage the disclosure of adverse medical outcomes is worthy. After all, patients deserve to learn the reasons why an adverse medical outcome occurred, and the therapeutic relationship between a health care provider and patient can sometimes be preserved or even enhanced with frank discussions of what went wrong. It is fair to say that no one objects to legislation that is aimed at increasing the opportunity of frank discussions.
House Bill No. 306 went a step farther than simply encouraging frank discussions, however. The proposed legislation contained a very dangerous provision that would have effectively eviscerated patient's rights. This provision stated as follows:
"The following shall be privileged and inadmissible in a civil action, administrative action, or arbitration arising from an adverse medical outcome: (i) an offer to participate in a disclosure program or actual participation therein; (ii) a disclosure made as part of a disclosure program; and (iii) an offer of resolution, including compensation, made during a disclosure program."
The danger behind this provision, and subsection (ii) in particular, is that any disclosure of facts made by a health care provider in the course of the disclosure program would be inadmissible at trial. Taken literally, that would have meant that if a health care provider reported facts about what happened that caused a patient an injury, those facts would be inadmissible at trial. These facts would be inadmissible even if those facts were contained in the patient's medical record, even if another witness had knowledge of those facts, or even if the patient's attorney would have discovered those facts during the normal course of a lawsuit. In effect, if a lawsuit ever ensued following the type of disclosures protected by this legislation, then patient and the patient's attorney would be precluded from telling a jury about basic, fundamental facts about the case. The House Civil Law Subcommittee understood the dangers of House Bill No. 306. As a result, no member of the Subcommittee even made a motion to vote on the Bill. The end result was a win for patient rights.
Fairfax medical malpractice lawyer
Northern Virignia medical malpractice attorney
Inova Fairfax Hospital
New Study Offers Reminder to Parents to Secure Medications at Home
A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reminds parents about the importance of securing medications in the home, and adhering to dosing recommendations. Focusing only on the medication overdoses that resulted to a trip to an emergency department, the researchers' findings were rather astounishing:- More than 70,000 children under the age of 18 years visit an emergency room annually due to an unintentional medication overdose.
- One out of every 180 children aged 2 visit an emergency department annually for a medication overdose.
- Most medication overdoses involved children under the age of 5 years old were due to the unsupervised ingestion of medication. Of note, however, there is also a siginficant number of medication overdoses involving adolescences between the ages of 12-18 years old. These latter overdoses were most often caused by misuse and medication errors.
- Current child-resistant packaging, while helpful, is not alone sufficient to prevent children's access to medication.
Patient Follow-up Is Vital
This week a number of news organization ran stories about how frequently physicians fail to inform patients about abnormal tests results. The New York Times reported on research finding that over 7% of clinically significant abnormal findings were never reported to the patient by their doctors. NBC Nightly News reported on this same study, indicating that one in 14 patients were not informed of abnormal findings by their doctors.The research that led to these news storeis was conducted by Dr. Lawrence P. Casalino, an associate professor at the Weill Cornell Medical Center. He reviewed the records of 5,434 patients at 19 primary care centers and 4 academic medical centers.
Dr. Casalino's study has important implications for patients. It demonstrates that patients should not rely upon their doctors or their doctors' staff to relay test results. Patients should not assume that no news from their doctor means good news (that is, no telephone call means that the test results must have been normal). The repeated inability of doctors and/or doctors' offices to communicate test results to patients means that patients should ask for copies of their tests results, and should review those results on their own.
Some of the more common test results that should be sought by patients are blood tests, mammogram reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, CT scan reports, and pap smear results.
Fairfax medical malpractice lawyer
Northern Virignia medical malpractice attorney
Inova Fairfax Hospital
General
New Harvard Study Deals Another Blow To Tort Reform Advocates
A new study from Harvard Medical School Researchers at Cambridge Health Alliance has found that the waiting time for patients seeking emergency care is getting longer each year. The study examined the time between patients' arrivals in the emergency department (ED) and when they were first seen by a doctor, and found that the average wait tme increased 36% from 1997 to 2004. Some additional findings of significance in the study are: (1) patients needing emergent care waited even longer - waiting on average 40% longer in 2004 than in 1997. (2) patients suffering from heart attacks waited even longer still -- on average 150% longer in 2004 than in 1997. (3) the increased delays affected everyone, including those with and without health insurance, and people from all racial and ethnic groups. The authors noted that "prolonged ED waits have serious implications for the quality of care." When treatment is delayed, particularly for severely ill patients such as those suffering from heart attacks, patient recovery and survivability is adversely affected. Of note, the study did not find that medical malpractice claims were a factor in the reduction of quality of care at Emergency Departments, nor did it advocate the need for tort reform measures as a solution to the reduced quality of care. As such, the study is yet another blow to tort reform advocates who blame medical malpractice litigation for the poor quality of care received by Americans. A link to the new study can be found at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.27.2.w84/DC1Labels:
Is The FDA Doing Its Best To Protect American Citizens From The Risks Of Drug Medications?
Avandia is a diabetes drug designed to lower a diabetic's blood sugar and kept it under control. As such, one of its aims is to protect against the risks of uncontrolled diabetes, including the risk of heart disease. The drug is made by GlaxoSmithKline.
Ironically, in May, reports began to surface that instead of protecting diabetics from heart disease, Avandia was actually having the opposite effect. A study published in the
A number of physicians have called for the withdrawal of Avandia from the market. A safety scientist at the Food and Drug Administration joined in that call arguing that Avandia's toxic effects on the heart had caused up to 205,000 heart attacks and strokes, some fatal, from 1999 to 2006. Regardless, the Food and Drug Administration overwhelming voted otherwise. Instead, the FDA has required GlaxoSmithKline to place strict warnings on Avantia labels.
Of particular interest, FDA officials have admitted that GlaxoSmithKline told the agency about heart risks nearly two years ago but that because of internal disagreements, it never warned patients.
This, of course, leads to the question is the FDA really doing everything within its power to help protect the American public?
Labels:
Frivilous Lawsuits Myth Debunked
Every year around this time, media outlets across America and the world get their laughs at "this year's" Stella Awards. The Stella Awards are a list of the year's seven "most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S." For anyone who has cared to check, this year's seven cases are repeats of years past. Worse, as it turns out, the cases are fictional. Rick Casey, a journalist from the Houston Chronicle, exposes the myth behind these cases in his article "Incredible Lawsuit Tales." In addition to exposing the myth behind the Stella Awards, Mr. Casey explains away many of the misconceptions behind the McDonald's coffee cup case that has led many Americans to believe (wrongly) that our civil justice system is flawed. Mr. Casey leaves us with an important reminder: "The next time an Internet tale makes you think things are even worse than you thought, check it out. Especially when the tale suggests that the American system is stacked against wealthy corporations."Labels:
FDA acknowledges loophole that allows non-FDA approved drugs to be prescribed by health care providers
CNN reports that doctors write approximately 65 million prescriptions for drugs not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency that regulates prescription drugs. These drugs slip through a "black hole" in the drug approval system, whereby the FDA provides the drugs with an identification number to track the drug the regulatory process but that identification number is then used by pharmacies and health care providers to order the drugs for patient use. Because the drugs have an identification number, pharmacies and health care providers mistakenly believe the drugs have been approved by the FDA even though they have not. According to the CNN article, the FDA has known about the existence of this "black hole" for over four decades, but has failed to address it. Perhaps even more shocking, the FDA refuses to identify for the public the drugs that have slipped into this "black hole" despite knowing the identity of such drugs. The result is that the public continues to be at risk. Click here to read the CNN article in full.Labels:
Study Finds Type Of Health Care Inusrance Affects The Quality Of Care Patients Receive
A recent New York study found a significant difference in the treatment received by patients based upon the type of health insurance coverage carried by the patient. The authors, who were from the Weil Cornell Medical Center in New York, examined treatment offered to patients suffering from an appendicitis. They found that patients who had health insurance through Medicare or Medicare were 14% and 22% more likely to suffer a ruptured appendix due to a delay in the performance of surgery as compared to patients who had private insurance. They also found that patients who had no health insurance were 18% more likely to suffer a ruptured appendix than patients who had private insurance. The differences persisted even after controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, type of hospital and other factors. The authors' findings were published last month in The Journal of the American College of Surgeons and were also recently published in the New York Times. Click here to read the New York Times article.Labels:
Are Insurance Companies Shedding Their Role As Risk-Bearers In An Effort To Become Profitable Financial Institutions?
There have been numerous news headlines documenting the record profits being earned by insurance companies in recent years. These record profits come on the heels of many natural disasters such as Hurricane Katarina and California forest fires, in which many policy holders are being denied coverage or being offered less than full value for their replacement costs. Click here to review a detailed article recently published in the Biloxi Sun Herald discussing this issue. Given the record profits being earned by insurance companies, do you believe that they are failing to meet their obligation to bear the risk for the losses of its insureds? Do you believe that these profits are coming at the expense of insureds whose claims are being unjustly denied or undervalued?Labels:
Let Us Help You
Shevlin Smith
3975 University Drive
Suite 405
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 591-0067
Fax: (703) 591-1877
Get Directions
FAQs
General Questions
- If I was injured due to the negligence of another person, should I seek medical treatment?
- What is the likelihood of my case settling without having to go to trial?
- What are the expenses for bringing a medical malpractice or personal injury case?
- What fee does an attorney charge for representing a client in a medical malpractice or personal injury claim?
- What should I do if I believe that I have been injured due to medical malpractice or the negligence of another person?
Car / Truck Accidents
What information can I provide to an attorney to assist the attorney in the review process of my case?
I have been injured in a car or truck accident and I am now receiving calls or letters from the insurance company of the person who caused the accident. What should I do?
Birth Injuries
- What if I suspect that my child’s injury was caused by medical negligence at birth?
- How is negligence proved in cases of birth injuries?
- What are the main types of birth injury cases?
Medical Malpractice
- Will my medical malpractice case require expert witness testimony, and how do you select an expert witness?
- How does one know if he or she is a victim of medical malpractice or negligence?
- How does a law firm determine which medical malpractice cases to accept?
- Are surgical injuries considered medical malpractice?
- Will my health care providers tell me if a mistake has been made?
Brain Injuries
- What is a concussion, and does suffering a concussion mean that I have suffered a permanent brain injury?
- What is the prognosis for a person who has suffered a traumatic brain injury?
- What is the frequency of traumatic brain injuries in the United States?
- How is a brain injury diagnosed?
- What are the symptoms of a subtle or mild brain injury?