Attorney Blog

Anti-Patient Bill Fails In Virginia General Assembly Subcommittee

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)26231 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

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.

New Study Offers Reminder to Parents to Secure Medications at Home

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)16944 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

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

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)14180 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Retained Foreign Object Cases Remain A Patient Safety Risk

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)9815 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Virginia Supreme Court Decisions A Big Victory For Plaintiffs

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)8578 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Concussions Can Cause Severe Brain Injury

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)8503 — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

These findings and the growing body of research conducted by the CSTE and others serve well those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury. They confirm what is already known -- while brain injuries may appear invisible to those skeptical of their existence and their impact on human life, the true existence of such injuries is visible from the examination of the brain itself and upon a non-jaded view of those who have suffered the injury.

529 Medical Errors Reported in the District of Columbia In One Year

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)8115 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

Preemption of Tort Litigation

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)6098 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Medicare Stops Paying for Medical Errors

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)5010 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Serious But Preventable Medical Injuries On The Rise

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)4072 — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

America's Ten Worst Insurance Companies

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)3920 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

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

It Is The Insurance Industry That Is In Dire Need Of Reform

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)3918 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

The American Association for Justice recently published a report entitled "The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America." The report identifies some pretty staggering figures relating to the profits made by the insurance industry over the last ten years. For example, the report states that "over the last 10 years, the property/casualty insurance industry has enjoyed average profits of over $30 billion a year." The report further states that "the life and health side of the insurance industry has averaged another $30 billion." It deserves special emphasis that these figures are the profits earned by the insurance industry.

The report also notes that the U.S. insurance industry takes in "over $1 trillion in premiums annually" and has "$3.8 trillion in assets." This later figure is more than the GDPs of all but two countries in the world.

Given these figures, it is hard to argue against the fact that the insurance industry is doing quite well. Yet, in comparison, how are policyholders doing? Many of us are aware that health care providers are complaining that the rising cost of their medical malpractice insurance premiums. Most of us know that our health insurance premiums continue to rise. Those who have had the misfortune of being victims of a natural disaster, such as Hurrican Katrina, know that our insurance companies often fight us by denying claims rather than help us recover.

Proponents for tort reform often advocate for changes in our civil justice system in an effort to stem the rise in insurance premiums. They argue that restricting the right of Americans to bring lawsuits, or arbitrarily limiting the amount of recovery by persons injured due to the negligence of others, will best effectuate such an end. Of course, there is little evidence to support such claims. Perhaps it is time that different questions are asked. For example, why do insurance companies continue to raise premiums when they are earning record profits? Why do insurance companies continue to emphasize profits over fair dealing with their policyholders?

Another Frivilous Lawsuit Myth Debunked

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2794 — Sun, 25 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Website Allows Patients To Compare Hospital Ratings

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2782 — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Patient Advocacy: A Growing Business

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2664 — Mon, 12 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Is Insurance Company Greed The Reason For Higher Premiums?

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2338 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Shevlin Smith's Praise for "A Call To Action For Doctors"

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2067 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

How Can A Medical Malpractice Case Be Called Frivolous When Expert Medical Testimony Is Required Before A Lawsuit Can Even Be Filed?

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)2066 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

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.

Three Virginia Nursing Homes Listed Among Nation's Worst

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1876 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

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

New Harvard Study Deals Another Blow To Tort Reform Advocates

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1665 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

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/DC1

Frivilous Lawsuits Myth Debunked

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1470 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:00:00 EST

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."

Is there too much medical malpractice litigation or is there too much medical malpractice?

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1356 — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:00:00 EST

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.

Are Insurance Companies Shedding Their Role As Risk-Bearers In An Effort To Become Profitable Financial Institutions?

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1213 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

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?

Study Finds Type Of Health Care Inusrance Affects The Quality Of Care Patients Receive

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1212 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

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.

FDA acknowledges loophole that allows non-FDA approved drugs to be prescribed by health care providers

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1103 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

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.

Is The FDA Doing Its Best To Protect American Citizens From The Risks Of Drug Medications?

mshevlin@shevlinsmith.com (Blog Author)1046 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

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 New England Journal of Medicine found that the use of Avandia increased a patient's risk of heart attacks. Another more recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association found similar risks to patients, noting that the use of the drug doubled the risks of heart failure and raised the risks of heart attack by 42 percent.

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?

Government Study's Findings About The Prevalence Of Hospital-Based Infections Called "Astonishing"

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3590 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

Study Finds Radiation Risk for Patients

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)10162 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

According to a study pubished in the New England Journal of Medicine, over 4 million Americans are exposed to high doses of radiation from medical imaging studies. Nearly one-half million Americans are exposed at radiation doses that exceed those allowed for nuclear power plant workers. Increased exposure to radiation from medical imagin studies is believed to increase the risk of developing cancer.

FDA Panel Recommends Lowering Daily Dose of Acetaminophen

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)9317 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

An FDA panel of 37 experts studying the use of medications containing acetaminophen. Acetaminophen is a painkiller medication, most commonly found in drugs such as Tylenol, Vicodin and Percocet. Acetaminophen is a leading cause of liver failure. The panel of experts recommended that the maximum recommended single dose of acetaminophen be reduced to 650 milligrams per day, and that the drugs Vicodin and Percocet be eliminated. While the FDA is not required to adopt the recommendations made by the panel of experts, it usually does. The FDA has issued an FAQ for consumers.

Studies Call Into Question Value Of Prostate Screening Test

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)7801 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The PSA blood test is a screening test that measures a protein produced by cells in the prostate gland. The test is used to screen patients for the possible presence of cancer in the prostate. The general thought is that the higher a PSA score, then the more likely that cancer is present. Two recent studies have called into question whether the PSA test actually saves lives. These studies do not contest the reliability of the PSA test itiself. Rather, the studies call into question whether early detection of prostate cancer through PSA testing actually saves lives. The studies are continuing, so additional data could potentially lead to new results.

Shevlin Smith is a boutique law firm that specializes in the representation of victims of medical malpractice. We handle cases in Washington, D.C. and all of Virginia. We have extensive experience handling cancer cases. Please contact us if you beleve that you or a loved may have been a victim of medical malpractice.

Study Shows Link Between Death and ADHD Drugs

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)9031 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

A new study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry shows a link between the use of ADHD drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall and sudden death in children and adolescents. The study was funded by the Food & Drug Admininstration and the National Institute of Mental Health. The FDA has issued a statement indicated that the benfits of ADHD drug use still outweigh the risks, but has urged parents to discuss the safety issues with their children's doctors.

New Research Challenges Wisdom of Routine Removal of Ovaries

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)8239 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:00:00 EST

New research published in the May, 2009 journal Obstetrics & Gynecology challenges the wisdom of removing ovaries during a hysterectomy. This procedure is known as a bilateral oophorectomy. Historically, the performance of a bilateral oophorectomy during a hysterectomy was justified on the grounds that it would reduce a woman's risk of ovarian cancer. While research has confirmed that reduction in risk, new research has shown that the performance of a bilateral oophorectomy increases a woman's risk for heart disease, stroke and death, and this increased risk might be higher than the reduction of the risk for ovarian cancer.

"Best Lawyers in America" recognizes all three Shevlin Smith attorneys

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)6552 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

Since 1983, Best Lawyers has compiled lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. The newest edition, Best Lawyers in America (2008), is based on more than two million detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers. Because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be included, a listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded within the legal profession as a signal honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers. For 25 years, Best Lawyers lists have earned the respect of the profession, the media, and the public, as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.

Federal Court Strikes Down Dangerous Trucking Law

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)6551 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

A federal appeals court strikes down for the second time a Bush administration regulation that increased the number of hours that truck drivers are permitted to drive without rest.

Lives Saved in 2007 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking Age Laws

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)6550 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

This month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration (NHTSA) reported its statistics on the number of lives saved in 2007 by seatbelt use and by minimum drinking age laws. Nationally, over 15,000 lives were saved by seatbelt use in 2007, and over 800 lives were saved by minimum drinking age laws. In Virginia, over 300 lives were saved by seatbelt use alone. To see all of the statisitical data concerning seatbelt use and minimum drinking age laws, click here.

World Health Organization Issues a Checklist to Make Operations Safer

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)6548 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

The New York Times reports that the World Health Organization has issued guidelines aimed at making operations safer. The guidelines are a list of simple safety checks that the health organization said could halve the rate of surgical complications. The guidelines are a list of simple safety checks that the health organization said could halve the rate of surgical complications. The guidelines seek to improve anesthetic safety practices, avoid infections and improve communication among members of surgical teams.

FDA Believes That Heparin Contamination Was Likely Intentional

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)6546 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

The New York Times reports that the Food & Drug Administation (FDA) now believes that contaminates found in Heparin (a popular blood thinning medication) were added deliberately. Contaminated Heparin led to the 81 deaths and illnesses to hundreds earlier this year. The contamination is believed to have occurred at Chinese manufacturing plants, and resulted in part from the failure of the FDA to inspect that plant.

Safety Alert Issued for Heparin

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)5829 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

This past week the Joint Commission has issued a safety alert concerning the use of blood thinners, including Heparin. The alert comes in the aftermath of almost 60,000 errors, 1,700 injuries, and 28 deaths involving blood thinners. The safety alert mandates that hospitals use stricter measures when administering blood thinners. These measures include bar-coding technology for medicines or computerized drug orders, and the storage of adult-strength heparin away from children's units.

FDA Identifies Potential Problem Drugs

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)5655 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

Last year, Congress ordered the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to post quarterly listings of medications under investigation. The FDA released its first quarterly listing this month, identifying the following drugs as under investigation:

1.    R-Gene 10, a growth hormone, pediatric overdose due to labeling/packaging confusion.
2.    Suprane, an anesthetic, cardiac arrest.
3.    Cymbalta, for depression and other conditions, urinary retention.
4.    Intelence, an HIV medication, bleeding into joints.
5.    Carac and Kuric, creams for skin conditions and fungal infections, name confusion.
6.    Heparin, a blood-thinner, serious allergic reactions.
7.    Extraneal, used in kidney dialysis, low blood sugars.
8.    Humilin R, for diabetes, dosing confusion.
9.    Stromectol and Warfarin, an anti-parasite drug and a blood thinner, drug interaction.
10. Tykerb, for advanced breast cancer, liver damage.
11. Revlimid, for multiple myeloma, severe skin blistering and bleeding.
12. Tysabri, for multiple sclerosis, skin melanomas.
13. Nitrostat, for angina, overdose due to labeling confusion.
14. Sandostatin LAR, for abnormal bone growth, bowel obstruction.
15. Oxycontin, a pain killer, drug misuse, abuse and overdose.
16. Definity, used in cardiac imaging, cardiopulmonary reactions.
17. Dilantin injection, for epileptic seizures, serious skin reaction.
18. Seroquel, for bipolar disorder, overdose due to sample pack labeling confusion.
19. Tyzeka, for chronic hepatitis B, nerve damage.
20. Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Blockers, for juvenile arthritis, cancers in children and young adults.

Virginia Super Lawyers recognize Thomas G. Smith and Michael J. Shevlin

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)5236 — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

Thomas G. Smith and Michael J. Shevlin have been named by Virginia Super Lawyers magazine as two of the top attorneys in Virignia for 2008 in two areas of law -- Medical Malpractice and General Personal Injury. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers.

The selections for Super Lawyers are made by Law & Politics, a division of Key Professional Media, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minn. Each year, Law & Politics undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by Law & Politics’ attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check.

Law & Politics publishes Super Lawyers magazines across the country. In addition to the magazines, Law & Politics publishes newspaper inserts and magazine special sections devoted to Super Lawyers. In 2008, Super Lawyers will reach more than 13 million readers.

Super Lawyers was first published in Minnesota in 1991. William White, attorney and founding publisher, remains the publisher today. Law & Politics is owned by attorney Vance Opperman, the former president of West Publishing.

Super Lawyers can be found online at superlawyers.com, where lawyers can be searched by practice area and location.

Virginia Supreme Court Denies Charitable Immunity For Doctors

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)4415 — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Brain injuries cause half of seniors' fall deaths

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)5128 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

Tom Smith Named Washington D.C. Metro "Super Lawyer"

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)4463 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Tom Smith again has been named a Super Lawyer in the field of Plaintiff's Personal Injury:Medical Malpractice in Metro DC for 2008. He has previously received this honor in 2007 in both Metro DC and Virginia. Other attorneys in Virginia nominate and vote for honorees, and only 5% of the attorneys in Virginia receive this designation.

FDA Cautions Use of the Blood Thinning Drug Heparin

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)4267 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

The New York Times reports that the Food and Drug Administration has cautioned against the use of Herapin, a popular blood-thinning drug. Concern has arisen after hundreds of patients experienced adverse reactions to the medication, including a number of deaths.

Two Northern Virginia Obstetricians Formally Reprimanded

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)4054 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

This month the Virginia State Board of Medicine reprimaned two Northern Virginia obstetricians for their handling of births that resulted in devastating, lifelong injuries to infants during delivery. The reprimands become part of a doctor's permanent record and appear on a physician's public profile at www.vahealthprovider.com/search.asp The names of the two obstetricians are Dr. Evelyn Anna Ruelaz of Fairfax County and Dr. Regina Burton of Woodbridge. A recent news article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch announced the Board's findings.

Mass General Hospital study finds gaps between doctors' standards and actions

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3845 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:00:00 EST

Rhode Island Hospital Makes Third Brain Injury Mistake This Year

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3846 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:00:00 EST

Illinois Court Declares State Cap On Medical Malpractice Damages Unconstitutional

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3728 — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:00:00 EST

Bristol Myers Strengthens Warning on Ultrasound Drug Definity

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3563 — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

New treatments prevent brain injury after strokes in rats

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3443 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

Although these studies did not involve human trials, they are believed to have important potential implications for treatment of ischemic brain injury among humans.

New Discovery Shows Adult Human Brain Has Ability To Change Its Functioning - Findings May Lead To New Treatments For Brain Injured Patients

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3444 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

Research Breakthrough Suggests New Treatment for Spinal Cord Injuries

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3445 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

A study out of The Medical University of South Carolina found that the drug atorvastatin, commonly known as Lipitor, helped animal models with hind-limb paralysis show significant functional recovery and less secondary tissue damage. The study is viewed as extremely valuable in efforts to preserve human neurological function and walking following spinal cord injuries. The study was published in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of Neurochemistry (101, 182-200).

New Clinical Study Casts Doubt About The Safety of Diabetes Drugs

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3380 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

This article published in the New York Times discusses the findings of two recent clinical studies that studied the safety of two different diabetes drugs. Both studies were published recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association. One study examined the risks associated with the drug Avandia. It found that the drug doubled the risks of heart failure and raised the risks of heart attack by 42 percent. These findings mirrored previous findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning Avandia. A second study found that Actos, a similar drug to Avandia, actually lowered the risks of heart attacks, strokes and death but, like Avandia, also raised risks of heart failure.

Two-Year Study Questions The Safety Of Drug-Coated Stents For Heart Attack Patients

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3353 — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

This article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, reported on a two-year study analyzing 2,300 patients in 14 countries. According to the study, patients given drug-coated stents after an acute heart attack are nearly five times as likely to die six months to two years later as compared to those with bare metal stents. Doctors at the European Society of Cardiology meeting said the finding showed the need to be very selective about giving drug stents to the right patients. At the same time, experts emphasized that there were differences among the patients in the study that could have affected the outcome, and that these findings aren't the final word on the safety of drug-coated stents for heart-attack patients.

Pattern of Greed 2007: How Insurance Companies Put Profits Over Policyholders

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3344 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

This article published by the American Association for Justice examines the record profits earned by property casualty companies this decade and questions the track record of these companies in handling policyholder claims following some of the biggest natural disasters in U.S. history. Its findings are likely to shock you.

Dangers of Drug Patches Overlooked

MShevlin@ShevlinSmith.Com (News Author)3265 — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:00:00 EST