Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Several weeks ago, a Charlotte County, Florida jury returned a $23 million dollar verdict against Peace River Regional Medical Center and Michael Coffey, M.D. in a medical malpractice case arising out of a baby girl who was born with a severe brain injury. According to the Complaint that was filed in this matter, in August 2010, the girl’s mother presented to the hospital multiple times during her pregnancy with classic signs of a troubled pregnancy – signs that included high blood pressure, high levels of protein in her blood and decreased fetal movement. Despite these warnings signs, the mother did not receive the necessary care and treatment she required. According to the expert obstetricians who testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, these findings required the Defendant health care providers to constantly monitor the health and well-being of the pregnancy, administer steroids designed to prevent a premature delivery. Because these treatments were not provided, Plaintiff’s experts alleged that the girl was born nearly 2 months premature. Babies that are born prematurely often experience severe pulmonary (lung) or brain injuries because those organs have not had the proper amount of time to fully develop and/or mature. In particular, the most important time period for the development and maturation of a baby’s lungs is between 27 weeks gestation and 37 weeks gestation. Babies that are born without the benefit of this lung maturation often are unable to breathe on their own and/or suffer injuries to their brain and/or other organs because an insufficient amount of oxygen is able to reach those organs. In the present case, the Plaintiff experienced a catastrophic brain injury around the time of her birth, an injury that occurred as the result of deprivation of suitable amounts of oxygen being delivered to the brain. She required hospitalization for the first 4 months of her life and her injuries are permanent. As a result of her injuries, the baby girl (who is four years of age now) must be fed through a feeding tube and must receive constant (24 hour) monitoring for strokes. The jury determined that the doctor was 70% at fault and the hospital was 30% at fault.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center recently reported that it paid $5.25 million to settle out of court a medical negligence claim brought by the parents of a brain-damaged baby that had been delivered in 2006. According to the Complaint, the child’s mother was admitted to the hospital at approximately 3:20 p.m.on April 28, 2006. She was noted to be in the early stages of labor. Her obstetrician, Walter B. Hull, M.D., failed to deliver her son until approximately 5:10 a.m. the following morning. During the course of the labor, Dr. Hull administered the drug Pitocin to the mother. Pitocin is a medication that increases the frequency and intensity of uterine contractions, essentially inducing delivery of the baby. The medication is given through an IV and the dosage is regulated by a pump. Whenever Pitocin is used, it is understood that the well-being of both the mother and the fetus must be monitored carefully. Pitocin is the synthetic brand name of the labor hormone, Oxytocin. It is well known, however, that one of the side effects of Pitocin is that it decreases the supply of blood and oxygen to the baby. Accordingly, when Pitocin is administered, it is important to monitor the baby carefully for changes in its condition. Moreover, delivery must occur within a certain amount of time so as to avoid the likelihood of injury to the baby. In short, if the labor is stalled, health care providers should intervene to prevent the mother and/or baby from developing an infection and/or sepsis.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

A St. Louis, Missouri man and his wife were awarded $6.4 million by a jury as the result of a preventable stroke that the man suffered in 2007. In early 1996, the man had been diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse, a heart condition in which one of the heart’s valves does not tightly close, resulting in the blood being able to flow backwards into the heart – a dangerous event. In 2001, the man’s primary care physician ordered an echocardiogram *(a test that uses wound waves to create a moving picture of the heart, images which are much more detailed than x-rays and which require no radiation exposure) which confirmed the existence of the condition. Sadly, after 2001, the primary care physician never again ordered any follow-up echocardiograms and/or referred the man to a cardiologist as the standard of care required.

In April 2007, the plaintiff suddenly began complaining of fatigue, abdominal pain and loss of appetite, classic signs and symptoms of mitral valve prolapse. The primary care physician, once again, failed to refer the man to a cardiologist or order any tests to examine his heart. The following month, May 2007, the plaintiff’s wife called the primary care physician and inquired if her husband should be admitted to the hospital for evaluation but the doctor said he should not. In June 2007, the plaintiff suffered a stroke caused by a bacterial infection on his heart valve. The stroke resulted in the man’s inability to use much of his right side, difficulty processing things mentally, an inability to process words and lost short-term memory. He also has been unable to work since the stroke, thereby incurring significant medical expenses and loss of earnings, not to mention the pain, suffering and emotional distress from which he suffers on a daily basis.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Perhaps the most pivotal components of medical malpractice lawsuit are the depositions of the expert witnesses. When trying to determine how the defendant’s conduct matched up with standards of care, attorneys on both side offer up medical experts to explain their position. The testimony of those experts is therefore crucial in getting to the crux of the disagreement.The back-and-forth in those depositions often determine the outcome of the legal matter.

Probe Following Deposition

For example, several years ago The Washington Times recently shared a story on one deposition that is making headlines not for the medical malpractice case for which it was taken but for what the defense’s medical expert admitted during questioning. The underlying case involved claims by a patient that she was burned by a surgical solution during an operation at the Washington Hospital Center several years ago. The defense team offered a surgeon as an expert witness in the case to rebut the charges. During the surgeon’s deposition he made some downright startling claims. In trying to explain that the surgical solution in question rarely ignites he said:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Many medical errors involve proactive mistakes from medical professionals–providing too much medication, applying too much force during an operation, and similar mistakes. However, malpractice can also take the form of omissions, when doctors fail to do something that a reasonable doctor would have done. Often that involves failing to notice that a patient has a life-threatening problem. If they do not treat it appropriately, serious injury or even death might result.

For example, Go Local recently shared the tragic story of a man who died after medical professionals did not act properly in responding to his complaints. According to the story the 56-year old went to the emergency room in severe abdominal pain. He rated it a “ten on a scale to ten.” Only a week before he had gallbladder surgery.

However, instead of taking significant action, the medical team (a doctor and nurse practitioner) gave him some medication and sent him on his way. A CT scan was not performed, and he was told not to do anything until a follow-up two days later. Before the follow-up appointment the patient’s wife called the facility over concerns that his situation had deteriorated. The doctor told her to try an over-the-counter drug but did not call for anything else to be done.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

It is easy to get confused when dealing with legal jargon. Even basic concepts that most are familiar with can be difficult to grasp in the context of an actual real-world situation. For example, most people have heard of the terms “medical malpractice” and “wrongful death.” Medical malpractice is professional misconduct by doctors, nurses, and others which harm a patient. Wrongful death refers to situation where one dies because of the negligence of another. But what if a medical patient dies as a result of the errors made by their doctor? Does that mean you have a medical malpractice claim? Do you have a wrongful death claim? Both? Something else?

For starters, it is important to note that it is your attorney’s job to sort through all of the technical details to ensure the appropriate process is followed. All that really matters are the words used and procedures followed when dealing with the court. Often there are colloquial phrases used to describe types of cases or legal actions which differ slightly from the technical aspects required when filing a lawsuit.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Comprehensive patient safety efforts include an endless list of focus areas-from the quality of medical devices used in the facility to the competence of the professionals engaged in high-risk procedures. There is no single cause of medical errors, and so the best efforts to tackle the problem leave no stone unturned.

Research into many of these issues offers helpful benchmarks to identify factors increasing and decreasing the risk of medical mistakes. For example, as you might expect, doctors who work longer hours (and get less sleep) are more likely to commit malpractice. Medical professionals who report less engagement with their colleagues (and worse communication) are also more likely to make a mistake.

What about age difference between doctors? Are older doctors more of a risk because of decreased physical and/or mental abilities? Or are younger, less experienced doctors a threat? From the evidence that is available now, there is no easy answers to these questions.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

In virtually all medical malpractice cases expert witnesses are needed to explain some of the more complex elements of the case to the judge or jury. In most matters, the experts will identify what a standard of care is in any given area and then explain if the defendant-medical professional did or did not meet that standard. This expert opinion is critical, because it is otherwise impossible for a lay person to truly know what should have been done. For example, a case may center on the misreading of a test which prevented a timely diagnosis. The jury cannot be expected to look at the test itself and determine on their own if the doctor should have identified the problem. Only another professional can explain what should have been spotted.

Yet, that is not to say that the typical community member is unable to identify negligence on their own in all medical malpractice matters. For example, some mistakes are so obvious that it is virtually a given that errors were made. In the medical community these mistakes are often called “Never Events,” because there is simply no excuse for their ever being committed. This include things like leaving objects inside the patient’s body or performing the wrong operation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

In the medical community they are called “never events”–mistakes that are so basic there is absolutely no excuse for them ever being committed. The prototype “never event” is a wrong-site surgery. This refers to situations where a surgeon performs the wrong operation, on the wrong part of the body, or on the wrong patient. Amazingly, these egregious errors are not nearly as rare as some might suspect. They occur far too often, usually when medical professionals cut corners and engage in lax safety protocols.

Wrong Operation

Just last month, a story from General Surgery News explained how one young boy was forced to undergo a second operation on his tongue because of one of these unacceptable medical errors. The report noted that that the doctor performed the wrong operation on the tongue to remove a growth. When asked about the error the doctor pointed fingers at others, suggesting that his staff should have told him to perform a “time out”–a waiting period to check on the basics before proceeding with an operation. Also, he admitted not to having seen the patient before the operation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

A Baltimore City jury recently returned a $1.42 million dollar verdict against local OB/GYN, Maureen Muoneke, M.D., in a case arising out of the removal of the wrong ovary of one of her long-time patients, Nadege Neim. During the trial, STSW lawyers successfully demonstrated that Dr. Muoneke had been treating Ms. Neim over the course of several years after having diagnosed her with a dermoid cyst on her left ovary. A dermoid cyst is a solid mass/growth on the ovary that contains such things as hair, teeth, glands and other sebacious materials. Dermoid cysts are well known to cause tortion (twisting) of the ovary which can result in loss of blood flow and death of the ovary and cancer. In addition, dermoid cysts are known to rupture, resulting in the spillage of the materials inside the cyst into the abdominal cavity causing severe chemical peritonitis, and even death. In August 2010, Dr. Muoneke recommended to Ms. Neim that she have the left dermoid cyst removed to avoid any future complications with any pregnancies. At the time, Ms. Neim was 29 years old. On September 22, 2010, Dr. Muoneke took Ms. Neim to surgery for the removal of the left dermoid cyst and possibly the left ovary in total if it proved too difficult to remove the cyst without damaging the healthy part of the ovary. Unfortunately, during the operation, Dr. Muoneke negligently removed Ms. Neim’s right ovary, her only completely healthy ovary. Perhaps more disturbingly, following the surgery, Dr. Muoneke never told Ms. Neim that she had removed the right ovary as opposed to the left ovary and never told her that she still had the dermoid cyst in her body. In fact, it was not until a month later that Ms. Neim found out through a routine CT scan at another hospital that her right ovary had been removed. Shockingly, when Ms. Neim attempted to contact Dr. Muoneke to discuss the CT scan results, Dr. Muoneke never returned her calls and refused to release Ms. Neim’s medical records to her. Following the filing of the lawsuit, STSW attorneys discovered, through the process of subpoenaing Dr. Muoneke’s records, that Dr. Muoneke had altered/changed at least two of Ms. Neim’s medical records from prior to the surgery to reflect the fact that Ms. Neim had complained of right sided pelvic pain prior to the surgery. This was a clear attempt to justify why she had removed the right ovary. At trial, Dr. Muoneke offered no explanation as to why there were two versions of Ms. Neim’s records, one that contained no complaints of right sided pelvic pain prior to surgery, and the doctored version that did contain those complaints. As a result of these efforts to cover her tracks, as well as the clear evidence of medical negligence in this case, the jury returned a verdict of $1.42 million in favor of Ms. Neim.

Continue Reading ››