Posted on October 11, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A jury in a medical malpractice case returned a jury verdict of $9.9 million last week to a Kentucky woman who suffered severe injuries and damages after routine heart surgery. The woman had surgery on her mitral valve in her heart in April 2006. The surgery took less than an hour and was successful. However, during the sugery, the surgeon allegedly misplaced the cannula, or hose, for a machine that pumps blood during the surgery. The woman claimed during the trial that the misplacement caused too much blood and oxygen to be pumped to her right hand and too little to her brain and spinal cord, causing her to no longer be able to walk due to paraplegia and to suffer mild to moderate brain damage.

The jury awarded the woman $455,229.06 in past medical experiences, $4,426,408.72 for future medical bills, $482,538 in lost wages and $4.5 million for pain and suffering. The total verdict was $9,864,175.78. The jury found that the anesthesiologist was responsible for 23 percent of the fault, and the perfusionist, the person who operates the heart-lung machine, was responsible for 41 percent of fault. Since the hospital defendant had already settled with the patient and did not participate in the trial, the verdict only will affect the surgeon. The jury assigned 31 percent of fault to the surgeon, or $3,057,894.49 of the total damages sought. Unless overturned during post-trial motions or on appeal, that portion of the verdict will be paid by the surgeon’s insurance company.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 09, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Attorney – Baltimore Criminal Attorney Most people are aware that in Maryland a person who has been convicted of a violent crime or a felony may not possess handguns. People seem to be less aware of restrictions involving other weapons such as rifles, shotguns, assault weapons and antique firearms. I have blogged about this in the past and this blog is really intended to discuss possession of other weapons but I think an overview of the law on handgun possession will be helpful to the reader.

First of all, what exactly is the definition of a handgun under Maryland Law? One would think that this would be a relatively straightforward and easy question to answer. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are two separate definitions under two of the three sections of the Maryalnd Code that criminalize handgun and firearm possession. Under Public Safety 5-101(n) a handgun is defined as a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches. Under this section a handgun includes signal, starter and blank pistols. Under Criminal Law Section 4-201(c) a handgun is defined as a pistol revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person. Under this definition a handgun includes short-barrelled rifles which is defined as a firearm having a barrel less than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches; and shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches. Under this definition a standard rifle, shotgun or any antique firearm is not deemed to be a handgun. Presumably this definition would also include starter pistols since they are included in the definition of a firearm under the Public Safety Article definition, but would not include signal or blank pistols as they are not included in that definition. Very confusing to say the least.

The next question is who is disqualified under Maryland Law from possessing firearms and handguns. Under Maryland law there are basically two classes of citizens who are disqualified from owning or possessing handguns and subject to criminal penalties if they are convicted of being in possession of a firearm that is classified as a handgun. The first classification deals with persons who have been convicted of either of a crime of violence or a felony drug charge. The following offenses are classified as crimes of violence in Maryland: Abduction, Arson in the First Degree, Assault in the First of Second Degree, Burglary in the First, Second or Third Degree, Carjacking and Armed Carjacking, Escape in the First Degree, Kidnapping, Voluntary Manslaughter, Murder, Rape in the First or Second Degree, Robbery, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Sexual Offense in the First, Second or Third Degree, Attempts to commit any of these crimes and Assault with the Intent to Commit any of these crimes.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 01, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Attorney – Baltimore Criminal Attorney I was hired today to represent a freshman at Towson University who got charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. It is a typical case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time as well as a clear case of overcharging by the police as I have discussed in previous blogs. Although I believe the case will work out favorably in the long run, it will certainly have some short term criminal and administrative consequences.

My client moved into the dorms at Towson University just a few weeks ago. He didn’t have any high school friends who were also attending the university so he signed up to be randomly assigned roommates. He soon learned that his new roommates were marijuana smokers who frequently smoked in the dorm room. This past Saturday that careless habit came back to haunt them because one of the RA’s apparently smelled the smoke coming from their room and called the police.

The Towson University Police soon arrived and knocked on the door. The officer asked if they had any marijuana at which point my client’s roommate produce eight small bags each containing approximately 1 gram of marijuana. The officer arrested them both and charged them both with felony possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. As I said it is a typical case of overcharging by a police officer. The felony charge is a stretch against the roommate and is laughable against my client.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 29, 2008 in Personal Injury

All of Maryland is deeply saddened by the weekend crash of a Maryland medical evacuation helicopter over the weekend. Four people were killed in the late-night crash in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reports the victims included the aircraft’s pilot, a crew member, a civilian medic and a patient.

The men and women who heroically serve on Maryland’s medevac teams are instrumental in saving thousands of Marylanders each year by responding swiftly and professionally to accident and vehicle crash sites. The cause of this accident remains unknown and is still under investigation. All 11 remaining Maryland medical evacuation helicopters will remain grounded until the cause of the crash is determined. These medevac helicopters are similar in make and model to the one that crashed over the weekend.

Five people survived this crash and were taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. Maryland medevac helicopters fly around 5,000 missions each year. There has not been a major accident or fatality in the past two decades. All Marylanders respect and appreciate the selfless work of the brave men and women of the Maryland medevac team and grieve with them and the families of those who lost their lives.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Attorney – Baltimore Criminal Attorney I represented a client today on a possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance case today in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. In this case the particular substance was amphetamines and the case presents a good example of how many narcotics detectives overcharge certain cases – presumably to inflate their own felony arrest statistics.

In this case the client was pulled over for a routine traffic offense. The officer claimed, as they frequently do, that he smelled the odor of burning marijuana coming from the car. (The Court of Appeals ruled approximately 15 years ago that the smell of marijuana alone constitutes probable cause. As one might imagine after that ruling was handing down, police officers across Maryland began to smell marijuana on car stops with increasing frequency). The officer ordered my client out of the car and commenced a search of the vehicle. Inside the vehicle the officer found a small amount of cocaine and two percocets, which for anyone who doesn’t know, is a prescription narcotic. He arrested my client and charged him with possession of a controlled dangerous substance.

Approximately 10 days later the officer went to a judge and got a search warrant signed for the search of my client’s home. This in and of itself is pretty disturbing because there was absolutely no indication that my client was involved in the distribution of controlled dangerous substances as well as the fact that the officer waited almost two weeks before applying for the warrant. Typically, detectives will only seek a search warrant for a person’s home if they have reason to believe that the person is a dealer, not a mere. Moreover, they usually apply for the warrant and conduct the search while the person remains in custody for the original arrest. If anything is recovered in the search then charges are simply added on to the charge for which the person was originally arrested. The delay caused my client to be arrested twice which may be good for the officer’s stats but seems a bit unfair to me.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

Today, MSNBC ran a story about Operating Room fires. The article states that the latest data reveals about 600 cases annually. These fires, sometimes called surgery fires or surgical fires, are completely preventable occurrences.

I have successfully handled a number of these cases, including operative room burns and unintended surgical burns. In these cases, the patient caught on fire because the surgeon did not keep the cautery device away from the oxygen that was being given to the patient during the surgery. The patient also received oxygen at too high a concentration, thereby contributing the likelihood of fire. Doctors and hospitals have known for decades how to prevent surgical fires, yet they still occur. I would say that any time a patient catches on fire during surgery it is a clearly due to medical malpractice and should result in a malpractice lawsuit.

We handle cases like these all of the time in my practice.

Contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Our firm has represented both doctors and and Web sites who are under investigation or have been charged with prescribing controlled substances via the Web.

The growing number of Web sites that offer consumers the opportunity to obtain prescription medications pursuant to an online medical consultation have been attracting considerable regulatory scrutiny from state and federal health officials.

For example, in Illinois, the Department of Professional Regulation suspended the license of Dr. Robert Filice for prescribing Viagra via an Internet pharmacy for patients he had never seen. Dr. Filice was working as a consultant for The Pill Box, a San Antonio, Texas-based pharmacy chain that sells online. The state suspended Dr. Filice’s license immediately because it determined his actions put people in danger. The agency later reinstated his license when he admitted that his conduct was "unprofessional." The physician was fined $1,000, put on a two-year probation, and ordered to not prescribe medication to patients without personally interviewing and examining them.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A. Statute of Limitations:

Medical malpractice actions are actions for injury to the person or wrongful death, which must be brought within two years. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2) (LEXIS 2003). Pennsylvania courts have adopted a discovery rule for injuries to the person. When the existence of an injury is not known to the claimant, and such knowledge cannot be reasonably ascertained within the two-year period, the statute does not begin to run until the discovery of the injury is reasonably possible. Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320, 608 A.2d 1040 (1992). The discovery rule does not apply in death cases, however. Pastierik v. Duquesne Light Co., 514 Pa. 517, 526 A.2d 323 (1987). For medical malpractice cases arising on or after March 20, 2002, the discovery rule is limited by a seven-year statute of repose that runs from the date of the act (two years for death cases)

B. Modified Rule of Comparative Negligence:

Pennsylvania has adopted a modified rule of comparative negligence. A plaintiff’s recovery is barred only if his contributory negligence is greater than the causal negligence of the defendants against whom recovery is sought. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(a) (LEXIS 2003). Otherwise, the plaintiff’s damages are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him. Id.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

Generally, recovery in Maryland for malpractice against a physician/psychiatrist is allowed only where there is a relationship between the doctor and patient. This relationship may be established by contract, express or implied, and the fact that a physician does not deal directly with a patient does not necessarily preclude the existence of a physician-patient relationship.

Complaints of malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress with regard to third parties have been reviewed by Maryland Courts. In the case of Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (Md. 2005), Mr. Dehn underwent a vasectomy. According to Mr. Dehn, his primary care physician advised him that he could resume engaging in unprotected intercourse with his wife without fear of pregnancy, despite the fact that requisite tests had yet to be performed. Mrs. Dehn subsequently became pregnant and sued her husband’s primary care physician, claiming that the physician had negligently counseled her husband. The Court held that there was no independent cause of action for a patient’s wife against a doctor who acted negligently while treating her husband because there was no relationship or direct interaction with the wife.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 25, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

An Indiana jury has returned a $8.1 million medical malpractice verdict in favor of a 33 year old mother of two, whose cancer was not timely diagnosed and treated. Apparently, the woman had a growth removed from her bit toe in 2004 by a local podiatrist, who did not test the growth at the time. When the growth resurfaced two years later, it was tested and the test revealed malignant melanoma. The woman claimed in her malpractice lawsuit that the doctor should have tested the tissue from the excised growth. Now in stage three of the cancer, she has just a 17 percent chance of living another 12 years, according to statistics
Interestingly, the doctor’s medical practice apparently failed to participate in the state program that caps malpractice damages at $1.25 million for all care providers involved in a case. Nevertheless, the doctor will be shielded by Indiana’s $250,000 damages cap on all damages against individual doctors under the law. The woman’s lawyers will have to pursue attempting to recover the verdict from the doctor’s medical practice. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››