Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

One often overlooked instance of medical negligence / malpractice occurs when a patient suffers an adverse / allergic reaction to IV contrast prior to undergoing a CT scan, MRI or other radiological procedure. Millions of radiology studies are performed utilizing IV contrast each year. In many instances, this reaction occurs in patients with no known risk factors and thus cannot be reasonably anticipated. Most adverse reactions are minor and pass with nothing more than temporary discomfort to the patient. Although rare (somewhere on the order of 1:250,000 patients), a patient will suffer a severe reaction, called an anaphylactoid or idiosyncratic event, a reaction that can be life life threatening if not properly understood and treated. In such instances, it is often the lack of proper and timely care following the reaction that serves as grounds for a medical negligence lawsuit. In our experience, the following steps and measures should be taken in order to comply with the standard of care: (1) prior to the radiology procedure, the radiologist or physician should obtain a patient’s informed consent to proceed with the procedure and, in the course of that discussion, discuss the risk of serious injury or death from a contrast reaction; (2) in patients with known previous reactions to IV contrast, premedication should be prescribed; (3) a physician should be available to lead the response to any reaction; (4) emergency response equipment and medications are readily accessible; (5) radiologists or other imaging personnel are trained to recognize and respond to a reaction; (6) transport to an emergency facility or ICU is available in a timely fashion; and (7) a patient’s reaction is clearly documented in his/her chart so that the patient can pre-medicated for future contrast studies.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

As was recently reported by the Los Angeles Times, Kaiser Permanente was ordered to pay a former middle school administrator $5 million after his doctors negligently failed to recognize signs and symptoms that were consistent with an impending stroke, and instead erroneously diagnosed him with a migraine headache. In 2008, the 48 year old Plaintiff presented to the health care providers with a primary complaint of headaches and episodic blindness, signs and symptoms that were consistent with a tear in his carotid artery. The plaintiff was evaluated by several doctors, including a neurologist, none of whom considered or ruled out the possibility that he was suffering from a carotid tear. According to the Plaintiff’s attorney, in men under the age of 60, a carotid tear is one of the most common causes of episodic blindness. Instead, the Plaintiff’s doctors diagnosed him with an opthalmic migraine headache. Had the proper diagnosis been made, the Plaintiff would have been treated promptly with medication, which in turn, would have allowed the artery to repair itself within a matter of months. Instead, the tear went untreated for weeks, ultimately resulting in a Thanksgiving evening stroke. That stroke resulted in the Plaintiff being partially paralyzed, wheelchair bound and unable to work or care for himself. A subsequent infection, resulted in the need to amputate the Plaintiff’s legs. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff claimed damages that included past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings and benefits and damages associated with his past and future pain, suffering and emotional distress.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Like most Americans, when you go to a hospital, especially a very-well known one, you probably place a great deal of trust in the doctors, nurses and other health care providers to properly and timely diagnose whatever may be ailing you. As we are all too often reminded, however, health care providers are not perfect. Sometimes, as in all fields, the very people who have the education, training and experience to diagnose your illness fail to recognize critical signs and symptoms necessary to do just that. As a result, your illness either goes undiagnosed and causes you further injury or is eventually diagnosed at a much later date, well after irreversible injury has occurred. Sadly, the end result of these failures to diagnose or timely diagnose is often devastating or even fatal. When these kinds of mistakes are made, medical negligence often has occurred, and you or your loved ones may have the right to financial compensation.

As a lawyer, proving that a health care provider failed to properly and/or timely diagnose you with a particular illness (for example, cancer) is meticulously challenging process. In every case, our lawyers rely upon and enlist the support of expert medical professionals in various areas of expertise around the country, such as oncology (in a cancer case) or infectious disease (in the case of an unexplained injury caused by infection) to assist in understanding the ins and outs of the medicine. With the help of these experts, in these kinds of cases our lawyers must generally prove that: (1) the health care provider in question did truly fail to diagnose the victim’s condition and/or take the necessary steps to refer that patient to a specialist in the right field to facilitate a diagnosis; (2) that the failure of the health care provider to do the above constituted a departure from the standard of care (what a reasonable physician would do in similar circumstances); and (3) that the failure to diagnose or timely diagnose the victim with his/her illness caused him/her to suffer further complications, injuries or death.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Recent statistics indicate that over 8000 infants each year are diagnosed with some degree of cerebral palsy following their birth. What was once thought to be an unfortunate complication of the birthing process, is now subjected to more scrutiny as leading experts agree that many instances of cerebral palsy could have been prevented by proper medical care during the labor and delivery process. Cerebral palsy is a complex medical condition that ranges in severity from mild to severe. Typically, those afflicted with cerebral palsy have an inability to control their motor function; i.e., they lack adequate muscle control and coordination. Common symptoms that can lead to a diagnosis of cerebral palsy include: involuntary movements of limbs; muscle spasticity (tightness), inability to walk properly (gait); seizures, breathing problems or difficulty swallowing; bladder and bowel continence issues; learning disabilities, and the impairment of one or more senses (sight, hearing, etc.). More severe cases may also result in a child having difficulty speaking. In addition, many children experience profound cognitive deficits and/or educational limitations attributable to the deprivation of oxygen that they experienced while in utero or during their delivery.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

For reasons that our lawyers and all of our clients do not agree with, if a loved one dies in Maryland as a result of medical malpractice, the maximum cap on non–economic damages is significantly lower than the maximum cap if that same person were to die as the result of a negligent automobile user or negligence while on the job. As many of you may know, the enactment of these “caps” on non-economic damages were the result of what is known as a “tort reform” movement that swept across this country in the early 2000s. In Maryland, “tort reform” became a hot button topic as well. In 2005, the Maryland legislature passed a bill in 2005 that put into place this reduced cap on non-economic damages. As lawyers who routinely see first hand the emotional trauma, pain and suffering that our clients experience as the result of medical malpractice, we strongly believe that these caps unfairly penalize victims of medical negligence who, through no fault of their own, have had their lives irrevocably changed as a result of someone’s else’s negligence.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

For claims arising after January 1, 2010 in Maryland, if there is only one wrongful death beneficiary (i.e., a man with a wife but no children dies), and the negligence that caused the death is not related to medical malpractice, the maximum non–economic recovery for that accident is $1,480,000 ($740,000 for the survival action brought by the decedent’s personal representative and $740,000 for the wrongful death action brought by the wife). If there are 2 or more wrongful death beneficiaries under the same set of circumstances, however, the maximum non–economic recovery is $1,850,000 ($740,000 for the survival action and $1,110,000 for the wrongful death action).

For claims arising after January 1, 2011 in Maryland, if there is only one wrongful death beneficiary (i.e., a man with a wife but no children dies), and the negligence that caused the death is not related to medical malpractice, the maximum non–economic recovery for that accident is $1,510,000 ($755,000 for the survival action brought by the decedent’s personal representative and $755,000 for the wrongful death action brought by the wife). If there are 2 or more wrongful death beneficiaries under the same set of circumstances, however, the maximum non–economic recovery is $1,887,500 ($755,000 for the survival action and $1,132,500 for the wrongful death action).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

As has been recently published in newspapers and reported on by the various news agencies, it has been alleged that hundreds and hundreds of unnecessary cardiac stent surgeries were performed by Dr. Mark Midei at St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, Maryland. These allegations are giving rise to medical malpractice claims by the recipients of the stent implants that are alleged not to have been needed in the first place. Silverman Thompson’s attorneys are actively investigating and pursuing these claims. To date, there have been seven articles about this fiasco in the Baltimore Sun, consisting of the following:

• 1/15/10 Patients learn they might have unneeded stents.
• 1/22/10 Heart-stent popularity is costly in many ways.
• 1/23/10 Suit alleges heart implant unnecessary.
• 1/28/10 Lawyers see profits in stent cases.
• 1/29/10 Lawyers look for clients in cases of possibly unneeded stents.
• 2/20/10 Senators launch fraud inquiry of Md. hospital.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Two Montana nursing homes recently reached a mid-trial settlement in a wrongful death case arising out of allegations that nurses and staff at the nursing home were negligent in the provision of health care to 87-year-old Ralph Seewald. The lawsuit, brought following Mr. Seewald’s November 2005 death from an infection, alleged that nurses failed to properly monitor and support Mr. Seewald during a transfer from his wheelchair, omissions that led to him falling and breaking his neck. As a result of this incident, Mr. Seewald was forced to be bedridden for a period of months. During this time, however, nursing staff negligently permitted him to develop severe pressure ulcers/sores that gradually worsened. Ultimately, the untreated pressure ulcers caused Mr. Seewald to develop a fatal case of gangrene (a blood infection). In the lawsuit, Mr. Seewald’s surviving family members sought damages associated with his pain suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, medical and funeral expenses and loss of companionship.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Earlier this month, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a medical malpractice statute that had limited the amount of money a victim of medical malpractice could recover for pain and suffering from a hospital or health care provider. The 2005 law had created a cap of $1,000,000 on any award for pain and suffering against a hospital and $500,000 on any award for pain and suffering against an individual health care provider. As in Maryland, proponents of the legislation (doctors and insurance companies) had argued that caps on monetary damages were the only and best way to curb rising health care insurance costs/premiums. In striking down the law, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the law violated the State’s separation of powers clause between branches of government by permitting the legislature to interfere with the jury’s right to determine and award damages.

In Maryland, a similar cap on non-economic damages exists. To date, efforts to have the cap overturned have been unsuccessful despite similar arguments to those made in Illinois being raised.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 01, 2017 in Medical Malpractice

Last week, two Maryland senators re-introduced a bill aimed at excluding any apology from a health care provider to a patient following the rendering of care in a subsequent medical negligence/malpractice trial. Presently, in Maryland, if a health care provider extends an apology for an adverse result or expresses regret, those statements may not be used against the health care provider in a civil trial, with one exception. That exception is triggered if, in making the apology or statement of regret, the health care provider also admits wrongdoing or negligent care whether it is during a procedure or during the care of a particular patient. In such a circumstance, a patient may use that statement of guilt against the physician of a subsequent trial. The bill proposed by the two Maryland senators seeks to eliminate that exception.

Two competing interests are at heart in the debate over this proposed bill. On the one hand, physicians argue that if open communication between the physician and patient is encouraged; i.e., allow the doctor to say he made a mistake, the end result will be fewer lawsuits and legal fees. In fact, many of our clients often state that if physicians had only apologized for what had happened during a particular procedure or during the care of a loved one, they would not have felt compelled to bring a lawsuit against the doctor. On the other hand, advocates for patients argue that the current law does more than enough to protect health care providers and insulate them from liability for their humanistic response to an medical error; i.e., a statement of regret or apology. Patient’s advocates argue that doctor’s should be truthful with their patients regardless of a bad outcome or the potential for liability, and that a law further shielding health care providers from liability for these statements unfairly prejudices the injured patient even further.

Continue Reading ››