Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

According to the Tennessean. Tennessee nursing homes rank No. 48 (beating only Louisiana and Georgia), according to new survey information out from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Less than 7% of the nursing homes in Tennessee were rated above average.

The paper reports that

 "[o]f the 40 nursing homes listed in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson counties, 11 fell well below average. Three of those — Briley Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Whites Creek, Greenhills Health and Rehabilitation Center in Nashville and Cumberland Manor Nursing Center in Nashville — not only received the poorest marks for overall quality, but also received the lowest possible score in every category."

Many plaintiff’s lawyers from across the state received assessments from the Department of Commerce and Insurance for failure to report data concerning medical malpractice settlements and judgments received during the prior year.  Many of the penalities approach $20,000 and, as one lawyer told me, the penality he has been assessed is greater than the fee he received in the case.

Some people have asserted that the reason plaintiff’s lawyers have to report this data is my fault.  That is not accurate.  Here are the facts.

Since 1986 I have pushed for mandatory reporting of medical malpractice verdicts and settlements data.  Unfortunately, the state of Tennessee only recently began keeping data on verdicts in med mal cases, and most settlements are cloaked with a confidentiality agreement.  Therefore, we had no good data to fight the constant whining by the medical community that there was a med mal litigation crisis. 

The U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services has a website that delivers information on how well hospitals care for patients with certain medical conditions or surgical procedures, and the results of a survey of patients about the quality of care the patients received  during a recent hospital stay.

The site is here.

The Federation of State Medical Boards has a website that allows you to order professional information on physicians and physician assistants.  The reports include infomoration about disciplinary sanctions, education, medical specialty, licensure history and locations.  The cost of each report is $9.95.

Go the this site to place an order.

Limited information on Tennessee doctors (and other licensed health care providers) can be obtained for free at this site.

The Administrative Office of the Courts has released the form that must be filed by plaintiffs in medical negligence cases (and by defendants who allege fault of another health care provider).  Both forms are available here.

In general, a plaintiff must file the certificate within 90 days after filing suit.

My partner Rebecca Blair had an article about the new statute published as the cover story of the Tennessee Bar Journal.   The article can be viewed here.

The Tennessee State Board of Medical Examiners has a policy about prescribing drugs.  It applies to any prescription written for a patient, whether in person, electronically, or over the Internet. 

The policy includes the following:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be a prima facie violation of T.C.A. 63-6-214 (b) (1), (4), and (12) for a physician to prescribe or dispense any drug to any individual, whether in person or by electronic means or over the Internet or over
telephone lines, unless the physician has first done and appropriately documented, for the person to whom a prescription is to be issued or drugs dispensed, all of the following:
(a) Performed an appropriate history and physical examination; and
(b) Made a diagnosis based upon the examinations and all diagnostic and laboratory tests consistent with good medical care; and
(c) Formulated a therapeutic plan, and discussed it, along with the basis for it and the risks and benefits of various treatments options, a part of which might be the
prescription or dispensing drug, with the patient; and
(d) Insured availability of the physician or coverage for the patient for appropriate
follow-up care.

Paragraph  (2) provides as follows:

Nursing homes continue to attempt to avoid trial by jury by requiring residents to sign arbitration ageements.  And the Tennessee courts continue to insist that if nursing homes are going to do so they must follow the law.

Here are two decisions that refuse to enforce arbitration provisions in nursing home contracts because they contracts were signed by a person other than the nursing home resident or appropriate representative:  McKey and Ricketts.  Both cases were decided on August 15 by the Tennessee Court of Appeals and were authored by Judge Andy Bennett.

 UPDATE:  And here is another decision, this one from Special Judge Walter Kurtz:  Jones.   Jones was released on August 20, 2008.

Tennessee permits a plaintiff to rely on the res ipsa loquitor  doctrine in medical negligence cases when appropriate under the facts.  For the most recent Tennessee case on the issue see Flowers v. H.C.A. Health Care Services of Tennessee, Inc., 2006 WL 627183 ((Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2006).

But take a look at this case out of Missouri.  It holds that a plaintiff can rely on res ipsa in a case where the plaintiff got an E. coli infection after back surgery.

The Missouri Court noted that "Plaintiffs have alleged that all defendants were in control or had a right of control of the instrumentalities from which her infection was obtained, that the infection in the surgical site itself is one that does not occur in the absence of negligence, that the defendants all were negligent, that she was unconscious and has no knowledge of how the infection occurred, and that the defendants have superior knowledge of how it occurred."  The plaintiff had an expert to support this position but who could not say how the infection actually occurred.

How does SVMIC evaluate claims?   Here is what they tell their insureds.

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled unconstitutional a state statute that imposed certain requirements on expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases.  The statute required that experts be board certified in the same specialty as the defendant and mandated that the expert have practiced (or taught) that same specialty for the year prior to their testimony.

The Court ruled that it was the job of the courts to make rules relative to matters of procedure and that the legislature could not infringe on the role of the courts.

The case is Seisinger v. Siebel,  No 1 CA-CV 07-0266 (AZ. Ct. App. June 17, 2008).  Read it here.