Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

Judge Koch and the Court of Appeals for the Middle Section have ruled that a summary judgment in favor of a doctor in a medical malpractice case must be reversed because the plaintiff was not given adequate time to marshal the facts necessary to respond to it and submit an affidavit necessary to defeat the motion.

I have commented before that it is a mistake for lawyers to assume that a trial judge will automatically give a plaintiff additional time to respond to a motion for summary judgment. But this case tells us that a plaintiff must have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the motion, and recognizes that “[i]t is quite conceivable that careful experts will withhold rendering an opinion based on medical records or supporting affidavits alone.”

Say it again, brother. Lawyers who handle medical negligence cases know that the medical records tell only part of the story and that if you develop, in writing, a theory of the case based on the medical records any gaps in the records will be filled with facts contrary to your theory. Am I saying that health care providers lie? Oh, sometimes – they are human. But in the ordinary course “lie” is too strong of word. It is more accurate, and certainly more polite, to say that most human beings tend to resolve doubts in favor of themselves, particularly when those doubts cannot be controverted by something written in their own hand. Hence, a careful expert, and a careful lawyer, will not assume facts that only can be found in the gray matter of an opponent or potentially hostile witness.

The Joint Commission has released the Fourth Edition of its book “Patient Safety Essentials for Health Care.”

The blurb: “This book is the complete guide to the Joint Commission’s safety standards for ambulatory care, behavioral health care, critical access hospital, home care, hospital, and long term care organizations. It includes the standards, rationales, elements of performance, and scoring information in one handy resource. This book also identifies the commonalities among the standards to help readers understand which standards apply to which settings.”

Order it for $75.00 here.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs could not argue that a surgeon should have disclosed his displinary history unless there was proof that the standard of care required disclosure.

The Court held that plaintiffs “never established that the standard of care required such disclosures. Rather, they ask us to adopt a different standard of care for a narrow class of plaintiffs. Not only is their approach unprecedented, it contravenes the Legislature’s adoption of the professional theory by supplanting, in a single narrow context, the Legislature’s judgment.”

The Court also held that the evidence was not admissible to impeach the defendant.

Steven and I have been having a discussion – it started here. Here is his latest missive:

“My mistake, I did not mean to state that this particular lawyer(s) was sleazy, but that the trial bar in general is sleazy. I will admit that there must be some decent trial attorneys just as there are bad doctors, cops, judges, etc.

As for your comment about doctors and EtOH, drugs, etc., it is true that many docs have problems, but experts and studies have shown that the last thing in their life they let go is often their career. This is probably true for most professions as well. Plus, I would never call someone with a disease sleazy, that would be “shallow.”

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that the amounts of settlements made by doctor in other cases are not discoverable in another medical malpractice action against him.

The case is Miller v. Kelly; it is reported at 130 P.3d 982 (Ariz. App. 2006).

The Court held that “the amount paid in settlement of a claim establishes neither negligence nor gross negligence” and that the information is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court noted that “[p]ermitting disclosure of amounts paid in settlement of a lawsuit contrary to an express provision ensuring the confidentiality of that information likely would discourage parties from settling. And disclosure of that information poses the risk that conclusions will be drawn about the paying party’s culpability and the degree of culpability based on the fact that payment was made and the amount.”

Go to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Law Blog for a post on wrong site surgeries.

Teresa Sigmon, attorney for the defendant in a medical malpractice case, allegedly pressured one of the plaintiff’s consulting experts in the case into withdrawing from an agreement to testify for the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued her, her law firm, and the the medical malpractice insurer for “abuse of process, intentional interference with a business relationship, inducement/procurement of a breach of contract, and coercion of a witness.” (The defendant doctor was also sued originally; that claim was dropped.)

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded all of the claims against the lawyer and her law firm for trial except the abuse of process claim.

The Court found the existence of a business relationship between the consultant and the plaintiff and found that a claim existed under both the interference and inducement theories.

It is getting worse. A study of patients in our Medicare population has found an alarming number of incidents and deaths.

The study looked discharge records of Medicare patients and used 16 of “20 indicators for potentially preventable patient safety incidents that could be readily identified in hospital discharge data. This tool set of 20 evidence-based PSIs was created and released to the public in 2003 to be used by various healthcare stakeholders to assess and improve patient safety in U.S. hospitals.”

They found:

The Washington Post tells us that hospital-acquired infections cost more than $600M per year – and that is just in Pennsylvania!

An excerpt from the article: “Doctors, nurses and patients’ relatives have long known the risks of contracting an infection while in a hospital. But there has been little quantifiable data available on the cost of those infections, from a financial or a medical perspective. The average hospital payment for a Pennsylvania patient who did not have an infection was $8,078, compared with $60,678 for patients who did, according to the report by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if doctors and hospitals spent their time and money trying to prevent infections rather than trying to reduce their financial responsibility for negligence? The cost of malpractice insurance in a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of hospital-acquired infections.