Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

Yesterday I had the opportunity to testify before a group of state legislators interested hearing debate about a bill designed to limit the ability of patients to file medical malpractice lawsuits and recover adequate compensation when they do.

The bill, HB 2122, includes a provision that would give a defendant tortfeasor the right to reduce the damages awarded by the jury by the amount of life insurance paid for by the decedent, the disability insurance paid for by the plaintiff, the social security benefits received by the decedent’s family or the injured person, and worker’s compensation benefits.

It would also wipe out subrogation interests for every insurer who paid benefits to medical negligence victims. Indeed, it even attempts to eliminate subrogation interests for Tenncare, Medicare, and ERISA-based subro claims. Hmmm.

The March 28, 2005 edition of Lawyers Weekly USA reports several cases on behalf of nursing home residents killed by fire ants.

In Florida, a 73 year old man recuperating from surgery was attacked by fire ants. The lawsuit against the nursing home settled for $1,870,000.

The family of a woman in North Port, Florida received an undisclosed settlement for a similar attack. A woman in Bradenton won $1,200,000 for a fire attack assault. She survived.

A recent editorial quotes the results of a Florida study that demonstrates that there has not been the dramatic increase in the numbers of malpractice cases represented by the insurance industry and doctors.

The editorial said that “the research showed that while the state’s population climbed by 31.5 percent in this time, med-mal claims paid per 100,000 residents actually fell from a high of 12.36 in 1996 to 9.74 in 2003.”

The editorial goes on to say that “the study found the ‘debate about the role of juries in so-called ‘mega awards’ is misplaced.’ In 14 years, the study identified 801 cases in which more than $1 million was paid. Further, the study said 93 percent of the million-dollar payouts were the result of settlements, not jury awards.”

The Tennessee General Assembly has a myraid of tort “deform” bills pending in the medical malpractice field this year. Generally speaking, the bills want to cap damages on meritorious cases, limit attorney’s fees for lawyers who represent patients, cut off subrogation interests, impose periodic payments, etc.

The newest example of outrageous conduct is an attempt by the doctors to let the state medical board establish criteria for expert witnesses. To read the bill, click here, click on “Legislation” and enter House Bill number 1011.

The legislation would require the expert to sign the guidelines – or face cross-examination on the failure to sign them. It would give the state medical board the right to publish additional rules – perhaps even subjecting the expert to displinary action if the expert has been found by the board to given testimony with which it did not agree. This is witness intimidation, nothing more, nothing less.

The Hunter v. Ura decision that I wrote about several days ago also seems to open the door to prejudgment interest in personal injury and wrongful death cases.

Several years ago a case called Myint seemed to suggest that prejudgment interest could be awarded in such cases. Then, several court of appeals decisions held that prejudgment interest could not be awarded, and the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to hear those cases on appeal.

In Hunter the Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge’s refusual to award prejudgment interest, but affirmatively held that a trial judge has the discretion to award it.

Hunter v. Ura has been decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court reversed the Tennessee Court of Appeals and reinstated a jury verdict for the plaintiff.

The majority opinion is authored by Justice Riley Anderson. Justice Barker, joined by Chief Justice Drowota, dissented on one issue of many raised in the appeal.

I have to catch an early morning flight to Ohio so I do not have time to summarize this opinion for you this morning. Suffice it to say that this opinion is the most important opinion in the medical negligence field that comes to memory. It is definitely a “Blue Chipper.”

Would you think that a doctor who has had 33 medical malpractice payouts in the last decaded would still be practicing medicine?

Dr. Michael Sachs in Manhattan is. His record became news after a 42 year old mother died after a nose job performed in his office. The cause of death was “cardiac arrest.” He also has two malpractice cases pending against him alleging breathing difficulties stemming from botched nose jobs. Read the article here.

The medical community does a horrible job policing its own providers. I have been involved in medical negligence work for over 23 years. I would be surprised in a doctor went his or her entire career without a payout on a medical negligence case; anyone can make a mistake. I can even understand a couple of payouts. But 33 in a decade? Where are the licensing folks?

The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota has held that a physician has an affirmative duty to inform a child’s biological parents about the risks posed by their child’s genetic problem.

The plaintiff’s child was born with an inheritable form of mental retardation known as “Fragile X.” The parents were told that the condition was probably not genetic and the child’s doctors did not do full genetic testing on the child. The parents then had a second child born with the same condition. Later testing revealed that both children and the parents were carriers of Fragile X.

The court recognized that the parents had a right to sue their daughter’s doctors for negligently performing genetic testing. They said that “a physician’s duty regarding genetic testing and diagnosis exends beyond the patient to biological parents who foreseeabily may be harmed by breach of that duty.” The ruling recognizes that as a “practical reality … genetic testing and diagnosis does not affect only the patient.” Read the decision by clicking here.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the mother of a stillborn infant may seek damages for wrongful death and for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The child died as a result of conceded medical malpractice. The misdiagnosis took place several hours before the child died in utero. The mother sued for wrongful death of the child and her own emotional distress. The hospital settled the wrongful death claim but argued that the mother did not have a cause of action for her own emotional distress.

The Wisconsin court disagreed and remanded the case for trial. The court held that the mother could recover damages for the wrongful death of the child as well as the her personal injuries, including those caused by negligent infliction of emotional distress.

An article in the Washington Post demonstrates an amazing ability of Sen. Bill Frist: the skill to make a medical diagnosis from a videotape.

This may surprise some of you who do medical negligence work or address a lot of medical issues in your practice. As lawyers we are all told how difficult it is to make a medical diagnosis. Defense experts will routinely testify that it is unfair to challenge a medical diagnosis without seeing and laying hands on the patient. But Sen. Frist has the ability to look at a videotape and make a diagnosis that contradicts that of the patient’s treating physicians!

The article discusses Sen. Frist’s review of a videotape of Terri Schiavo and his (subsequent?) opinion that she may not be in a persistent vegetative state. That opinion was in no way influenced by the upcoming Presidential election.