Richmond Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Congress One Step Closer to Killing Feres Doctrine

Michael Phelan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:55:37 GMT

The Feres Doctrine is a legal precedent from a 1950 United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that service members injured in the course of their duties are prohibited from suing the government or any government employee. This Doctrine is the reason why military operating rooms are more dangerous than private operating rooms. For example, the incidence of foreign objects such as sponges, towels, or instruments being left inside the bodies of surgical patients has gone way down to negligible numbers in private hospitals. The reason is because in response to medical malpractice lawsuits, hospitals and surgical staffs instituted standard operationg procedures to count the sponges, towels, and instruments prior to the procedure and before closing the surgical incision. This simple solution has not been adopted in many military hospitals, and, not surprisingly, the problem persists in military operating rooms. The brave men and women who serve our country are the ones who suffer as a result.

The good news is that Representative Maurice Hinchey and Senator Charles Schumer have each sponsored bills to pass the Military Medical Accountability Act which would permit service members to sue the government in certain cases of medical malpractice. The Hinchey Bill was approved on October 7th by the House Judiciary Committee, and would legislatively overturn Feres v. United States. Hinchey named his bill the Carmelo Rodriquez Military Medical Accountability Act of 2009 after the late Sgt. Rodriquez, a marine who served in Iraq and died in 2007 at the age of 29 after a series of extraordinary mistakes and misdiagnoses made by military medical personnel.

Sgt. Rodriquez had a bleeding melanoma which the military doctors continuously misdiagnosed as a birth mark or wart. The one military doctor who correctly diagnosed the melanoma failed to tell Rodriquez the diagnosis or refer him to a cancer specialists. As the skin cancer worsened, Rodriquez's family was unable to get his medical reocrds from the military to give to private doctors for a second opinion. The family went to Rep. Hinchey for help, but it was too late. Sgt. Rodriquez had gone from 190 lbs. to less than 80 lbs.

This bill needs to pass so that our troops have the same rights that we all have under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution to a trial by jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Kill the Feres Doctrine Now

Michael Phelan — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:50:38 GMT

On July 9, a 20 year-old Airman underwent routine surgery on his gallbladder. During surgery, however, a relatively inexperienced doctor nicked his aorta, resulting in the loss of both of the Airman's legs. This tragedy has helped to shine new light on the Feres doctrine, which prevents active-duty members of the military from filing suit for medical malpractice.

A website set up to support the Airman is available here: http://www.coltonread.com/ . I encourage all to visit this site and send your support.

More information about the Feres doctrine is available at: http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/9532.htm .

Our Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury to all citizens. This right should not be denied to the soldiers who risk their lives to protect our freedom. I've blogged about the Feres Doctrine before. To get a better understanding of how the doctrine works to the detriment of our military families, please click on "Feres Doctrine" in the preceeding sentence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Make Your Doctor Give You Your Test Results

Michael Phelan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:23:26 GMT

Are you like most people who assume that no news is good news after you've undergone a series of tests ordered by your doctor? If so, you should be alarmed by a recent study, and you should never assume that your doctor will automatically tell you if you have an abnormal test result. Researchers studying office procedures among primary care doctors found that more than 7 percent of clinically significant findings were never reported to the patient. There's a name for this phenomenon: medical malpractice.

The study reviewed the records of 5,434 patients at 19 different primary care practices and four based in medical centers. They pulled records containing abnormal results for blood tests, x-rays, and other imaging studies, and then searched for documentation that the patient had been properly informed of the results in a timely manner. The researchers then surveyed the doctors whose patients had not been informed of their results. Not surprisingly, some claimed the patient had been informed verbally. Others believed the results were not significant and therefore required no notification, and others claimed they soon would be notifiying the patient of the results. After giving all of the above-referenced doctors the benefit of the doubt and excluding them from the data, the study still found that 7 percent of patients were not informed of abnormal test results.

There are some cancers that, if detected early, are treatable and curable. Some of these cancers are also quit aggressive. Consequently, a six or twelve month delay in diagnosis may be fatal. Unfortunatately, it is not uncommon to hear about the woman who goes to her annual check up only to have her doctor pull her file and read for the first time the abnormal results from last year's Pap smear, breast biopsy, etc. What was potentially curable 12 months earlier, has now progressed to late-stage cancer.

We're all guilty of putting too much faith in our doctors. I love my primary physician and recommend him to everyone I know. But, I still don't know the results of blood tests I had many months ago. This study reminds me to find out!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

There is No Medical Malpractice Crisis

Michael Phelan — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:49:37 GMT

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association, and their various lobbyists have been screaming for years that medical malpractice law suits are driving up doctors' insurance premiums, and, in turn driving doctors out of certain markets. If this is true, then a state like Massachusetts, which ranks fourth in the nation for money paid to settle malpractice cases, should be experiencing skyrocketing malpractice premiums. Interestingly, a recent Suffolk University Law School study shows that despite assertions that high malpractice rates are driving them out of the state, Massachusetts doctors are paying less than they were in 1990, after adjusting for inflation. I wish I could say the same for my legal malpractice, automobile, and health insurance.

Massachusetts is one of 21 states described by the American Medical Association as being in a crisis because of high medical malpractice payments and lack of strict laws capping settlements.

The Suffolk study, appearing in the current issue of Health Affairs, debunks this cry wolf strategy, finding that most Massachusetts physicians paid an average of $17,810 in premiums in 2005, a little lower than the $17,907 that the same coverage would have cost in 1990, after adjusting for inflation.

"If you don't find a crisis here, you're probably not going to find one nationally," lead author and health policy scholar Marc Rodwin said in an interview. "Clearly there are some increases in premiums and high premiums for a small percentage of doctors in three specialty groups, but that's entirely different for the rest of doctors."

Having for years used the false premise of skyrocketing premiums as their rationale for tort reform, the doctors are now back pedaling. One doctor was quoted in the Boston Globe in response to the Suffolk study. "The issue of the malpractice crisis is not purely a premium-based issue, although we certainly have documented the high cost of liability insurance is a major factor in [physicians'] perspective on the practice environment," he said. "I think to some degree looking at malpractice premiums . . . may provide an unfair picture of what is really going on." Haven't they been saying for years that it was fair to look at malpractice premiums and that the sky was falling?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Would You Choose To Be Treated By Your State's Worst Doctor?

Michael Phelan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:33:40 GMT

Last month, lawyers for former patients of Dr. John Anderson King and their families settled 70 medical malpractice claims with the Hospital Corporation of America, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, and Putnam General Hospital, which employed King from November 2002 to June 2003. This month, lawyers settled 11 more medical malpractice lawsuits with the company that employed King to perform surgery.

King served as an osteopathic physician on Putnam General's staff between November 2002 and June 2003. During those seven months, King's actions generated 124 different medical malpractice suits. Are you kidding me? At what point should the hospital have clued into the fact that this doctor was a serial screw up? Insurers for doctors and hospitals simply do not settle medical malpractice claims unless they have merit.

In order to avoid being treated by one of the worst doctors in your state, do some research. Get references from friends and trial lawyers in your area. The lawyers know who are the best and worst doctors. Also, check your state's board of medicine website. These sites often will tell you whether a doctor has been disciplined and will tell you how many malpractice claims have been filed against and paid on behalf of the doctor. Most doctors are fabulously talented professionals. You need to avoid the bottom of the barrel.

In November, King filed for bankruptcy in Birmingham, Ala., claiming only $500 in assets. He has filed an application to become a Tennessee real-estate appraiser. Just keep him away from sharp instruments!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan