Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Attorneys Andrew G. Slutkin, Jamison G. White and the law firm of Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White have filed one of the first medical malpractice lawsuits against Dr. Mari Midei, Midatlantic Cardiovascular and St. Joseph Medical Center as a result of Dr. Midei unnecessary implanting a patient with a cardiac stent during cardiac catheterization. The lawsuit, which is sure to be followed by many others, makes claims for medical negligence; negligent hiring, retention and/or supervision; fraud; concealment; negligent misrepresentation; battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here

As I mentioned in a recent blog post, administrative charges have been filed by the Maryland Board of Physicians against Dr. Mark Midei, the Towson cardiologist accused of medical malpractice for implanting unnecessary cardiac stents in more than five hundred people. A copy of an article detailing the charges can be found here.

I was unable to easily find online a copy of the Maryland Board of Physicians’ Complaint against Dr. Mark Midei charging document, so I obtained a copy from the Board. You can view the document by clicking here

Dr. Mark Midei, the cardiologist accused of implanting unnecessary cardiac stents in over five hundred people, has been administratively charged by the Maryland Board of Physicians, according to the charging document made public today. The charges include "gross overutilization of health care services" and "willfully making a false report or record in the practice of medicine.” A copy of an article detailing the charges can be found here.

The charges stem from an investigation by St. Joseph Medical Center, which began after a St. Joe employee claimed that Dr. Midei was fraudulently implanting patients with cardiac stents. St. Joe’s investigation, which examined only a two year time frame during which Dr. Midei performed 2000 stent procedures, found that approximately one in four cardiac stents that he emplaced (over 500 patients) were unnecessary.

In my opinion, the charges are certain to be sustained in this high-profile instance of medical malpractice. It is one thing for a patient or a patient’s lawyers to accuse a doctor of malpractice, but when Dr. Midei’s former employer and peers on the medical board accuse him of widespread malpractice, common sense dictates that it has merit.

In fact, I continue to believe that Dr. Midei will be criminally charged with Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud and insurance fraud. I think it is only a matter of time.

What is amazing to me is that St. Joe still does not plan to go back and examine more than two years of Dr. Midei’s cases. If we were dealing with a business that does not owe a moral, ethical and professional duty to the public, I could understand it, as the further St. Joe goes back the more claims there will be filed against St. Joe. But St. Joe is not just a business; as a provider of health care it has an obligation to tell patients when one of its doctors committed malpractice. The Maryland Department of Health and Human Services should require St. Joe to go back as far as St. Joe records allow, so that everybody who did not need a stent is notified. If they found over five hundred cases of unnecessary implants over a two year period, that means that if they go back six years, there are probably another thousand people who currently believe they have severe heart disease (because Midei misled them) when they in fact do not. As I have said before, I have a stent case from 2004 involving a small blockage which Dr. Midei said was 80% blocked, so I know that he has been unnecessary placing stents in patients for triple the time-frame examined by St. Joe.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled many medical malpractice cases involving cardiac issues. Right now, I am representing about a dozen people with cases against Dr. Midei for unnecessary stents. I am handling these cases individually, not grouping them into a class action. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

In the continuing saga of the unnecessary cardiac stents that Dr. Mark Midei placed in people at St. Joseph Medical Center, St. Joseph now has sent letters to another 169 patients (in addition to the 369 who originally received letters) informing them that their stents were not necessary. That means that the total number of stent letters St. Joseph has sent now stands at 538.

In an excellent article today by Scott Graham, the Managing Editor / Health Care Reporter for the Baltimore Business Journal, Mr. Graham reported that St. Joseph continues to review Dr. Midei’s stent procedures between May 2007 and 2009 and expects more letters to be issued as the reviews progress. Interestingly, St. Joseph told Mr. Graham that the hospital has determined that only Dr. Midei was unnecessary implanting stents in people and that it was not a systemic problem involving other physicians. A copy of the article can be found here. Mr. Graham has written two other articles on the subject of the stents, which can be found here:

2/26/10 – Maryland Delegate Calls For Investigation Into St. Joseph Medical Center Stents Case.

3/5/10 – St. Joseph Overhauling How It Reviews Cases .

3/5/10 – Supporters Rally Around FormerSt. Joseph Stent Doctor Midei.

As I have said before, I believe this is only the tip of the iceberg. St. Joseph Medical Center already has found over 500 cases of unnecessary stents during only a two year time frame. When St. Joseph goes back several more years, I think the number of unnecessary stents will significantly exceed 1,000. In fact, I have a case from 2004 involving a mild blockage which Dr. Midei said was 80% blocked, so I know that Dr. Midei has been unnecessary stenting patients for triple the time-frame being looked at by St. Joe.

What is amazing to me is that people are supporting Dr. Midei. According to Mr. Graham’s articles, supporters have started a web site, www.markmidei.com and a Facebook fan page. While I am sure that Dr. Midei actually placed some stents that were medically necessary, this man unnecessary placed more than 500 people at risk for severe complications by placing stents they didn't need; forced them to unnecessary take blood thinners for life; worried people for years that they have severe heart disease; took money out of people’s pockets for the co-pays that they are required to expend not only for the stent procedure for the medication for life; defrauded private insurance companies; defrauded Medicare; defrauded Medical Assistance, among other things.

I could understand supporting Dr. Midei if made a mistake in a few of cases. After all, all of us are human. But to put unnecessary cardiac stents in hundreds if not thousands of people is despicable. This man deserves no support.

In any event, my firm still is not advertising for these cases on television or in the newspaper, but I see such ads daily. What bugs me is that I believe the lawyers soliciting these cases actually are doing a disservice to their existing clients. As the number of claims against Dr. Midei increase, there is a likelihood that there will not be enough malpractice insurance coverage to fairly compensate all of the claimants. The more lawyers advertise to the public for these cases, the more claims there will be and the less compensation there will be for existing claimants. I doubt the law firms advertising for these cases are telling that to their clients!!!

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving cardiac issues. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

There has been a lot of publicity lately about 369 people who have received letters from St. Joseph Medical Center stating that cardiac stents placed by Dr. Mark Midei may not have been necessary. I have been told that St. Joseph has a group of five cardiology experts reviewing Dr. Midei’s cardiac stent procedures during a certain time frame, and if all five doctors agree that the study was misread and the stent was unnecessary the patient gets a letter from St. Joseph. But what about the people who had stents placed by Dr. Midei who did not receive such a letter? Could they have cases? The answer is yes.

St. Joseph’s experts are only looking at a certain time frame and it takes five doctors to agree on the misread. Therefore, if you are outside of the time frame that the St. Joseph doctors are looking at, or if only four out of the five doctors agree that you did not need the stent, you will not get a letter. Already, I have three clients who did not receive letters whose studies were misread and who, therefore, did not need stents.

If you had a stent placed by Dr. Midei and did not receive a letter you still should call an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer / attorney who specializes in medical malpractice to have your cardiac catheterization study reviewed by a leading expert. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

So far, I have carefully selected about a three medical malpractice cases against Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center. In each of these cases, the client contacted me either after getting a letter from St. Joseph Medical Center stating that he or she received an unnecessary stent or after reading articles in the newspaper about Dr. Midei and St. Joseph.

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.

2/21/10 St. Joseph acts to put stent crisis behind it.

Rumor has it that St. Joseph Medical Center has a group of five leading cardiology experts reviewing all of Dr. Midei’s cardiac catheterization and stent procedures during a certain time frame, and if all five doctors agree that the study was misread and the stent was unnecessary the patient gets a letter from St. Joseph. The problem with that methodology is that it only looks at a certain time frame and it takes five doctors to agree on the misread.

So far, St. Joseph has sent out 389 letters to patients, but I understand that they are now sending out additional letters. In my personal opinion, by the time they review all of the cases, the number of unnecessary stent cases will be in the thousands. I also believe that Dr. Midei eventually will be charged criminally with fraud.

One case that I have is illustrative of the other cases. In this case, the client had chest pain about five years ago and went to the St. Joseph Medical Center emergency room where his all of his tests were normal. He underwent a catheterization the next day by Dr. Midei and was told he had blockages that required two stents. The St. Joseph Medical Center cardiac catheterization report of that procedure, which was signed by Dr. Midei, states that one of his cardiac arteries was 80% narrowed, for which a stent was put in. A leading cardiac catheterization expert has reviewed the images of that study and informed me that the artery which Dr. Midei claimed was 80% narrowed actually was only 30% narrowed, and did not require a stent (generally, stents are not put in unless the artery is more than 70% narrowed). Dr. Midei also claimed in the report that another of the patient’s cardiac arteries was 90% narrowed, and needed a stent. According to our expert, that second artery was only 50% narrowed, and did not require a stent. In other words, the Dr. Midei lied to this patient, leading him to believe that a stent procedure was necessary when in fact he simply should have been treated with medication. For the past six years, this patient has had a diagnosis of major heart disease when in reality he has no such thing. He must take a blood thinning medication daily for the rest of his life, which requires him to avoid certain food, undergo regular blood testing and increases his susceptibility for hemorrhage if he falls or is injured. Interestingly, this patient has yet to receive a letter from St. Joseph.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer / attorney who specializes in medical malpractice cases, I have handled numerous medical malpractice cases involving cardiac issues. These cases are perfect examples of medical malpractice. These people deserve compensation. In fact, I believe they have been victims of fraud.

I also believe that people who have been victimized by Dr. Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center are best served by lawyers like me who carefully and individually look at each case and treat each case separately, as opposed to the lawyers who are advertising in the newspaper, on television and the radio, simply trying to grab as many cases as they can. Many of these lawyers are trying to scoop up these cases for the sole purpose of referring them to other attorneys in exchange for a percentage of the attorneys’ fee in the case (sharing attorneys fees with a referring attorney is legal, but advertising for cases you don’t handle is misleading). Others will be forced to lump a large number of cases together, because there is simply no way that these small firms can give these cases the individual attention that they require and deserve, let alone bring them to trial if necessary. If you want to talk to a secretary or paralegal each time you call, or have your case handed off to some attorney unknown to you, and to be known simply as one of dozens and dozens of cases, call one of these lawyers. If, on the other hand, you want to speak to a lawyer each time you call (who knows your name and your case), contact someone like me who treats each case as if it were my own. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

There continue to be many newspaper and television advertisements by lawyers seeking to collect clients for medical malpractice cases against St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson and Dr. Mark Midei for implanting cardiac stents that may not have been necessary. I understand that one of these law firms, which only has a small number of attorneys who regularly handle medical malpractice cases, has collected more than 70 cases. Another one of these law firms has even filed a class action. Still yet another law firm is advertising for cases that it is not even handling; it is simply passing these cases off to medical malpractice lawyers who ultimately will handle the cases.

In my opinion, there is no way that a small law firm handling 70 cases can give each case the proper attention that it deserves. Moreover, there is no way that firm could ever try such a large number of cases effectively. Thus, that firm has a very strong incentive to seek a global resolution of those cases, which may not be in the best interest of its other clients.

As for the firm that has filed a class action, that is simply a strategy of trying to get hold of the clients that have not pursued their cases yet. Since each clients’ case is substantially different, it is unlikely that a class action will be upheld.

As for the law firm that is advertising for cases that it does not even handle, do I really need to even say anything about that.

As I have said before, I only take about a dozen medical malpractice cases a year. Each case I take is handled on an individual basis. That means that I, or one of the attorneys in my department, are personally in charge of each case we handle, from start to finish. When a client calls, they speak with me or one of the attorneys in my department, and not a paralegal. We treat every client the way that we would want to be treated if we have a case. I find this is the best and most effective way to practice, and its why I am successful in almost every case I take.