Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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.

A Montana family has settled its medical malpractice case against two nursing homes for failing to properly treat an elderly relative. The family claimed that the nursing homes were negligent in their care of the 87-year-old man, who died of a blood infection. The man fell and fractured his neck during a transfer from his wheelchair, which left him bedridden. He subsequently developed severe pressure ulcers that got worse over months and led to a case of gangrene of the leg. The family alleged that the wheelchair transfer and the treatment of the bedsores were below the standard of care. A article on the case can be found here .

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer / attorney who specializes in medical malpractice cases, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving poor nursing home care. These cases require an extensive evaluation of the medical records involved and consultation with experts in nursing care. It is always said when the most vulnerable members of our society are mistreated.

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.

A bill currently is being considered by the Maryland legislature would expand a law that protect a doctors from his apology being used against him in court in a medical malpractice case. Currently, Maryland law states that an apology or statement of regret by a doctor is inadmissible in a medical malpractice trial. That statute, which is found in Section 10-920 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, encourages doctors to apologize for an error. In my opinion, it is a good law that encourages a doctor to be honest with a patient.

But a new bill has been proposed to expand the current law so that other things the doctor says along with the apology or statement of regret also would be inadmissible. This does not make sense. We shouldn’t have to exclude statements from evidence to encourage our doctors to be honest with us. Moreover, the effect of this proposed law would be to prohibit from evidence what could be the only evidence of what happened. For example, suppose a patient becomes paralyzed during back surgery and the operative report and all of the other records surrounding the procedure are silent as to what happened (this is exactly what happened in a recent case of mine). Then, suppose the doctor comes into the patient’s room after the surgery and says “I’m really sorry that you are paralyzed (currently this would be inadmissible) and I feel really bad about what happened (also currently inadmissible), but during the surgery I dropped an instrument on then spinal cord by accident because I was really tired from being out the night before with my medical school buddies at a reunion; I just wanted you to know what happened.” The proposed law would make that last part of the doctor’s confession inadmissible. That is absurd. A copy of an article in which I was quoted on the subject can be found here.

In my opinion, the much better approach would be to enact a law that requires our doctors to tell us what happened when there is an adverse outcome that is significant. This would serve the public much better than a law that shields the truth from evidence.

A Connecticut medical malpractice case has been settled for $5.25 million in favor of a woman whose left leg had to be amputated as a result of complications from spinal surgery performed at a local hospital. The lawsuit alleged that a doctor performed an elective "anterior transabdominal approach to the lumbosacral spine," and then her doctor and the hospital staff failed to properly take care of her in the intensive care unit, causing the loss of the leg. While in the ICU, the woman suffered intra-abdominal hemorrhaging, post-operative bleeding, abdominal wounds, and other severe complications that the hospital staff did not appropriately diagnose or treat, resulting in a gangrenous lower leg that resulted in an above-the-knee amputation. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving failed back surgery. Usually, they are caused by improper technique during the surgery, but sometimes it is the post-operative monitoring that is deficient. During the post-operative period, the surgeon and the nurses at the hospital must be alert for changes in the patient’s condition that require further testing and procedures. Usually, simply monitoring the patient’s oxygenation rate, pulse, breathing, responsiveness and blood work is sufficient. These functions usually tell how well a patient is doing. Any abnormalities must be promptly investigated. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

A Connecticut medical malpractice case has been settled for $5.25 million in favor of a woman whose left leg had to be amputated as a result of complications from spinal surgery performed at a local hospital. The lawsuit alleged that a doctor performed an elective "anterior transabdominal approach to the lumbosacral spine," and then her doctor and the hospital staff failed to properly take care of her in the intensive care unit, causing the loss of the leg. While in the ICU, the woman suffered intra-abdominal hemorrhaging, post-operative bleeding, abdominal wounds, and other severe complications that the hospital staff did not appropriately diagnose or treat, resulting in a gangrenous lower leg that resulted in an above-the-knee amputation. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving failed back surgery. Usually, they are caused by improper technique during the surgery, but sometimes it is the post-operative monitoring that is deficient. During the post-operative period, the surgeon and the nurses at the hospital must be alert for changes in the patient’s condition that require further testing and procedures. Usually, simply monitoring the patient’s oxygenation rate, pulse, breathing, responsiveness and blood work is sufficient. These functions usually tell how well a patient is doing. Any abnormalities must be promptly investigated. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

The New York Times has just published a very interesting article on Long-term acute care hospitals and the medical malpractice / substandard care that goes on in many of them. According to the Times, these hospitals, have been springing up across the country since the 1980s, and specialize in the long-term care of seriously ill patients. Most of these hospitals are for-profit, which means that there is a strong incentive to provide minimal care. Once long term acute care hospital chain drew increased scrutiny, Select Medical Corporation, which reportedly had a rate about four times that of regular hospitals for serious violations of Medicare rules. According to the Times, Medicare inspection reports of many of these hospitals showed preventable patient injuries and deaths and inadequate staff numbers with high turnover. A copy of the article can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving care of the chronically ill. These patients are at risk for severe bed sores, major infections, falls and death. These people usually are almost totally dependent on others for their care. That makes it even more outrageous when they are not properly care for due to the profit motive.

A Florida jury has awarded the family of a 9-year-old boy $11.1 million in a medical malpractice case arising out of negligent medical care at a local hospital. The family claimed that the child was not properly treated in the emergency room. The child, then 3 months old, had been sick for days with vomiting and diarrhea, so he was taken to the hospital. After a few hours, he was discharged, however, the hospital had failed to check the child for dehydration. By the next morning he could barely breathe, and had to be rushed back to the hospital. By that time, he suffered from an irreversible brain injury. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving sick children. I also have handled several dehydration cases. When people get sick, especially when they vomit or have diarrhea, they can become dehydrated quickly, which creates a serious imbalance in their fluid and electrolyte levels. When these levels become out of sync, they can cause severe sickness, organ damage and even death. In these cases, it is critical for the doctor or hospital to perform a a complete blood count and a simple metabolic panel. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

The Rhode Island Health Department has fined a Rhode Island Hospital $150,000, after finding that a surgical team committed medical malpractice and violated patient safety policies when it operated on the wrong finger of a patient. According to the Health Department, the surgical team failed to properly mark the fingers and failed to follow the rules for “time out.” A time out is a pause before surgery to verify the patient, procedure and operative site. The finger incident was the fifth wrong-site surgery at the hospital since January 2007.
The Health Department reprimanded the hospital, required observation of every surgery for one year, required full adoption of a statewide surgical protocol and required installation of video and audio recording in every operating room. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have only handled one case of wrong site surgery. I believe that most of the medical malpractice attorneys in Baltimore have not handled any such cases, as these cases are extremely rare. I can understand one case happening in a hospital over the course of several years, but 5 cases in the same hospital in 2 years. That place should be shut down. There is no defense to operating on the wrong surgical site over and over. It is medical malpractice, plain and simple

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.

A Minnesota jury has awarded more than $1.25 million to the family of a 21 month old boy who died due to an infected (gangrenous) appendix that a doctor failed to diagnose and treat. The family claimed that the boy was misdiagnosed on two separate occasions over four days, including the day before he died.

The family alleged that when the doctor examined the boy’s abdomen, the boy cried louder than ever, but the doctor told the boy’s father that the boy’s appendix was fine. Thus, the doctor did not order an ultrasound or CT scan which would have diagnosed the problem. The doctor then diagnosed gastroenteritis. Evidence presented at trial established that the doctor scheduled pediatric patients in 10-minute increments. Thus, the family claimed that he was too busy to give each patient the attention they needed and deserved.

The doctor’s diagnosis of influenza was made over the phone and the family was discouraged from bringing the child into the clinic to be seen. That day, the doctor’s appointment schedule showed that 45 children were scheduled to be seen, and that the doctor was behind schedule. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving children (pediatrics) who have been injured or killed Most of these involve the failure to timely diagnose and treat certain medical conditions that can be fatal, such as bacterial infections and genetic conditions. These cases are always gut-wrenching because of the innocence of children and the parents’ desire to trust what the doctor says.

I also have successfully handled appendix cases. These have all been failure to diagnose and treat inflamed or ruptured appendixes, usually causing severe injury or death. Sadly, a simple and relatively inexpensive CT scan usually will diagnose an inflamed or ruptured infection. Sometimes these CT scans are not read properly, which is even worse because it sends the treating doctors on a wild goose chase looking for other causes of the patient’s symptoms. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.