Articles Tagged with Hospital malpractice

In early 2010, the family of a 17-year-old girl with a rare genetic disorder brought a medical malpractice suit against the Johns Hopkins Hospital alleging that the Johns Hopkins doctors and nurses provided inappropriate treatment to the disabled girl.

The Baltimore City jury that heard the medical malpractice suit found the staff at Johns Hopkins negligent in restraining the girl in a manner that caused extensive bruising. The girl, a long-time patient at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was extremely frail as a result of her condition and required special treatment. The girl’s father alleged that following an overnight stay at Johns Hopkins Hospital on March 12, 2007, he noticed “numerous bruises” on the girl’s body in addition to a “large lump on her forehead.” Johns Hopkins Hospital staff provided no explanation for the bruises other than “spontaneous bruising” caused by her disorder. The girl’s father was not satisfied with this response, and brought the medical malpractice suit against Johns Hopkins Hospital. Ultimately, the jury found that Johns Hopkins Hospital was negligent and committed malpractice for the bruises awarded the girl $250,000.00.

We handle cases like these all of the time in my practice.

A couple in Pennsylvania has filed two medical malpractice lawsuits following, what should have been, a routine organ transplant.

The couple alleges that the organ transplant went awry when, despite test results indicating the donor-spouse had hepatitis C, the hospital transplanted her kidney into her husband. Hepatitis C is an incurable infectious disease that attacks the liver causing a wide range of problems including damage, cirrhosis, cancer or failure.

The first lawsuit was filed against the hospital and various staff members. The suit, filed by the donee and the donor, alleges negligence. The couple states that the donor’s blood results were available months before the organ transplant, but that the hospital and physicians missed them. The organ transplant, which took place in April, was preceded by a blood test on January 26 which indicated that the donor had hepatitis C. The hospital never notified the donor of these results or disqualified her as an organ donor. Another test, which occurred weeks after the organ transplant, also indicated the presence of the infection. It was not until a month after the kidney transplant had taken place when the donor was notified of these results.

In early 2003, a Pennsylvania pharmacist died of a heart attack while at work. In 2009, a jury found his family doctor negligent and awarded the man’s widow $4 million. Later, after determining the delay in the conclusion of the case was improper, the presiding Judge awarded the man’s widow an additional $1.2 million in damages. Last month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld that $5.2 million award in the medical malpractice case.

This case is an example of the catastrophic results of a doctor failing to correctly diagnose and treat his patient. The man went to see the doctor four days before his death as a result of unexplained chest pain, jaw pain and anxiety. The doctor advised him that these symptoms were the result of anxiety. However, the man’s attorneys argued that the the doctor made a critical error by failing to take into account the following: the man was overweight, he had high cholesterol, he had high blood pressure and he had a history of heart disease in his family. On the day of his death, the man again contacted the doctor as a result of his symptoms persisting. By the time the doctor returned his call, the man was already in cardiac arrest.

Ultimately, jurors agreed that when the doctor analyzed the man’s complaints in light of the risk factors he had, the doctor should have immediately sent the man to an emergency room because the mans’ symptoms were suggestive of a heart attack. The autopsy results further confirmed this determination as it showed heart damage, specifically indicating that the man had a heart attack a few days before his death.

Earlier this month the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office of Health Care Quality published a report regarding medical malpractice in Maryland hospitals. The report is a review of the safety and care provided to patients in Maryland hospitals. The report compiles information collected by the OHCQ in 2010 relating to serious adverse events that affected patients or their families.

The adverse events that hospitals are required to report include a rather long list of mistakes that are possible because of hospital error, medical malpractice (negligence), or inattention. Patient falls are the most frequently reported event. In 2010, there were 88 reported cases resulting in serious disability or death. Of these 88 reported cases, 10 resulted in loss of limb or function of limb, 52 required surgical interventions, 20 required medical intervention and 6 resulted in death of the patient.

Hospital-acquired pressure sores / ulcers, which are associated with high morbidity (medical complications) and mortality (death) once they reach Stage 3 and 4, were reported 59 times in 2010 making it the second most frequently reported event. However, none of the reported cases in 2010 resulted in death.

A South Carolina jury has awarded $3 million in a medical malpractice case to the family of a 25-year-old woman who died after medical treatment in 2002. The woman died from an infection due to a kidney stone. After the treatment at a local emergency room, the woman was discharged and due to check-up with a urologist the following Monday. However, before she could see the doctor, she died from an infection. The jury found that the emergency room and hospital did not meet the standard of care when they failed to take appropriate vital signs and perform basic testing, which would have resulted in proper diagnosis and treatment of the infection.

This sounds like a very good case. It is important for all health care providers to obtain baseline vital signs on a patient and perform reasonable tests that can diagnose serious problems that are likely. In this case, the doctors diagnosed a kidney stone but did not do the routine blood testing that would have revealed that the woman actually was very sick. Instead, she was sent home with the false assurance that she could wait a few days to be seen. It is tragic.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled many medical malpractice cases failure to timely perform appropriate medical tests that would have revealed a serious illness. It is always a shame when a simple and routine test is not performed, resulting in a serious injury or death.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

A New York hospital has paid $2.9 million to settle the medical malpractice case of a 6-year-old boy who was killed after he was struck in the head by an oxygen tank during an MRI. The boy was lying in an MRI chamber when the machine’s magnet pulled in a metal tank that a hospital staffer had brought into the MRI’s magnetic field. This is one of a number of recent cases in which people have been severely injured or killed by metal objects that were left in an MRI room.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a large number of medical malpractice cases involving the failure of radiology facilities to follow their own written policies, procedures or guidelines. Cases such as there, in which a doctor, hospital or medical facility fails to follow its own standards, are inexcusable. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Contact Information