Medical Malpractice

Blatant Surgical Errors Remain Startlingly Common Despite Technological Advances in Medicine

Published on: August 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The technological advances in the medical field over the last 20 to 30 years have resulted in patients receiving improved care when treated for a variety of medical conditions and ailments. However, mistakes and errors by medical providers remain more common than many observers would believe. Although the incorporation of precision digital technology and improved medicines have benefited patients significantly, the human element of medical care leaves patients vulnerable to avoidable mistakes by medical professionals.Poorly designed information systems and over-worked, under-trained staff can result in patients receiving inapplicable, inadequate, or dangerous treatments that could have been avoided by the exercise of due care by medical professionals. If appropriate legal action is taken, patients and families who have been affected by such negligence can obtain financial compensation from the responsible parties.

Surgeons Remove Man’s Kidney Unnecessarily, Based on Physician’s Order

One type of preventable surgical mistake that can devastate patients and their families occurs when the wrong procedure is performed on a patient. In a recent article, CNN reported on such a situation that occurred at a Massachusetts hospital earlier this year. According to the news article, a physician’s order instructed surgeons to remove the patient’s kidney, and the surgery was performed successfully. Unfortunately, only after the kidney was removed did doctors discover that the patient did not need the procedure.

Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Claim Rejected as Untimely After Transfer from Federal to State Court

Published on: August 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently published an opinion that affirmed a state district court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice lawsuit based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the complaint within the state’s two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff in the case of English v. Taylor had initially filed a complaint within the two-year limitations period, but the claim against the defendant at issue was not filed until after the two-year period expired. On appeal, the plaintiff’s request for the court to construe the claim as filed on an earlier date was denied. As a result of the high court’s ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to collect damages for the injuries allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Complications During a Surgery Result in the Plaintiff Suffering a Stroke

According to a factual summary of the case included in the appellate opinion, the defendant performed a surgery on the plaintiff on September 17, 2011, which resulted in the plaintiff having a stroke. As a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant and others, the plaintiff suffered permanent disabilities and filed a negligence lawsuit against the manufacturer of a medical device that was used in the surgery. The plaintiff did not include the doctor as a defendant in the initial lawsuit. The plaintiff later filed a motion with the district court to amend their complaint and include the doctor as a defendant, although the amended complaint was not filed until after the two-year limitations period for medical malpractice claims in the state.

Court Permits Wrongful Death Claim to Proceed after Personal Injury Judgment Had Been Awarded Based on Defendant’s Same Negligent Conduct

Published on: August 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Maryland Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision allowing the family of a deceased child to pursue a wrongful death claim against a negligent medical provider who allegedly caused the death of their son. The case is unique because the son, before his death, had already collected a substantial award of damages from the defendant, based on his own personal injury claim. As a result of the most recent ruling, the parents of the child will not be prevented from pursuing their own wrongful death claim for damages, although the boy himself had already received damages based on the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Alleged Medical Mistakes Result in the Plaintiffs’ Child Being Born With Severe Disabilities

The plaintiffs in the case of Spangler v. McQuitty are the parents of a boy who was born with severe disabilities in May 1995. A personal injury lawsuit was filed on the boy’s behalf that alleged the doctor who delivered the child failed to gain the informed consent of his mother before delivering the child, which resulted in a complete placental abruption birth injury and the child’s development of severe cerebral palsy. After a jury trial on the child’s claim, he was awarded damages for his injuries, lost future wages, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

After the Child Dies, His Parents File a Separate Wrongful Death Action on Their Own Behalf

At some point after the personal injury case was filed, the child passed away as a result of his severe disabilities. Subsequently, his parents filed a separate cause of action against the defendant, alleging that his negligent actions proximately resulted in the premature death of their child and seeking damages to compensate them for their mental anguish and grief related to their loss. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant argued that he had already been held accountable for his act of negligence in the personal injury lawsuit that was previously decided and could not be held accountable again for the same conduct. The trial court agreed with the defendant’s arguments, causing the parents to appeal.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Medical Malpractice Plaintiff’s Attempt to Extend Statute of Limitations

Published on: July 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently released an opinion discussing their decision to uphold the reversal of a trial court’s ruling that a medical malpractice plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The most recent ruling held that the plaintiff’s argument for extending the statute of limitations based on the “continuing course of treatment doctrine” should have been addressed by the trial court. Based on the ruling, the plaintiff may be compensated for her malpractice claim.

Surgical Sponge is Left Inside Plaintiff’s Body After She Has Gastric Bypass Surgery

The plaintiff in the case of Cefaratti v. Aranow is a woman who had a gastric bypass surgery performed by the defendant as a treatment for morbid obesity. According to the case summary discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman began suffering from abdominal pain approximately one year after the surgery was performed. After she started feeling the pain, she notified the defendant of her symptoms at several follow-up appointments after the surgery, although the defendant did not diagnose that a sponge had been left in her body.

Nearly five years after the surgery, a CT scan was performed on the plaintiff’s chest and abdomen by a different physician for an unrelated medical issue, and the sponge was discovered. After confronting the defendant about the sponge and having it surgically removed, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against him, seeking damages based on the allegation that he negligently failed to remove the sponge during the gastric bypass surgery.

Court Reverses Judgment for Defendants in Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: June 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma recently ruled to reverse a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants in a medical malpractice case that was filed by the surviving family members of a woman who died while hospitalized in 2006. The state supreme court ruled that the lower court’s findings regarding the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony were made in error, and the case should have proceeded to trial with the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness. As a result of the latest ruling, the case will be remanded to the district court to proceed toward a settlement or trial.

Plaintiffs’ Mother and Wife Died after Being Admitted to Hospital with Intestinal Hernia

The plaintiffs in the case of Nelson v. Enid Medical Associates were the husband and son of a woman who died in July 2006, two days after arriving at the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. According to the facts discussed in the appellate ruling, the woman was treated upon her arrival at the emergency department by one of the defendants, who diagnosed her with an incarcerated hernia and possible bowel obstruction. The emergency room physician contacted a second defendant, the woman’s primary physician, who advised they consult with a surgeon to treat the hernia.

The surgeon, also a defendant in the case, arrived and manually reduced the woman’s hernia. Shortly thereafter, the woman’s vital signs became unstable, and she required surgery to address her bowel obstruction. After the surgery, the woman’s primary physician adjusted her medications, which allegedly caused her blood pressure and pulse to drop and resulted in her eventual death.

State Supreme Court Rules that Post-Mortem Misconduct by Doctor Is Medical Malpractice, Reverses Damages Award

Published on: June 13, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Texas recently released an opinion holding that a defendant’s actions in improperly obtaining a woman’s consent for a private autopsy of her husband, who died while under their care, was a medical malpractice claim. Although the ruling in the case of Christus Health v. Carswell may arguably expand the definition of medical malpractice within the state to include actions taken after a patient’s death, the ultimate result of the court’s ruling was to reverse a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed because the court found that the claims alleging the post-mortem malpractice were not made within the two-year statute of limitations for health care liability claims in the state of Texas.

Plaintiff’s Husband Found Unresponsive in Hospital Bed after Receiving Narcotic Pain Medication from Doctors

According to the facts discussed in the court’s opinion, the case was initially filed after the plaintiff’s husband was found dead in his hospital bed after being admitted to the hospital with complaints of severe pain. He was initially prescribed narcotics to treat his pain, but they were discontinued after he suffered an adverse reaction. Subsequently, he was given additional pain medication by a different medical provider after the severe pain returned, and he was found dead shortly thereafter.

After her husband’s death, the plaintiff requested that an autopsy be performed at the county medical examiner’s office, although she was told that the medical examiner’s office declined to perform the autopsy. A subsequent autopsy performed at another facility operated by the defendant failed to include a toxicology screening. The plaintiff alleged that the failure to include a toxicology screening in the autopsy prevented the autopsy from determining if a drug overdose or adverse reaction contributed to his death.

Settlement Reached in Joan Rivers Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: May 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a settlement was announced in the wrongful death and medical malpractice case filed by the family of deceased comedienne Joan Rivers. The lawsuit was based upon her 2014 death at an outpatient surgery center in New York City. Although the exact terms and financial amount of the settlement have not been announced, the Rivers family’s attorney has said it was “substantial.” Since the case was settled, and the doctors and clinic accepted responsibility for Ms. Rivers’ death, there will not be a trial.

Ms. Rivers Dies After Seeking Treatment and a Routine Procedure at the Defendant Clinic

According to a New York Times article discussing the settlement, Joan Rivers arrived at the Yorkville Endoscopy Center in Manhattan on August 28, 2014, complaining of a hoarse voice and sore throat. Doctors for the center decided to have her undergo an endoscopy, which is a diagnostic procedure of the upper digestive tract and requires a patient to undergo anesthesia.

According to the article, the main operating physician ignored warnings that Ms. Rivers was at risk of having her airways blocked by severely swollen vocal chords. Minutes later, her airways become obstructed, and she stopped breathing, but the doctors were unprepared for emergency intervention to relax her vocal chords or puncture a hole in her throat to allow breathing. The doctors in attendance called 911, and Ms. Rivers was taken to a hospital for emergency treatment, but she had gone into cardiac arrest by that point and was unable to recover.

Appellate Court Reverses Defense Verdict Based on Contradicting Testimony

Published on: May 16, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Indiana recently released a ruling in which they reversed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed on behalf of the surviving family members of a deceased woman who allegedly died as a result of the defendants’ negligence and refusal to offer the woman life-sustaining treatment in spite of the family’s request to do so. As a result of the high court’s ruling, the case will proceed toward a trial or settlement in the district court.

Defendant Hospital Overrides Family’s Request for Life-Sustaining Treatment

The plaintiffs in the case of Siner v. Kindred Hospital were the children of a woman who was admitted to the defendant hospital as an 83-year-old in 2007, while suffering from pneumonia. According to the facts as recited in the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs had power of attorney over their mother’s medical care and requested that she be classified by the hospital in a manner that would allow her to receive any and all life-sustaining care and interventional treatment in the event her condition became immediately life-threatening.

The defendant hospital’s ethics review board overrode the Siners’ decision, finding that the woman’s condition was not likely to improve, and classified their mother in a manner that would prevent life-sustaining treatment, should the need arise. After hearing of the hospital’s refusal to follow their medical instructions, the plaintiffs decided to move their mother to another hospital where she could receive the life-sustaining treatment they requested. After moving to the new hospital, Ms. Siner’s condition worsened, and she died approximately one month after her arrival. The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the first hospital, alleging that they failed to follow the standard of care to which the woman was entitled and that they negligently contributed to her death.

State Supreme Court Reverses Judgment for Defendant in Wrongful Death Claim

Published on: May 12, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Idaho recently released an opinion reversing a lower court’s dismissal of a wrongful death by medical malpractice claim. The district court had ruled that the plaintiffs’ claim against the hospital where a family member died from an anesthesiologist’s alleged negligence could not proceed, since the medical provider was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the hospital. The state supreme court disagreed with the district court’s findings, holding that the plaintiff adequately made a claim against the hospital based on the apparent authority they had over the medical provider, and the claim should not have been dismissed. Based on this most recent ruling, the plaintiffs’ case will be reheard by the district court and could proceed toward a possible trial or settlement.

Hospital Patient Undergoes Surgery but Never Wakes Up

The plaintiffs in the case of Navo v. Bingham Memorial Hospital are the surviving family members of a man who visited the defendant hospital in December 2008, suffering from an infection in his ankle that was caused in part by a metal rod that had been implanted to treat a previous injury. The patient agreed to undergo surgery to have the metal rod removed, and he completed an anesthesia release form. The plaintiffs’ claim alleges that the provider of the anesthesia negligently administered the drugs, and nurses were unable to revive the patient after the procedure was complete. Ten days later, the patient died.

Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Lawsuit against Hospital Is Rejected, and Plaintiffs Appeal

After the patient’s death, his surviving family members filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the provider of the anesthesia, as well as the hospital where the procedure took place. Based on the consent and release forms signed by the patient and the status of the anesthesiologist as an “independent contractor” of the hospital rather than a direct employee, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim against the hospital, finding that it could not be held legally responsible for the man’s death.

What Level of Care Gives Rise to a Medical Malpractice Case in Florida?

Published on: March 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Medical malpractice is a term almost everyone is familiar with. However, what exactly constitutes medical malpractice is often misunderstood by the general public. Essentially, a medical malpractice claim asserts that a doctor’s negligent conduct resulted in some harm to his or her patient. What exactly constitutes “negligent conduct” is often where much of the litigation lies in medical malpractice cases.In order to prove a case of medical negligence against a Florida doctor, the plaintiff must prove that the care they were provided by the defendant doctor fell below the generally accepted standard in the industry. This standard considers the amount of training and experience a doctor has, as well as the geographical region a doctor practices in. For example, a doctor in metropolitan Miami will not likely be able to claim ignorance of new medical technology or literature, whereas a doctor in rural Wyoming may be able to do so.

If a plaintiff is successful in a medical malpractice case, the case will then be assessed for damages. This may include amounts for past unpaid medical bills, any future medical expenses due to the accident, lost wages, a decrease in earning capacity, as well as any pain and suffering the victim sustained as a result of the physician’s negligent care.