On February 4, 2010, in the case of Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, Docket Nos. 105741 and 105745, the Supreme Court of Illinois struck down the cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, holding that the cap, which had limited damages to $500,000.00 for doctors and $1,000,000.00 for hospitals, is unconstitutional because the law violates "separation of powers by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a judge's ability to reduce verdicts."  The Supreme Court noted that such a cap impedes a jury's right to establish reasonable damages.

Illinois joins Ohio, Alabama, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Kansas in declaring that caps on non-economic damages are unconstitutional.  The Court of Appeals in Maryland has thus far rejected this argument and currently, damages for pain and suffering and other, non-economic harm are capped.  The amount recoverable depends on the year in which the malpractice occurred.  The cap is raised by $15,000.00 per year.

A verdict in the amount of $5.9 million dollars was reached today in favor of a 32 year-old woman against a vending company defendant.  The Defendant had hired a crane to remove a pool table from the second floor of a bar.  To prepared for the move, a portion of a fire escape rail was removed and tied back with a section of clothesline.  Three years later, the plaintiff, attending a party at the bar, was on the fire escape landing and was shoved into the tied-on railing when a door was opened.  The railing gave way and the woman fell 15 feet onto the concrete below.  She suffered a severe spinal cord injury. The jury awarded $381,228.00 in past medical costs, $2,532,775.00 in future medical costs, $26,875.00 in lost wages, and $2,971,750.00 in pain and suffering (non-economic) damages.  The trial was presided over by Judge Evelyn Omega Cannon in Baltimore City Circuit Court.  The law firm of Fick & May represented the plaintiff. It is likely that the defendant will seek to reduce the portion of the verdict awarded for pain and suffering to comply with the maximum amount allowable for non-economic damages permitted under Maryland law, known as the "cap".

A special commission on professionalism established by the Court of Appeals is recommending that each lawyer dedicate ten hours of time toward continuing legal education.  The results of the Commission's work was released on February 3, 2010.  One issue that is sure to raise further debate is the judges' proposal that judges would be exempt from having to participate in the CLE requirement.   It is interesting to note that the Professionalism's Commission's recommendation comes just days after the Maryland Institute for Continuing Lawyer Education announced it will be closing its doors forever after several budgetary problems and a lack of program attendance by would-be participants.  The Professionalism Commission has posted the proposed Rules for the Maryland Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education on the Judiciary's Web site.The Professionalism Commission has posted the proposed Rules for the Maryland Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education on the Judiciary's Web site.

 

 

The well-publicized stent malpractice claims against St. Joseph's Hospital, Mark Midei, M.D. and other potentially culpable medical providers have generated waives of commercials, advertisements, and posturing by lawyers for the 360 or so cases where patients received letters advising that they were the victims of wrongdoing and received stents they didn't really need. As stressful as it is for these patients, who were confronted with ambiguous letters sent over the Christmas holiday, the stress has not ended.

They continue to wonder about the short and long term effects of having one or more stents in their bodies they never needed, the long term implications of using Plavix and other drugs that were prescribed because they have stents, and the rights and remedies they will be offered if and when these cases resolve. Now, they are confronted with a feeding frenzy by lawyers who are seeking to obtain control over all the claims by rushing to court and filing lawsuits to obtain class action status. As reported by the Baltimore Sun yesterday, two such cases have been filed in the last several days.

Those with potential stent claims should be aware that there are pros and cons to joining into or remaining in a class action. Although class action lawsuits may be useful in instances where many individuals have suffered relatively minor harms, so that the aggregation of the small claims gives the group a larger voice and leverage when the claims together amount to millions if not billions of dollars, some class actions are harmful to the rights of individual claimants.

Except for the lead plaintiffs and their attorneys, individual claimants have no control over how the class action lawsuit is handled, including choices involving whether a settlement should be reached and for how much. In cases where each individual claimant has suffered distinct and differing injuries, a class action settlement may not bring them the compensation they are entitled to. In such cases, it may be better for individuals to file private actions and "opt out" of any class they have been joined into involuntarily. There are specific procedures under the Maryland and Federal Rules that govern class action procedures.

For more information on the pros and cons of class action claims and lawsuits, the lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz are available to discuss these issues in more detail. The firm is handling a small number of stent claims.

Finally, we believe the number of claimants will increase over time.  The firm has received many phone calls from individuals who, although not having received a letter from St. Joseph's, describe circumstances suggesting that they received one or more stents unnecessarily.  We encourage anyone suspecting that they underwent an unnecessary stenting procedure to consult with a cardiologist and have the films compared with the report dictated by the interventional cardiologist who peformed the stenting procedure. 

St. Joseph's internal review process that resulted in the issuance of the 360 letters was an internal review procedure with no outside oversight.  It is our understanding that they used a criterion of 50% blockage to justify the performance of stenting.  The review of films and radiology results is a subjective process that can differ from doctor to doctor.  We encourage all patients to obtain an independent review of their medical records and films.  All clients of the firm will have their medical records reviewed by experts at the firm's sole expense. 

 

 

The Maryland Institute for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers, MICPEL, announced today that it will be closing after 34 years of operations. Started in 1976 as joint collaboration between the University of Baltimore and University of Maryland Schools of Law, MICPEL's mission was to provide continuing legal education at a low cost to Maryland's practitioners and non-lawyer legal professionals. In a statement released today, MICPEL trustees cited outside competition from for-profit legal education businesses and the "recent economic meltdown" over the past several years as reasons for its planned closure.

Continuing legal education in Maryland is not mandatory, unlike many other states that require a certain number of education hours as a prerequisite for the lawyers who practice in those states. According to a survey disseminated under the direction of the Court of Appeals last year, most Maryland practitioners do not favor required continuing legal education. Despite such disapproval, one is left to wonder why mandatory CLE is not required since there is no downside to such a requirement and only serves to better legal representation in the state. MICPEL certainly would have a place in such a scheme. For now, though, an institution that has provided so much good to so many lawyers, will be closing its doors, and lawyers will continue to participate in CLE seminars at their option.

Governor O'Malley has appointed nine trial court judges to serve in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, and Montgomery County.  

In Anne Arundel County, Governor O'Malley appointed Laura S. Kiessling and Ronald H. Jarashow to serve on the Circuit Court, and Thomas V. Miller, III to serve on the District Court.  Ms. Kiesssling will assume the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Michael E. Loney. Mr. Jarashow will fill a new judgeship created by the General Assembly. Mr. Miller will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Robert C. Wilcox.

In Baltimore City, Governor O'Malley appointed Kendra Y. Ausby, the Honorable Videtta A. Brown, Charles J. Peters and Stephen J. Sfekas to serve on the Circuit Court.  Ms. Ausby will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable John C. Themelis.  Judge Brown will fill a the newly created judgeship by the General Assembly.  Mr. Peters will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Charles G. Bernstein.  Mr. Sfekas will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable John M. Glynn.

In Montgomery County, Governor O'Malley has appointed the Honorable Cheryl A. McCally and Joseph M. Quirk to serve on the Circuit Court.  Judge McCally will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Ann S. Harrington, and Mr. Quirk will fill a judgeship newly created by the General Assembly.

The mandatory retirement age for judges in Maryland is 70 years.  Of interest, Judge Charles Bernstein, one of the Baltimore Circuit Court judges whose seat has become vacant by virtue of his forced retirement, has challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement age in the United States Federal District Court for Maryland. 

 

The malpractice department at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz is handling a number of claims against St. Joseph's Hospital in Towson for the acts of one of its prior physicians, Mark Midei, M.D., an interventional cardiologist, for improperly inserting cardiac stents into patients who did not need them.  After receiving a patient complaint, the hospital conducted an internal audit, comparing angiography films of patients taken intraoperatively to determine whether the reported occlusion was consistent with the visual occlusion.  In more than 350 cases, the hospital determined the occlusion did not warrant stenting, although stenting was in fact performed.

The Baltimore Sun reported on the story this morning.  The story indicates that a federal investigation is ongoing and that the hospital believes it may have responsibility for claims brought by patients who have received the letter.  The hospital is now waiting for the lawyers handling these claims to notify them of their representation and the nature and extent of their clients' injuries.

Although Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz is handling these claims, we are taken a very cautious and methodical approach to dealing with our clients' needs.  Our first concern is that our clients get the cardiac re-evaluations they need to gain piece of mind about their health.  No amount of money will return a person's good health.  Our job is to ensure that before any settlements are reached or demands are made, that our clients understand completely the nature and extent of their cardiac conditions, and that we understand the short term and long term consequences of having a stent implanted that cannot be removed and is unnecessary.  Many people are or were taking Plavix, and the stents themselves release anti-clotting medications into the bloodstream.  It is also known that people who have stents are more prone to developing additional blockages at the situs of the stent.  These are all issues that we are dealing with and have engaged cardiology experts to advise us on and consult with our clients.

Please read the Sun article and contact us should you have further questions.

Today, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Lockshin v.Semsker, a medical malpractice case tried in Montgomery County. The plaintiffs, who were awarded $5,805,000.00 for the death of Mr. Semsker from malignant melanoma, had argued that the portion of that award which was for non-economic damages (commonly known as "pain and suffering") should not be reduced to the statutory cap of $812,500.00 The basis of this argument not to reduce was that the law that governs medical malpractice cases does not specifically state that a case in which the parties waive arbitration is subject to the cap. The trial judge agreed and refused to cut that portion of the award. The defendant physician appealed that decision.

Maryland's highest court agreed with the physician, holding that the damages cap found in Section 3-2A-09(b) does in fact apply to all medical malpractice actions, whether arbitration was waived in the case or not. The Court looked at the "plain meaning" of the statute and examined the legislative history when reaching its decision.

Of further interest in the Semsker case, the medical expenses incurred in that case were over $415,000.00 Mr. Semsker's health insurer paid all but $80,000.00 of that total and the rest of the balance was written off. The Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether the jurors in medical malpractice cases should be presented with evidence of the total medical bills, or only that amount which was paid by insurance. The Court held that the total amount should be presented to the jury, and after the trial, pursuant to Section 3-2A-09 (d)(1), the trial judge will then reduce the amount of the award consistent with the amounts paid by or on behalf of the Plaintiff.

If you have been the victim of medical malpractice, contact the attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz for a free consultation.  We fight for patients and their families to ensure they get the compensation they deserve.

 

A former cardiologist with a large, well-known Cardiovascular Group in Baltimore  is under investigation for performing unneeded and unnecessary stenting procedures upon patients who did not clinically require stenting based on test results. If you have received a letter from St. Joseph's Medical Center about their investigation and findings, you should contact an attorney at once. Stenting of vessels, especially unnecessarily so, can increase the risk of cardiac complications and may result in the need for unnecessary lifetime medical treatment and care. Stents typically cannot be removed once placed and may require intake of Plavix or other anti-clotting medications for the patient's lifetime. Stents also increase the risk of re-clotting in the area of the stent. If unnecessarily placed, a stent may significantly increase a patient's risk despite the absence of heart disease.

If you have been subjected to a stenting procedure at St. Joseph's Medical Center and have received a letter from the institution, please contact Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz at 410-234-0100. We have been retained to investigate claims against this cardiologist and would be happy to speak with you about your potential health issues and possible legal recourse.

 

This blog in no way is intended to suggest that St. Josephs Medical Center is in any way responsible for the alleged acts of the cardiologist.

In a stunning development on Saturday, Senator Bill Nelson (D. Neb.) agreed to support the health reform bill after speaking earlier this week to his local public radio station that he would not support the bill.  This all but ensures passage of the most sweeping reform that has been attempted for nearly 40 years.  Lots of concessions were made by Democrats involving abortion coverage and gave Sen. Nelson's state of Nebraska special extended health coverage for the citizens in his state.  This is unfortunately how politics works.  What concerns us as plaintiffs' lawyers is a provision that creates a task group to deal with malpractice reform measures.  This open ended goal could lead to reforms unfavorable to plaintiffs and lawyers.  Although Obama has spoken against caps on noneconomic awards, one never knows what effect politics may have on his spoken commitment.  The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz are watching these developments and will do our best to convince our legislators to vote against malpractice reform.