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.

Robert E. Cahill, Sr., retired Baltimore County Circuit Court judge, died on December 14th from a long standing illness.  He was 77.  Judge Cahill will be remembered as a no-nonsense trial judge with a great legal mind and lots of instict and wit.  His obituary appears in the Baltimore Sun.

The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz had the honor of trying a variety of cases before Judge Cahill.  We learned a great deal from his handling of trials, motions and courtroom procedures.  We knew he always expected a great deal of us as advocates for our clients and we hope we lived up to his expectations.  We learned a great deal from the judge and express our condolences to his family.

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari in a case which raises important issues relative the sufficiency of a plaintiff's expert certification.  One issue of particular interest to the plaintiffs' bar, and which has been raised frequently at the trial level, is whether a defendant who unilaterally waives out of health claims arbitration gives up the right to complain about the sufficiency of the plaintiff's expert certification.  Arguably, since a waiver cannot occur until plaintiff files a "valid" expert certification, the defendant tacitly accepts the validity of the certification by waiving out of health claims arbitration.

 

Kearney, Gail A., Individually, etc., et al. v. Robert S. Berger - Case No. 125, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - STATUTORY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE GOOD CAUSE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER MD. CODE, ANN., CPJ SECTIONS 3-2A-04(b)(5) AND 3-2A-05(j)? (2) DID APPELLEE WAIVE HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHEN HE UNILATERALLY WAIVED ARBITRATION AND FAILED TO PLEAD ANY OBJECTION IN HIS ANSWER? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE APPELLANTS' CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED EXPERT WAS INSUFFICIENT?