The New York Times reported on January 6^th the results of a study undertaken by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that reveals that hospital employees report only one in seven events that harm patients. The new report issued on Friday was issued in connection with a study on whether hospitals are complying with the Medicare requirement that hospitals "'track medical errors and adverse patient events, analyze their causes' and improve care."  Adverse events are defined broadly to include "medication errors, severe bedsores, infections that patients acquire in hospitals, delirium resulting from overuse of painkillers and excessive bleeding linked to improper use of blood thinners."

Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum's wife Karen Santorum won a medical malpractice lawsuit in Virginia against a chiropractor who negligently performed a lumbar manipulation on her which caused several lumbar discs to herniate.  She required emergent surgery to her back as a result.  The jury awarded $350,000 to Mrs. Santorum for her medical expenses and pain and suffering loses. The case was well handled by the Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in a particularly difficult negligence claim. This writer has first-hand experience with "manipulation malpractice" cases and was successful in one of the only other cases in the United States against an osteopath for an unwarranted and unnecessary cervical manipulation and knows first hand how difficult these cases can be.  Read the facts of our case here.

New York City continues to strive toward a more expeditious, economical and fair way to resolve medical malpractice claims. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the New York pilot program to assign one judge to oversee an entire case from filing to trial is being expanded. 200 cases are now working their way through a process known as "judge-directed" negotiation, which allows sufficient oversight and guidance from a judge knowledgeable in medicine to assist the parties with pretrial events and possible settlement. It's goal is to keep costs down and to prevent a variety of judges, some inexperienced, from ruling on motions and otherwise interfering with a smooth and orderly end to malpractice litigation.

Today's Baltimore Sun  has an interesting article about the liberal shift in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals since President Barack Obama took office. The Sun story chronicles a variety of decisions issued by the court, which was once known as the most conservative circuit court in the nation. The United States is divided into thirteen circuits (11 regional and the D.C. and Federal Circuits). The Fourth Circuit is one of the most important circuits in the nation and includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. As a byproduct of its regional jurisdiction, the court also hears national intelligence matters involving the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun last week, a Maryland cardiologist convicted criminally of implanting cardiac stents in his patients was sentenced to eight years in federal prison by United States District Court Judge William D. Quarles, Jr. Dr. John McLean was also convicted of falsifying patient records in connection with needless stents placed in patients while hospitalized at Peninsula Regional Medical Center in Salisbury, Maryland. The conviction comes in the midst of a massive investigation and hundreds of civil claims now pending against Mark G. Midei, M.D. and St. Joseph's Medical Center for alleged improper stenting of approximately 600 patients.

Our firm is investigating claims on behalf of a handful of patients. All but one received a letter from the hospital advising that an "independent" review of their medical chart and films revealed a discrepancy between the amount of occlusion reported by Dr. Midei and the amount found upon subsequent review. Th letters essentially suggested that the stentings, according to their own second look, were unnecessary. Anecdotally, one of our clients heard the news that the hospital was sending letters to past patients, but he did not receive a during the first "round."  His letter did not arrive until he requested an independent review of his chart many months after the "first wave" of letters were sent.

We are therefore encouraging any patient who underwent cardiac stenting at St Joseph to get their chart and films. You may request that the hospital re-review your films. You should retain your films and provide a copy to your cardiologist. No matter what the outcome, you should consult with attorneys to ensure against the possibility that you or your loved one was a recipient of an unnecessary medical procedure and medical device implantation.

The legal and medical implications of undergoing an unnecessary cardiac surgery are staggering. In addition to the serious health issues arising from the stenting and permanent placement of stents, the legal issues may involve negligence, battery, fraud, negligent supervision and oversight, conspiracy and other very serious legal violations.   

Our firm has no intention of amassing cases and provides this information as a service to our readers. Choice of an attorney is a personal decision that should involve recommendations and review of the lawyer's credentials, length of practice, case-specific results, the size of the attorney's practice, and that lawyer's reputation in the community of his or her peers.

Medical negligence cases involving massive numbers of claimants take many years to resolve, so your need to work with and communicate with your attorney is of utmost importance. Should you wish to speak with our firm about a legal need, please contact Alan J. Belsky, managing member and chairman of the firm's medical negligence practice at (410) 234-0100 or at ajbelsky@bwhlaw.com. Please read about our firm at www.legalteam.net for more information about Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz, LLC.

Maryland's Appellate Courts issued fourteen reported appellate decisions today, several of which are important first impression opinions on a variety of issues including medical malpractice, professional conduct, and criminal law. Click here to read the opinions issued today.

The Cato Institute, one of the Nation's most conservative think tanks, issued a policy paper on October 20^th that raises significant questions and concerns over damage caps on malpractice claims. In a paper entitled Could Mandatory Caps on Medical Malpractice Damages Harm the Consumer?, Shirley Svorny, Professor of Economics at California State University, Northridge, undertakes a detailed and highly critical analysis of the arguments asserted by insurers and physicians that damage caps will make health care more affordable. The Executive Summary of the 27 page report is quoted below and offers a glimpse of Professor Svorny's very detailed and thorough analysis:

If the medical malpractice liability insurance industry does indeed protect consumers, then policies that reduce liability or shield physicians from oversight by carriers may harm consumers. In particular, caps on damages would reduce physicians' and carriers' incentives to keep track of and reduce practice risk. Laws that shield government_employed physicians from malpractice liability eliminate insurance company oversight of physicians working for government agencies. State run insurance pools that insure risky practitioners at subsidized prices protect substandard physicians from the discipline that medical malpractice insurers otherwise would imposeOver the course of the next week, we will review in detail Professor Svorny's analysis of this extremely important issue that impacts negatively on the victims of medical malpractice and has resulted in haphazard legislation across the United States that unfairly and unnecessarily limits tort recoveries for deserving patients and their families.

It was recently announced that the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the University of Baltimore School of Law will open a new center, located on both campuses, to focus on a variety of health law topics, including: access to health care, patient safety, medical malpractice, health insurance, disaster medicine and tort reform. The goal of the center is to educate lawyers on health related issues and to educate physicians to better understand court decisions and legal changes in the health care forum.

The co-directors of the center, Frederick Levy and Gregory Dolin, both hold joint law and medical degrees. This center is thought to be the first in the country, and will eventually produce classroom instruction, a peer-reviewed journal, position papers and symposiums that will educate future lawyers and doctors on issues they will face as they practice in their respective fields.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of medical malpractice, contact the attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz via email or at 410-234-0100 for a free consultation.  We will work to protect your rights.

There are now four competing federal court decisions on the constitutionality of the so-called "Obama" healthcare legislation. The Supreme Court usually grants certiorari on issues that cannot be reconciled amongst the federal circuits. And while the decisions thus far have come from federal trial courts which hold no precedential value, it is quite clear there are significant constitutional questions raised by Obamacare that inevitably will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Hopefully, the case will not be decided on political grounds as was seen in Bush v. Gore, but these days, one never knows. The justices and most economists and think tanks know the fundamental principals of the legislation will save the country billions of dollars and afford many more Americans the health care they need. Whether the economic and social impact of the law is enough for the strict constructionist majority of the Court is a question that may hinge on just one Justice's opinion-that of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The federal district court opinions cover the gamut of analyses and outcomes. Some have deemed certain portions of the law unconstitutional but have deemed the legislation in its entirety constitutional. Others have deemed the legislation constitutional. For example, in Virginia, Judge Henry Hudson (appointed by George W. Bush) ruled that the provision requiring individuals purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, and that the penalty sought to be imposed on citizens who do not comply with this provision is not a "tax.  Thus, Congress, he concluded, exceeded it powers by imposing the penalty. Judge Hudson did not, however, strike down the entire law but declared unconstitutional only the individual mandate provision. Virginia is appealing that decision, arguing the entire law must be deemed void. Contrast this to the recent decision of Florida Judge Roger Vinson (appointed by Ronald Regan), who agreed that the individual mandates are unconstitutional as a violation of the Commerce Clause, but then ruled that the entire health care law was unconstitutional, saying this portion is not severable and  "the entire act must be declared void." Ohio federal Judge David Dowd  (also appointed by Ronald Regan) held that the law does not violate freedom of association, due process or privacy protections, but is still considering whether the law exceeds the authority granted by the Commerce Clause.

Other courts have viewed the constitutional issues and the standing of certain interests groups to challenge the law in different ways. Currently at least two dozen lawsuits, involving 26 states, have been filed. An article in Reuters summarizes the decisions and actions of the various district courts, and can be found by clicking on the link above

The conflicting opinions and the many more that will come will certainly catapult the legislation into the hands of the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Now, we will see which justices are aligned purely with political matters of the government versus the people and which will side with the public good that comes with such a bold program that most economists and economic advisors have opined is much overdue. It has taken more than 75 years to accomplish what many have hoped and prayed would occur. Now, the law will be at the mercy of nine rather than the combined presence of Congress and the people represented.

Indeed, the governmental need should ordinarily not trump the public need, but in many instances in past jurisprudence, the social need has trumped the need to restrain overzealous governmental regulation. Our health care system is broken. Costs are unwieldy and a comparison to other countries and nations reveals that our system of health care requires reform. A simple look at prescription costs and survival statistics leaves no question that we have much to learn and much to lose should the experiences of other nations not be incorporated into our current system of high cost low impact health care in this country.