Posted on September 30, 2015 in General

By Robert Geimer

A stunning new report has concluded that every one of us will experience a wrong diagnosis at least once in our lifetime.  According to a report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, each of us are likely to experience an inaccurate or delayed diagnosis in our lifetime, sometimes with devastating consequences. According to the report:

• At least 5 percent of U.S. adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error
• Autopsies suggest diagnostic errors contribute to 10 percent of patient deaths
• Diagnostic errors account for 6 to 17 percent of adverse events in hospitals

The report calls for better teamwork and training of medical professionals, and more emphasis on identifying and learning from mistakes.  Clinicians are also urged to listen more carefully to patients and their families, who can provide useful information in arriving at accurate diagnoses.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 22, 2015 in Personal Injury

Many online articles focus on the substance of the law: identifying the elements of a particular cause of action or describing how a certain legal defense operates. As important as this information is, there is a factor more basic and fundamental to every lawsuit that can have a profound impact on your lawsuit’s chance of success: the place where you choose to file your lawsuit. In other words, the specific court you choose to hear your personal injury lawsuit (called the “venue”) can have as significant of an impact on your lawsuit’s chances for success as can choosing the right witnesses and making sure you have sufficient evidence to prove the claims of your lawsuit.

What is Venue? 

“Venue” describes what court or courts would be most appropriate to hear a particular lawsuit. Although venue is a concept closely related to jurisdiction and the two are often discussed in conjunction with one another, venue is different from jurisdiction (which discusses what court has the power to hear a particular case). It is not uncommon for multiple courts to have venue as a court may be considered an appropriate place to hear a particular dispute if:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 22, 2015 in General

By Robert Geimer

A 32 year-old former “hedge fund” manager acquired a 62 year-old drug used to treat human infections and jacked the price from $13.50 to $750 per tablet, according to The New York Times.  Only a few years ago, the drug cost $1 per tablet.  But CorePharma acquired it, then Impax bought CorePharma, and the young hedge fund manager purchased it and jacked-up the price to the point where it is essentially unaffordable.  This is not the only example.  A tuberculosis drug was just increased in price from $500 to $10,800 for 30 pills after its acquisition of Rodelis Therapeutics.  We’re all for capitalism and investment in new medicines, but this is ridiculous.  People are going without life-saving medicine while we read about hedge fund managers spending $100 million on Manhattan condos.  An absolute disgrace.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 18, 2015 in General

By Robert Geimer

In 2001, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline pushed a study that concluded its antidepressant drug Paxil was safe and effective for teens.  This week, the British Medical Journal concluded that, based upon the same data, the opposite is true – that Paxil is neither safe nor effective in adolescents with depression.  In an article entitled “No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility,” the associate editor of the BMJ blasts the original study and raises serious questions about the process by which the original study was published.  It is so very sad to think that thousands of young people may have been harmed by reliance upon a flawed and perhaps dishonest study pushed by a desire for sales and profit.

Source:

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4629

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 15, 2015 in Medical Malpractice

By Daniel M. Kotin

Being the victim of a medical mistake is a terrible and frightening ordeal. Most of us go to the doctor and put our health – our very life – in the hands of doctors and nurses. We trust that they will do their jobs carefully and skillfully, and most do. But when medical malpractice occurs, the results can be deadly. Even if a person survives a medical mistake during a surgery (for example), a failure to properly diagnose an illness or perform a surgery correctly can drastically reduce the lifespan of the victim.

Medical malpractice lawsuits can be filed against negligent doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, along with hospitals and similar institutions, whenever a patient has been injured by that negligent conduct. The monetary compensation obtained through a medical malpractice lawsuit – called “damages” – is meant to compensate the patient for mental pain and suffering, additional medical  bills, time missed from work, and the loss of a chance for survival (amongst other compensable losses).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 09, 2015 in Truck Accidents

By Timothy Tomasik

Any type of motor vehicle accident can be upsetting; however, accidents that involve a passenger vehicle being struck by a large commercial truck or semi are especially traumatic. Truck accidents often leave the occupants of the passenger car with serious, life-threatening injuries requiring expensive medical treatment to correct. Those moments immediately following the collision with the truck are crucial: if you are not careful, you can say and do things which can make it significantly more difficult to recover compensation for your injuries and losses through a truck accident lawsuit.

Some of the more common ways injury victims sabotage their own chances for success in a truck accident lawsuit include:

• Not seeking medical attention immediately after a crash. In some cases, the occupants of the passenger car may not feel as if they need to visit a doctor or hospital. Choosing not to do this immediately after a truck accident is a mistake. Not only may these occupants be suffering from internal injuries or latent injuries, but refusing medical treatment can cause the truck company and other defendants to claim the injury victim did not take a reasonable step to limit the harm he or she suffered.

  Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 02, 2015 in Truck Accidents

By Timothy Tomasik

As a recent news story out of Pekin, Illinois illustrates, crashes and accidents between a semi-truck or other large commercial vehicle and a car can result in life-threatening injuries to the car driver and occupants – regardless of who is at fault for causing the accident. However, the trouble with truck accidents does not stop there: where a truck accident occurs because of the carelessness or negligence of the truck driver, injury victims face a steep and difficult road before they are able to recover compensation for their injuries and losses. Having the assistance of experienced legal counsel does not eliminate these difficulties but it can reduce the impact these challenges have on the victim’s chances of recovering monetary damages.

What Makes Truck Accident Lawsuits Difficult?

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2015 in Prescription Drugs

By Daniel M. Kotin

Many times, injuries caused by prescription drugs are the fault of a medical doctor committing medical malpractice.  Other times, the injury is caused by a defective drug and the claim is a product liability case against the drug manufacturer.  A third category of cases involves injuries caused by prescription errors due to misfiling of prescriptions at pharmacies.

The Basics of Medical Malpractice Cases

Medical malpractice cases are personal injury cases brought against medical professionals and others connected with the healthcare field for injuries alleged to have resulted from negligent medical care. Similar to most other personal injury cases, the injured plaintiff must show that the doctor or healthcare worker delivered substandard care; that is, care that was below the care a reasonable doctor or healthcare worker in the area with similar experience and knowledge would have provided. This standard of proof takes into account the geographic location the care was provided, the experience and knowledge of the individual worker, as well as customs, norms, and practices in that area.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 11, 2015 in General

By Timothy S. Tomasik

Vena cava filters were introduced in 2005.  Since their introduction, thousands of adverse reports involving these filters have been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The vast majority of these reports involve fragments from the filters immobilizing or migrating in the body causing serious complications or death.

What Are IVC Filters?

IVC filters are cage-like devices that are small enough to be inserted into the inferior vena cava.  The inferior vena cava is adjacent to the aorta and is the main vessel responsible for returning blood from the lower half of the body to the heart.  IVC filters are intended to capture blood clots to prevent them from reaching the lungs.  They look like tiny badminton birdies.

Patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lungs) frequently have IVC filters placed when anticoagulant blood therapy would not be appropriate.  Often, patients who have sustained catastrophic injury and undergo surgery have IVC filters placed to protect against pulmonary embolism.  Most IVC filters are intended to be permanent implants although some of the devices have the option of being removed in the future.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 25, 2015 in General

By Robert Geimer

As if having a colonoscopy isn’t bad enough, doctors mocked a patient undergoing such a procedure while he was anesthetized. As reported in The Washington Post, doctors in Reston, Virginia were recorded saying they wanted to punch the patient in the face; joked that a rash was syphilis; and referred to the patient as a “retard.” They were recorded talking about avoiding the patient after he awoke, even using a “fake page” to do so. Despite the recording, the doctors fought the case all the way through trial, but a jury ordered them to pay $500,000 for this inexcusable conduct. Do doctors talk about us this way behind our backs or when we are incapacitated? I hope not. But even worse, when these doctors were caught on tape, they still refused to accept responsibility and forced this poor patient to go through a trial. Shame on them.

Continue Reading ››