Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

A Massachusetts appellate court ordered a new trial after the trial court had granted a doctor's motion for directed verdict in a medical malpractice case.

Classic malpractice case. Patient goes to an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist who diagnoses a voice disturbance and reflux esophagitis. Patient gets speech therapy. Critical time passes. He gets a second opinion and finds out he has cancer, metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Tragically, he dies.

The trial judge found that Plaintiff's medical expert witness, a radiation oncologist, had failed to provide testimony specifically staging Plaintiff's loss of chance claim submitted to the jury. As I have written in the past, Massachusetts has more liberal - and more logical as I write here - lost chance loss than Maryland does.

Continue reading " New Trial in Massachusetts Malpractice Case " »

A doctor whose wife was tragically disfigured in an operating room fire has issued a press release and - incredibly - a television ad protesting North Carolina Senate Bill 33, which limits the caps on pain and suffering regardless of whether they resulted in disfigurement, mutilation, loss of limb, paralysis, pain, suffering, blindness or death.

In the ad, the doctor explains how his wife had gone in for a simple, outpatient procedure when a fire broke out in the operating room, causing severe disfigurement.

The crux of the doctor's contention: “No one can put a ‘cap' on my wife's pain and disfigurement—so how can the legislature put a cap on what it's worth? … Why do you think it's fairer for legislators to decide, rather than juries?”

The proposed North Carolina cap is draconian, criminally capping damages or disfigurement, mutilation, loss of limb, paralysis, pain, suffering and death at $250,000.

Medical malpractice verdicts are at new recent history lows, according to Public Citizen. Their new report tracks malpractice verdicts from National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). The NPDB began tracking medical malpractice payments in 1990. The number of malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors in 2010 was the lowest on record. The total number of payments made on behalf of doctors fell to 10,195 in 2010; down from a high of 16,566 in 2001.

No one is suggesting that there is 33% less medical malpractice than there was in 2001. Clearly, doctors and malpractice insurers are winning the public relations war which is leading to lower verdicts and more damage caps. Will that tide turn again? Historically, the public's tolerance for injustice to victims of malpractice and injury generally waxes and wanes.

• Average medical malpractice wrongful death verdict
• An overview of medical malpractice claims

Peninsula Regional Medical Center will settle a number of unnecessary stent cases for $1.8. million, the U.S. Department of Justice announced last week.

Besides the unnecessary stents, Peninsula was also accused of failing to follow up on complaints by its own employees in the hospital's cardiac catheterization laboratory about the "medically unnecessary nature of the procedures" by a cardiologist who has since been convicted of health care fraud.

I think St. Joe got the ball rolling on what is going to be the discovery of hundreds of schemes around the country to implant stents in patients who simply did not need a stent procedure in the first place.

Our $2.5 million wrongful death medical malpractice verdict two weeks ago was the subject of a story in LawyersUSA this week. Unfortunately, the preceding link requires a subscription right now but, after a while, LawyersUSA usually takes down the subscription requirement.

Two usual friends, doctors and malpractice carriers, part company resulting in a $3.4 million verdict handed down against Medicus Insurance Company. A Texas jury found that the company committed unfair and deceptive practices when it wrongly denied insurance coverage to a Dallas doctor. Specifically, the jury found that the malpractice insurance company misrepresented the quality and standards of its indemnification practices, resulting in millions of dollars in damages for the doctor.

What? It is confusing. But apparently the doctor got hit with a verdict and the insurance company refused to pay, leaving the doctor in the lurch. You can get more, albeit sketchy, details here.

Baltimore Washington Medical Center must pay a fine after giving a patient an improper dose of radiation last year. The Glen Burnie hospital was fined by the Maryland Department of Environment which, surprisingly, enforces radiation management regulations.

BWMC recently reached the $14,000 settlement agreement with the state for the improper dose of radiation. The patient was notified of the error, and officials also told the state about it through the required self-reporting system.

Good for Baltimore Washington Medical Center for confessing to the error. But this fine also underscores how important it is for state regulators to be on top of these types of infractions. No medical malpractice lawyer in Maryland is going to take the injured victim's claim: it is just too small. Someone needs to stand up for people who suffered through this type of thing because they represent so many more that we (and maybe even they) never know about.

Baltimore Washington Medical Center is like a lot of hospitals: most of the doctors there are doing unbelievably good work but there is a minority of doctors and nurses who are committing malpractice by the bushel load. The key is to figure out who is who.

Last week, Rod Gaston culminated a long fight for our clients by obtaining a $2.5 million verdict in a wrongful death medical malpractice case in Montgomery County.

I'm honestly more proud of this letter from the client (which I'm publishing with permission), than the verdict:

Dear Rod,

It has been one week since our unanimous jury verdict supporting our claim of wrongful death against the doctor who failed to treat my husband. We have all had time to catch our breath and reflect on the events of our six day medical malpractice trial. There are really not enough words of praise on your handling of our case. The usual questions of friends, "Do you have a good attorney?" were answered the first day of trial with your expert presentation of the facts in our case. The question was answered with, "We are very impressed with your attorney, you are in great hands."

You showed the highest level of professionalism in your questions and cross examination of all of the witnesses. Your attention to details of medical records was amazing. Your graphic presentation of the facts was organized and simplified for the jury to understand the maze of medical data. You were quick on your feet without having to ask for the "courts indulgence" as did our opponent in citing the correct information. You knew the facts.

You found changes to the medical record and were able to reveal the lack of standard of care and true arrogance of the doctor and some of his witnesses who changed deposition testimony while testifying on the stand. Again you knew our case and readily pointed out deficiencies in our opposition's arguments.

Most importantly, you truly cared to achieve justice for my husband and our family. No matter what the jury decided we knew we were doing the right thing in pursuing the truth that my husband did not have to die that day that way. The lack of care was evident to all of us at that time.The doctor refusing to send my husband to Johns Hopkins Hospital when a helicopter transfer had been established and only one call needed to be made by the doctor was unbelievable.

Refusing to make the call stating that my husband only needed one doctor and he would make the decision if my husband was to be transferred overrode my husband's and my repeated requests for transfer seeing that the care was not being given. My husband begged for his life and was ignored.

Your presentation of our case and your handling of opening remarks, cross examination and closing remarks resulted in a unanimous jury verdict for us. Your advice to add the 2 alternate jurors to the original 6 was a risk worth taking to prove the soundness of our case in the eyes of the opposition. Your demeanor in the courtroom exuded trust, knowledge, and a firm command of telling the truth based on the facts and records of the case.

Your counseling of all of us was direct and based on your years of experience in medical malpractice law.

There are just not enough words to express our gratitude and the peace the jury verdict has brought to our family. You asked the jury to be the voice of Larry Dixon and for the community on the type of medical care we all want for ourselves and our families. Jury members as they left the courtroom told me they took those remarks to heart and said there were 8 families that will benefit from what they learned from our case.

A fitting legacy for a wonderful husband and father who should be alive today if he had received proper care.

Your excellent litigation brought justice for our husband and father. A resounding Thank You to you most of all and to your firm which exhibited the highest form of professionalism. We will never forget you and certainly would highly recommend you to anyone for medical malpractice suits.

Sincerely,

K.D., Family and Friends

• "Angioplasty and stents may do more harm than good."
• An article in the New York Times magazine, written by a doctor, says addressing the issue of tired and overworked your physicians does not reduce medical errors HT: Overlawyered.
• A new study says state medical boards are not doing such a great job protecting consumers from bad doctors.
• A Pennsylvania woman has been awarded more than $2.2 million in her suit against the nursing home she said gave her late father poor care.
• Victims of North Carolina's old "eugenics board"--can you believe such a thing existed in the U.S.--are seeking compensation for forced sterilizations.
• A Florida abortion doctor slapped with a $36 million malpractice verdict will not get a new trial. His case involved a woman who came to him for an abortion and, because of what a jury said last month was malpractice, ended up giving birth to a severely disabled girl.

A rare medical malpractice trial where the issue was on damages: the hospital admitted fault and the jury awarded a modest - by medical malpractice trial standards where the injuries are usually catastrophic or the loss of a loved one - verdict of $250,000 which was affirmed on appeal in South Carolina.

The defendant made an interesting argument on appeal, arguing that the trial court should have excused "all potential jurors who owed a debt" to the hospital. The trial court removed the four venire members against whom the hospital held civil judgments but denied the hospital's request to remove others whose debts to AnMed were in default. It is incredible how many people owe debts to the hospital. I can see a juror or two. The hospital asked the appellate court for a a bright-line rule to categorically exclude from jury service all prospective jurors who are in debt to a party in the lawsuit.

Appellate courts have bright line rules. So they relied on the catch all "Does any member feel like they have any interest, sensitivity, bias or prejudice which would prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?"

I agree with the holding but would it be a better idea to exclude those jurors who the hospital had sent to a collections agency? Even I admit that it would be.

You can read the full opinion here.

• Kennerly argues that most med mal suits stem not from a mistake in judgment but from a lack of diligence.


• Kaiser Health is suing a hospital chain for allegedly intentionally driving up patient care prices by keeping patients longer than needed.


• A woman is suing a hospital and doctor for allegedly faxing her private medical documents to a machine shared by several of her coworkers.


• "As hospitals across the country are under growing pressure to reduce medical mistakes, the Hazard Alerting Loop system is designed to catch “near misses” before they turn into serious hazards."


• A radiology practice successfully sued for malpractice will have to pay interest on the judgment.


• Ew. And yikes.


• Here's a funny take on the federal medical malpractice "reform" bill.