British Cancer Doctors Identify warning signs.

British cancer specialists have identified eight signs of possible cancer.

Shocker, St. Josephs Medical Center lawyers Fight stent Claims!

St. Joseph's Medical Center in Towson, Maryland is contesting claims brought by patients who may have unnecessarily received heart stents.

Preventable Hospital Infection Deaths Abound Study Reports

Preventable Hospital Deaths

More Heart Stent Data raises More Questions

More data regarding frequency of stent usage is prompting more scrutiny of area hospitals.

Blockbuster Montgomery County Medical Malpractice Verdict!

A $5.6 million verdict in a Montgomery County medical negligence case opens some eyes.

Baltimore Hospital Stent Investigation Amazing!

Saint Joseph's Hospital in Baltimore is the subject of a Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission investigation regarding numerous possibly unnecessary heart stent procedures.

Unnecessary Heart Stent Letters Sent to 585 Patients. Are there more?

St. Joseph's Medical Center in the Baltimore-Area has written more than 585 patients to inform them that they may have unnecessarily received heart stent implants. The inevitable question are there more victims?

M.R.S.A. Hospitalizations Skyrocket for Kids

We have discussed Methicillin Resistant Staph Bacteria before here but never in such a disturbing context. Reports are that hospitalization of children with MRSA is skyrocketing!

Harford County Medical Malpractice Verdict $3.5 Million !

Harford County, Maryland is not thought of as a good place to try medical negliegence cases for victims. This latest verdict changes much of that view. See why.

FDA Approves Prostate Cancer Drug

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved a prescription medication to combat advanced prostate cancer.

New Ideas in Cancer Care

The war on cancer has thus far been a draw. New ideas about cancer containment are gaining traction.

Elder Abuse Widespread Study Shows

The American Journal of Public Health Reports That Elder Abuse is Quite Prevalent

Maryland Medical Malpractice Settlement Appeal Goes Badly For Doctor

Maryland's intermediate appellate court rendered a decision in the case of Hashimi v. Bennett which served to clarify both the outcome of judgement and the application of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint-Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).

The underlying case, involved the tragic death of Adrian Bennett in 2003 as a result of sepsis. Prior to trial, Good Samaritan Hospital and Doctor Roman Kostrubiak settled with the family of the decedent, executing a joint-tortfeasors agreement.

Thereafter, the case went to trial against Doctor Hashimi and a verdict in the amount of $2,295,000.00 was returned.
Under application of prevailing Maryland law, the trial judge reduced the verdict to about $1,800,000.00 and determined that Dr. Hashimi was responsible for one third.

The doctor's lawyers argued that he should only be responsible for one fifth of the final judgement, as three different Good Samaritan employees has originally been sued. This position struck both the trial and appellate courts as illogical as the pre-trial settlement agreement mentioned only the hospital and Dr. Kostrubiak as settling defendants.

Perhaps, this matter will wend its way to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Hospital Performs Fifth Wrong-Site Surgery in Two Years

One of the most desirable consequences of medical malpractice actions is the subsequent efforts on the part of hospitals and health care providers not to repeat past mistakes. A Rhode Island hospital reportedly has performed five wrong-site surgeries since 2007.

Wrong-site surgeries are exactly what the name implies. Surgery intended for one part of the body but performed on another. The incidence of this clear-cut medical malpractice, has been reduced through a variety of means. These  include writing on the body part to be operated on, having the surgical team confirm with the patient the whereabouts of the surgery and other measures.

Reportedly, the latest medical error involved a surgery on the wrong finger. The hospital was previously fined when three brain surgeries in 2007 were performed on the wrong side. http://wtopnews.com/?nid=456&sid=1794213

Electronic Medical Records, Health Care Reform and Medical Malpractice: Hand in Hand?

In the acrimonious health care reform debate a common denominator for all participants has been the need to digitize medical records. The perceived advantages include greater access to records and the ability of physicians in different locations to communicate about patients while swiftly assaying the patients' medical chart.

These same advantages have also been enthusiastically embraced as a mechanism for reducing medical malpractice and enhancing patient outcomes. Additionally, it has been thought that electronic record-keeping will reduce medical costs overall.

Unfortunately, the reality is that errors in software, data input and a siginificant incidence of computer malfuction may have created a very expensive monster. Reports of computer glitches which resulted in children systematically being given adult doses of medicines and other problems have been reported.

After a century of paper record-keeping the transition to digital records is both time-consuming and expensive. The Washington Post explores this topic in detail and focuses on the difference between the practical reality of transitioning to electronic records and the hoped for benefits. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102400967.html?hpid=topnews

This tranistion has also created a whole new species of medical malpractice claims that we, at Clark and Steinhorn are seeing. These are medical negligence cases in the District of Columbia and Maryland with both written and digital records.

Needless to say this complicates matters considerably. I suspect that it also complicates matters for health care providers and hospitals. As an avid supporter of reduced health care costs and reduced incidence of medical malpractice, I hope that this inevitable transition goes more smoothly.

Maryland Cancer Rates Down

Overall, cancer rates in Maryland are down although some individual varieties are increasing. Cancer of the liver and pancreas are up slightly and thyroid cancer has increased more than 25% across the period 2001-2005.

The greatest reduction has been with respect to cancer of the cervix with with reductions of stomach, prostate and colorectal cancer close behind. Incidence of cancer in Black Marylanders is noticeably greater than white Marylanders, although recently significant improvement has been seen.

Howard and Montgomery County have performed the best in reducing cancer death rates and have proven to be the only counties in Maryland to successfully meet the Centers for Disease Control Healthy People 2010 objectives. See http://www.healthypeople.gov/

The overall cancer death rate in Maryland is a little more than 10,000 per year with the highest rates in Baltimore City and Somerset County.

Medical Device Makers: Money, Mischief, Medical Malpractice, Misgivings

As Democratic lawmakers work toward hammering out health care reform and as Republicans work to thwart them, interesting alliances form. Our favorite hometown newspaper, the Washington Post, reports one such odd alliance.

Minnesota Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are uniting with Republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty to battle concessions sought from medical device manufacturers in the proposed reform of health care. This unusual alliance stems from the prevalence of jobs in that industry in Minnesota.

President Obama and Senator Max Baucus have cajoled a variety of stakeholders in our medical system including doctors, drug companies and allied health professionals into making economic concessions to facilitate health care reform. The quid pro quo for these concessions, the influx of tens of millions of new insureds into the health care system.

Many clinics, hospitals and doctors while obliged to take Medicare and uninsured patients, can only do so with a balance of insured patrons. The proposed health care reforms contemplate compulsory health insurance for essentially the entire population.

As one can imagine, this is popular with the insurance industry (oh boy 48 million new customers) and health care providers. (oh boy insurance companies to pay us). It is not so popular with medical device manufacturers, who contend that the new insureds will not be typical users of their products. Their position is that the elderly who are already either insured by Medicare or private insurance, are the ones who need artificial hips and knees and heart stents.

They assert that there is not much room in their profitability to make economic concessions.

One must look at this assertion skeptically. The industry has been granted unwarranted protection from medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits for their defective products. The American population is aging rapidly with an ever increasing need for the industries most lucrative products.

The industry aggressively markets its highly expensive products and is thought to be a major contributor to skyrocketing medical care costs. It is also a major contributor to political candidates in a position to help them.

The politicians are in a bit of a pickle. The jobs in medical device manufacturing and sales are good ones in a time of
recession. At the same time,  long-term concessions from the industry could go a long way toward making health care reform possible.

Preventable Deaths and American Health Care

When we at Clark and Steinhorn file a wrongful death medical malpractice claim in Prince Georges County, Maryland what we really are filing is a "preventable death" claim. In essence, we assert that a patient did not have to die if they had been treated within the standard of care applicable to the particular defendants.

The Washington Post today reports on an amazing and disturbing fact of the modern American medical system, we spend more per person on health care than any nation in the world but lose more people to preventable illnesses than all but four of the nineteen "industrialized countries."

We don't merely spend more for less, on average we spend almost two and a half times as much as the other eighteen countries for vastly less. How can this be?

Much of this stems from the fact that those who are adequately insured get the benefit of the latest technologies and medicines. There also is the fact that physicians are paid more here, health insurance companies take a larger cut and that treatment often involves more use of prescriptions and surgical procedures.

The problem is that tens of millions of Americans have no insurance and do not get routine care. Diabetes is controllable but not if you don't have access to any care. The uninsured often can't afford prescriptions, dentistry, screening for chronic diseases  and routine care.

Consequently, any care they receive is at an acute stage in their disease process, when curing is far more difficult and expensive leading to "preventable death."

The bottom-line the richest nation in the world could provide routine health care for everyone, decrease "preventable deaths" and save money.

Avoiding Dangerous Germ Exposures

Often our fears of exposure to deadly germs such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are ill-founded or exaggerated. An interesting piece in this weeks Wall Street Journal explores where we encounter the greatest risk of germ exposure and what to do about it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787204574440983321928144.html

The results are a little disheartening, germs are everywhere and the best single preventive is washing your hands after touching public surfaces or other humans. Other suggestions include avoiding touching flush handles and faucets in public restrooms with bare hands, washing towels and sheets in hot water with prompt drying and using disinfecting wipes on communal telephones, copiers and office machinery

The bottom line is that if you have to touch items used by others, whether its an elevator button, a stair railing or a coffee shop cream pitcher, don't use your bare hands and if you do wash them promptly.

Your own kitchen is the top source for food-borne illnesses estimated to kill more than 5,000 people per year. The culprits cutting boards, counter tops, sponges and utensils not properly sanitized.

As for MRSA,  Arizona researchers examined more than 113 offices in five cities and found 6% of them contained the super-bug mostly on phones, computer mice, desktops and the bottom of drawers. So wash your hands a lot at work.

Prince Georges County Medical Malpractice Verdict For Ill-Treated Infection

A Prince Georges County jury returned a $1.3 million dollar verdict for medical malpractice associated with treatment of a gun shot wound. The jury verdict returned on Sept. 17, 2009 will be reduced by the trial judge to bring it in conformance with Maryland law.

The verdict reduction is the result of onerous laws passed during one of Maryland's past fictional "malpractice crises."
http://www.maryland-law.com/library/maryland-medical-malpractice-attorney.cfm

The actual verdict total of $1,344,455.44 will be reduced to something in the neighborhood of $1,156,995.44.

This wrongful death and survival medical malpractice verdict was unique in that the jury deliberated for less than an hour. The plaintiffs , the Estate of John William Lucas and his surviving wife and sons, appear to have been ably represented in this case and have our condolences.

Health Insurance Saves Lives

It is probably no great suprise but health insurance saves lives and lack of it kills. This is the conclusion of a recent Harvard Medical School Study. The study followed 9,000 patients aged from 17 to 64 and revealed that 45,000 Americans die each year largely because they do not have health insurance.

This number represents a substantial increase over a study conducted just seven years ago. The thought is that uninsured people are not able to receive care for chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and depression and consequently are far more likely to succumb to these disease processes than those who can benefit from regular monitoring, treatment and medication.

It is against this backdrop that the national health care debate is taking place with more than 46 million Americans uninsured. The study concludes that these uninsured are at a 40% greater risk of death than their insured counterparts.
Bolstering these conclusions are findings discussed previously on this website (see   http://www.maryland-law.com/blog/universal-health-care-medical-malpractice-and-wrongful-death-the-first-reduces-the-others.cfm  )

Additionally, it is thought that the incidence of wrongful death in medical malpractice actions would be substantially reduced by insuring the population overall, as fewer patients would present to doctors and hospitals with untreated conditions.

Universal Health Care, Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death: The First Reduces the Others

A Harvard Medical School Study confirms what many doctors have long suspected, that health care disparities between different ethnic, racial and socioeconomic groups are in large measure the result of whether or not the study participants had health care coverage or not.

Efforts to measure the effect of lack of insurance have been tricky to establish. The Harvard study followed more than 6,000 adults and measured  a variety of variables including indicators associated with diabetes and heart problems.

Analyzing the participants blood sugar, cholesterol and blood pressure the individuals who had health care coverage routinely and understandably performed better than those without. Control of these medical measures are vital to controlling heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, strokes and a number of other significant causes of early death.

However, once the individuals without health insurance qualified for Medicare, the health gap between them and insured folks narrowed substantially.

One of the most significant costs in our health care system is the cost of providing emergency care for non-insured individuals who's chronic conditions flare up. It is far cheaper to take care of diabetes and heart disease on an ongoing basis rather than when they are in an acute phase.

It is also clear that individuals who are appropriately treated for their chronic diseases are far less likely to present healthcare providers with the sort of complex and difficult to treat situations which give rise to many medical malpractice, wrongful death cases both in Maryland and nationwide.

It is time to make health care available to all Americans as in every other modern nation in the world and reduce both the incidence and cost of medical malpractice cases. Maybe we can use that money to give everyone dental care too?

Tragic Baltimore Medical Malpractice Death of Infant Leads to Effort to Reduce Medical Mistakes

The loss of a loved one due to medical negligence is always tragic. When the loss is of an eighteen month old child it is unbearable.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun   http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-king1214,0,7208413.story 
Josie King died at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 2001. Her mother investigated her daughter's wrongful death and learned it came about because of a lack of communication between hospital personnel.

She channeled her grief into a book, "Josie's Story" due to come out tomorrow.

At Clark and Steinhorn we have represented numerous families in wrongful death malpractice cases in both Maryland and the District of Columbia and invariably lack of proper communication was the culprit.

Perhaps this book will focus the attention of the healthcare establishment on effective communication. 

Maryland Medical Malpractice Informed Consent Important Decision

Maryland's highest court has decided an important case clarifying the doctrine of "informed -consent". The case of Mcquitty v. Spangler holds that "the purpose of informed consent is to provide the patient (knowledge) of his or her options as well as risks of specific" procedures.

The backdrop for this decision involved a woman who was 32 weeks pregnant  who had received an abnormal ultra-sound. She was not "informed" of the benefit  of cesarean section and ten days later suffered a uterine collapse requiring emergency surgery.

The trial court had thrown out a substantial verdict saying that the "informed-consent" doctrine only applied to "affirmative violation of the patient's physical integrity."

The Court of Appeals ruled that this concept was wrong. In lay-person's terms something does not have to go wrong with a medical procedure to bring in to play informed-consent. Rather "it is the duty of a healthcare provider to inform a patient of material information" that "would be significant" "in deciding whether or not to submit to a particular procedure."

The Court correctly stated that actual physical contact with a medical procedure is not necessary as the doctrine is vital to "promote a patient's choice."