Bergen County Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Medical Malpractice - "Dr. Creepy" and his tattoos

Donald Caminiti — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:40:45 GMT

A Pennsauken woman has filed suit in Camden County Superior Court against her orthopedic surgeon, who - after performing successful surgery on her herniated disc - left a washable tattoo on her belly, below the panty line, while she was still under anesthesia at Virtua Memorial Hospital in Burlington County. The patient and her husband say they discovered the red rose the next morning while he was helping her dress to leave the hospital. Dr. Steven Kirshner apparently has left washable marks on previous patients as a way of lifting their spirits. Perhaps so, but in this case, it appears that "Dr. Creepy" had to lift more than just his patient's spirits in order to apply the tattoo!

Of course, the overwhelming majority of orthopaedic surgeons are competent and caring physicians who I am sure are also concerned about their patients' spirits following surgery. In "Dr. Creepy's" case however, one wonders whether he exhibited similar concern for his male patients and why he could not find another more appropriate way to lift his patients' spirits -- perhaps by simply telling them that the surgery was succesful.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

The Truth about Medical Malpractice Claims, Part II

Donald Caminiti — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:48:26 GMT

An editorial in today's Star Ledger alleges, with no supporting empirical data, that New Jersey and New York lead the nation in relative monetary tort losses due to malpractice lawsuits and, as a result of "a fear of medical malpractice lawsuits, defensive medicine -- that is, unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid tort lawsuits for "negligence" -- is widespread in New York and New Jersey.

The facts do not bear out the allegation. According to a study conducted by the Harvard Medical Practice Study Group and extrapolated nationally, 80,000 Americans die in hospitals every year from the negligence of their health care providers and, astoundingly, more than 300,000 Americans are injured due to medical negligence. Medical negligence is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, behind only cigarette and alcohol related deaths. Notwithstanding that dramatic fact, only about 2% of those injured by physicians' negligence ever seek compensation through the legal process. In New Jersey, malpractice cases constitute only 1.13% of all civil cases filed. And, in a 15-year review conducted by the now defunct Medical Interinsurance Exchange, a doctor-owned insurance company which insured approximately 70% of the doctors in this state, it was reported that jury awards in malpractice cases have been fair and that unjustified payments were rare.

If the Star Ledger focused its editorials on the need to eliminate preventable medical errors, rather than bashing the tort system, patients would likely benefit from better medical care and treatment and doctors would benefit from a commensurate reduction in otherwise meritorious claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Medical Malpractice

Karen Gatlin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:29:58 GMT

In 2006, the Harvard School of Public Health and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation studied over one thousand malpractice files from multiple insurance companies throughout the United States. Claims involving surgery, obstetrics, medication, and delay in diagnosis accounted for 80% of all malpractice claims filed, and the reviewers found that over two thirds of the claims involved clear error. The results of the study confirmed that the majority of medical malpractice lawsuits have merit; they are not "frivolous". In fact, most medical malpractice lawsuits which lacked clear evidence of error received no award at trial. Most malpractice suits involve severe and permanent injury such as patients whose radiologic studies were misread, causing a delay in diagnosis of lung or breast cancer; or patients who were seriously injured or died after receiving incorrect medication.

A separate study in New Jersey (the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) showed that malpractice lawsuits have a minimal effect on medical practitioners. Physicians in states without "caps" on awards do not relocate to other states. Most "tort reform" has not resulting in increasing physician supply or in reducing insurance or litigation costs.

More recent studies have shown that reforms in the health care industry would reduce the number of patients injured by medical malpractice. Medicare has refused to reimburse hospitals for a number of incidents such as patient falls and development of bedsores in the belief that the quality of care will improve and such incidents can be drastically reduced. Reducing the number of patients injured seems to be a better approach to the problem than denying compensation to the injured.

Peter commented to a prior post that "200 million is lost annually in New Jersey, 30% of which is paid in obstetric claims." Infants who are injured due to obstetrical malpractice require a lifetime of expensive treatment and, sometimes, residential care. These injuries not "frivolous" nor are the suits in which awards are given. The burden is on the parents and then on society when the taxpayers have to assume the burden of care when the award has been exhausted and when the parents are no longer available to provide home care. Again, the answer may lie in reforming the health care system to prevent such errors. The creation of web sites to advise the public of the number of lawsuits of physicians will help to reduce injuries as will the website recently created which allows comparison of various hospitals. Patients should be encouraged to research these sites before selecting a hospital or medical provider. A physician who has numerous lawsuits is the exception, not the rule. The Board of Medical Examiners should focus on the few practitioners who have multiple lawsuits. A small percentage of physicians are responsible for a large percentage of injuries.

See Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2024-2033, No. 19, May 2006.

See also www.rwjf.org/publications/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/issue10.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

Dangerous Flammable Products - Mattresses

Donald Caminiti — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of approximately 6,100 Serta Zipper-Covered Foam Core Mattresses. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Manufacturer: Serta International Mattress Co., of Hoffman Estates, Ill.

Hazard: The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Identifying Nursing Home Negligence

Donald Caminiti — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:00:00 GMT

A new, five-star system which helps consumers searching for a nursing home is scheduled to go online at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare Web site by the end of 2008. The ratings will be posted on the agency’s Nursing Home Compare Web site by the end of this year

The innovative new system rates America’s nursing homes by giving each a “star” rating similar to that used in the hospitality industry.

CMS hopes the system will provide patients and their families with an easy-to-understand assessment of nursing home quality, making meaningful distinctions between high performing and low performing homes.

The five-star rating system will mark the first time CMS has offered such a rating system for the fee-for-service or traditional Medicare program. Currently, through the Compare Web site, CMS assists beneficiaries and their families in making nursing home choices by providing information on individual quality-of-care measures, staffing and survey inspection information.

Information on patient and family satisfaction with services at a facility may also be added to Nursing Home Compare site. The “Guide to Choosing a Nursing Home,” a publication which includes information about the types of long-term care, local nursing home comparisons, and how to pay for nursing home care can also be found on the site.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Medical Malpractice or Complications?

Karen Gatlin — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:03:50 GMT

When a patient, a physician herself, underwent hysterectomy, her doctor told her that the recovery time would be short, about a week. Not so. Four months and three surgeries later as well as thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost wages, she is still recovering. She was told that she suffered a complication, something that can occur despite the best of care. About a week after surgery, she experienced severe pain and accumulation of urine in her abdomen and the doctor explained that he must have nicked the ureter, the tube that carriers the urine to the bladder, during the surgery. A nephrostomy tube was placed to drain the urine and she had surgery to place a stent in the injured ureter. Subsequently she had surgery to repair the ureter.

All of her relatives suggested that she sue the doctor so she consulted a malpractice attorney who refused to take the case. A different lawyer told her that it would be a very difficult case to win, because it would be tough to show the injury was the result of the doctor's negligence. The complication that caused all these problems, the nicking of a ureter, would most likely be considered a regular complication of the surgery, and not negligence. This means that even though she suffered, she wouldn't have a case. "Just because you have a bad outcome doesn't mean you can sue," she was told. Although only a medical expert can determine if there was a departure from accepted standards of care, attorneys are reluctant to undertake medical malpractice cases which may well fall into the category of complications that can occur absent negligence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

Cold Medicine Warning: Do not Administer to Children Under Four Years of Age

Karen Gatlin — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:37:01 GMT

Attention, parents: Don't give your children under 4 over-the-counter cough and cold medicines, and read the fine print on labels, say makers of such remedies who have been under pressure to strengthen their warnings. The cough and cold medicine industry, in the wake of intensifying criticism from consumer groups, lawmakers and pediatricians, agreed Tuesday to add "do not use" warnings to pediatric cough and cold medicines. The voluntary move by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which includes Johnson & Johnson, Wyeth, Novartis AG and Procter & Gamble among its members, follows earlier recommendations that products be banned for children under 6, saying they don't work and that the risks to kids outweigh the benefits.

The Food and Drug Administration, which advises parents against giving such medicines to children under 2, said it supports the move by the industry even while it has undertaken a highly publicized evaluation of cough and cold medicines. The FDA has yet to give its own guidance but worries that parents would give adult doses if it instituted a ban of products for children under age 6.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

Patient Distrust of Doctors

Donald Caminiti — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:56:00 GMT

Recent research and anecdotal reports suggest that patients increasingly distrust their doctors. According an article recently published in the N.Y. Times, in a study conducted by Johns Hopkins researchers, approximately twenty five percent of patients feel that doctors may expose them to unnecessary risk. The growing doubt around physician care, some contend, is part of a larger, systemic problem that removes doctors from the world patients live in.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Pay as You Drive Auto Insurance

Donald Caminiti — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The Atlantic City Press recently reported that beginning Aug. 8, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. will offer a policy that allows the company to rate drivers based on how and how far they ctually drive. Motorists must allow a high-tech monitoring device to be installed in their car that tracks speed and mileage, as well as how frequently the brakes are used, what time of day the driving is done and how quickly the car stops. The company bases insurance rates on how risky the driving behavior is.

Progressive says some drivers could save as much as 60 percent off their premiums.

The pay as you dirve approach however is not without its critics. Some worry that it penalizes night-shift workers who must drive during riskier times of day. The American Civil Liberties Union in Minnesota points to privacy issues - one more piece of personal data on a corporate computer. .

Under the Progressive program, customers can earn a first-term discount of as much as 10 percent just by signing up. When they renew their policy, the company estimates that the information gleaned during that year could lower their rates by as much as 60 percent or raise them as much as 9 percent.

New Jersey will never be a low-cost insurance state - its cost of living, density and demographic factors drive up that cost. But it can keep the cost down for some catagories of customers. But, perhaps with this new choice, some drivers will see a reduction in their insurance rates.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Medically Unfit Truck Drivers Still on Roads

Donald Caminiti — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:00:00 GMT

A recently released AP article notes that hundreds of tractor-trailer and bus drivers in the US carry commercial driver's licenses despite also qualifying for full federal disability payments, and some of those drivers have suffer seizures, heart attacks or unconscious spells, according to a new U.S. safety study.

The problems threatening highway travelers persist despite years of government warnings and hundreds of deaths and injuries blamed on commercial truck and bus drivers who blacked out, collapsed or suffered major health problems behind the wheels of vehicles that can weigh 40 tons or more.

The U.S. agency responsible for cracking down on unfit truckers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, acknowledges it hasn't completed any of eight recommendations that U.S. safety regulators have proposed since 2001. One would set minimum standards for officials who determine whether truckers are medically safe to drive. Another would prevent truckers from "doctor shopping" to find a physician who might overlook a risky health condition. officials who determine whether truckers are medically safe to drive.

"We have a major public safety problem, and we haven't corrected it", said Gerald Donaldson, senior research director at the Washington-based Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, whose members include consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies. "You have an agency that is favorably disposed to maintaining the integrity of the industry's economic situation."

Unfortunately, it is unclear whether any of the eight recommendations will be done before President Bush, who has been very friendly to business interests, leaves office.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti