Wayne J. Guglielmo, MA

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two GOP congressmen have introduced legislation aimed at holding doctors who perform gender transition procedures on minors liable for their actions, says a story reported on KATV.com, among other news sites.

The two GOP lawmakers – Rep. Jim Banks (IN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) – introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act in their respective chambers.

If passed, the House and Senate bills would make doctors liable for any gender transition surgery on a minor that results in injury, whether physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological. Minors who believe they’ve been harmed would have up to 30 years from when they turn 18 to file a claim.

The House proposal would also strip federal funding from states that require health care professionals to provide gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgeries.

A companion House bill, also sponsored by Banks, targets another issue related to gender transitioning for minors: parental consent.

If passed, the Empower Parents to Protect Their Kids Act of 2022 would deny federal funding to any elementary and secondary schools that initiate a minor’s gender transition without first securing parental consent. (Last October, Sen. Cotton released a similar bill in the Senate.)

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.      

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Florida jury has awarded approximately $7.6 million to a former firefighter who lost the lower portion of his right leg after a doctor’s misdiagnosis, as a story in the Pensacola News Journal indicates.

In September 2016, the former firefighter visited a hospital-affiliated urgent care center after he developed an ache and a blue discoloration in his right leg. Prior to this, the story says, he had been “exposed to the waters of Pensacola Bay,” which might have caused the infection.

At the urgent care center, he was examined by a primary care physician, who diagnosed him with an ankle sprain. Instructed to ice and elevate his leg, the former firefighter was given crutches and sent home.

The following day, still in pain, he visited a local podiatrist, who “immediately suspected ... [the patient] was suffering from an ongoing aggressive bacterial infection.” The podiatrist then arranged for the patient to be seen at a nearby hospital emergency department. There, doctors diagnosed a “necrotizing bacterial infection that need[ed] to be aggressively treated with antibodies and the removal of dead tissue.”

But despite their best efforts to control the infection and remove the necrotized tissue, the doctors eventually had to amputate the patient’s right leg above the knee.

The former firefighter and his wife then sued the primary care physician and the hospital where the physician worked.

After an 8-day civil trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife $6,805,071 and $787,371, respectively.

“What happened to [my clients] should never have happened,” said the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The hospital declined to comment to the Pensacola News Journal about the case.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Florida jury has awarded approximately $7.6 million to a former firefighter who lost the lower portion of his right leg after a doctor’s misdiagnosis, as a story in the Pensacola News Journal indicates.

In September 2016, the former firefighter visited a hospital-affiliated urgent care center after he developed an ache and a blue discoloration in his right leg. Prior to this, the story says, he had been “exposed to the waters of Pensacola Bay,” which might have caused the infection.

At the urgent care center, he was examined by a primary care physician, who diagnosed him with an ankle sprain. Instructed to ice and elevate his leg, the former firefighter was given crutches and sent home.

The following day, still in pain, he visited a local podiatrist, who “immediately suspected ... [the patient] was suffering from an ongoing aggressive bacterial infection.” The podiatrist then arranged for the patient to be seen at a nearby hospital emergency department. There, doctors diagnosed a “necrotizing bacterial infection that need[ed] to be aggressively treated with antibodies and the removal of dead tissue.”

But despite their best efforts to control the infection and remove the necrotized tissue, the doctors eventually had to amputate the patient’s right leg above the knee.

The former firefighter and his wife then sued the primary care physician and the hospital where the physician worked.

After an 8-day civil trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife $6,805,071 and $787,371, respectively.

“What happened to [my clients] should never have happened,” said the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The hospital declined to comment to the Pensacola News Journal about the case.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Florida jury has awarded approximately $7.6 million to a former firefighter who lost the lower portion of his right leg after a doctor’s misdiagnosis, as a story in the Pensacola News Journal indicates.

In September 2016, the former firefighter visited a hospital-affiliated urgent care center after he developed an ache and a blue discoloration in his right leg. Prior to this, the story says, he had been “exposed to the waters of Pensacola Bay,” which might have caused the infection.

At the urgent care center, he was examined by a primary care physician, who diagnosed him with an ankle sprain. Instructed to ice and elevate his leg, the former firefighter was given crutches and sent home.

The following day, still in pain, he visited a local podiatrist, who “immediately suspected ... [the patient] was suffering from an ongoing aggressive bacterial infection.” The podiatrist then arranged for the patient to be seen at a nearby hospital emergency department. There, doctors diagnosed a “necrotizing bacterial infection that need[ed] to be aggressively treated with antibodies and the removal of dead tissue.”

But despite their best efforts to control the infection and remove the necrotized tissue, the doctors eventually had to amputate the patient’s right leg above the knee.

The former firefighter and his wife then sued the primary care physician and the hospital where the physician worked.

After an 8-day civil trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife $6,805,071 and $787,371, respectively.

“What happened to [my clients] should never have happened,” said the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The hospital declined to comment to the Pensacola News Journal about the case.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal jury recently awarded more than $100 million to a college student whose left leg was permanently damaged as the result of care he received after a sports injury, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.

In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.

But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.

Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.

Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.

In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)

In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”

The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.

In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.

A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”

At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal jury recently awarded more than $100 million to a college student whose left leg was permanently damaged as the result of care he received after a sports injury, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.

In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.

But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.

Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.

Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.

In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)

In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”

The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.

In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.

A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”

At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal jury recently awarded more than $100 million to a college student whose left leg was permanently damaged as the result of care he received after a sports injury, according to a story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.

In January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.

But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.

Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.

Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.

In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)

In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”

The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.

In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.

A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”

At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed a knotty claim against a local doctor and hospital accused of concealing a woman’s renal cancer, according to a story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, among other news outlets.

In 2004, Linda Berry visited Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids for an unspecified ailment. At the hospital, Ms. Berry underwent a CT scan, which revealed a benign cyst on her right kidney. According to the suit later filed by her family, she was not informed about the growth during this visit — nor during four successive visits to the same hospital over the next decade.

The first of these four visits occurred in 2006, when Ms. Berry was again seen at Mercy, this time for a urinary tract infection. Despite undergoing a second renal scan, Ms. Berry was not informed of the mass on her right kidney.

Three years later, in October 2009, she arrived with her daughter at the Mercy emergency department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. She was examined by Paul Grossmann, MD, a general surgeon. Ms. Berry underwent an abdominal scan that showed her renal abnormality. Dr. Grossmann diagnosed her as having constipation and released her from the ED. According to the family, he made no mention of the mass on her right kidney.

En route home, however, Ms. Berry and her daughter received a call from a resident under Dr. Grossmann’s supervision. Returning to the hospital, Ms. Berry learned that her constipation was actually colitis. She was prescribed an antibiotic and was again released from the ED. Her post-release instructions made no mention of the now larger mass on her kidney.

Two days later, still complaining of abdominal pain, Ms. Berry returned to the Mercy ED. Examined by another ED doctor, she underwent a fourth CT scan, which also showed the kidney mass. A radiology report urged Dr. Grossmann, her previous physician, to pursue the matter in order to rule out renal cancer. Dr. Grossmann followed up with Berry’s primary care doctor. In doing so, though, he mentioned only the patient’s ongoing colitis, not her kidney mass, according to the plaintiffs’ claim.

In 2016, following a fall, Ms. Berry returned yet again to the Mercy ED, this time with a broken arm. During her treatment, she underwent a fifth CT scan, which revealed the same kidney mass. This time, though, a discharge nurse mentioned the abnormality to Ms. Berry — allegedly the first time in more than a decade that a medical professional had alerted her to the potential problem.

The alert may have been too late, however. Ms. Berry was diagnosed shortly thereafter with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. She died on May 22, 2019.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Iowa Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a case involving a man who received the wrong urologic surgery, according to a story reported in the Des Moines Register, among other news sites.

In 2015, an immigrant from Myanmar named Zaw Zaw was referred by his primary care physician (PCP) to The Iowa Clinic, in West Des Moines, for a circumcision.

Because Mr. Zaw didn’t speak English, a language translation company provided him with an interpreter for the procedure, as well as for any necessary follow-up appointments. The procedure would be performed by urologist Kevin Birusingh, MD, who at the time was employed by the clinic. Prior to the surgery, however, a miscommunication occurred, leading the urologist to perform a vasectomy instead of a circumcision on his patient. It was not until a later follow-up visit that the error was discovered, along with Mr. Zaw’s realization that he was now medically sterile and unable to father more children.

Mr. Zaw sued both Dr. Birusingh and the clinic, which in turn sued the translation company. Against Dr. Birusingh, Mr. Zaw made two claims: one, that the doctor hadn’t obtained the proper informed consent, and two, that he had engaged in “negligent” communications with several key individuals, including other clinic staff members and Dr. Zaw’s PCP.

In 2019, a trial jury found the clinic liable, awarding Mr. Zaw more than $1.4 million in damages. The same jury found no liability on the part of the translation company, however.

Following the verdict, the clinic appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Late last month, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a new trial.

In its ruling, written by Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer, the appeals court said it could find no evidence that, in failing to communicate personally with his colleagues or Mr. Zaw’s PCP, Dr. Birusingh had violated an established standard of care. For this reason, Judge Greer said, the claim of negligent communication should have been dismissed before it went to the jury. Because it hadn’t been, however, she concluded there was no way of determining to what extent, if at all, it affected the jury verdict. She ordered a new trial that would exclude the negligent communication claim.

In its appeal, The Iowa Clinic also sought to have the first claim dismissed – the one involving informed consent. Contrary to the testimony of a defense expert witness, the clinic argued, Iowa malpractice law doesn’t automatically fault a doctor whose patient misunderstands the procedure he or she is about to receive – as long as, that is, the doctor has made a “reasonable effort” to inform the patient beforehand.

Judge Greer agreed on this point of general law but still permitted the retrial to go forward. Why? She did so because, as the decision made clear, no expert testimony is needed to establish medical malpractice if the lack of care is so obvious that it’s within the comprehension of a layperson.

Mr. Zaw and his attorney, Ben Novotny, have petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court to review the appeals decision.

If the high court refuses that petition and the trial court schedules a new trial on the informed consent issue alone, Mr. Novotny is optimistic: “However it’s determined, whether it’s here [district court] or at the Supreme Court, we’ll live with the court’s decision, we’ll retry the case, and we’ll ask for more money.”
 

Jury exceeds state cap in infant head-trauma case

In what’s being called the state’s largest medical malpractice judgment to date, a Nebraska jury has handed down a multimillion-dollar award to a couple whose daughter was improperly discharged from the hospital after suffering a fall-related seizure, a story in the Omaha World-Herald reports.

The fall occurred in 2017 at a day care center, where then 11-month-old Vivianne Marousek hit her head while playing and began experiencing a seizure. Taken to an Omaha hospital, the infant was first treated by an emergency department doctor and then placed in the care of a hospital pediatrician. (The ED doctor wasn’t a party to the subsequent suit.)

According to the plaintiffs, after examining and observing the child, the pediatrician concluded that her seizures wouldn’t persist and that she should be discharged from the hospital. Within 48 hours after returning home, however, Vivianne suffered severe seizures, resulting in debilitating brain damage. Healthy before her fall, the now 6-year-old is blind, in a wheelchair, has a form of cerebral palsy, and can’t communicate beyond rudimentary responses to her parents’ voices.

After a 10-hour deliberation, the trial jury found both the hospital and the pediatrician liable for the child’s injuries. It awarded $21.5 million in damages for Vivianne’s ongoing medical care and $4.6 million in noneconomic damages to her parents.

An attorney for the hospital and pediatrician is expected to contest the award. Specifically, he’s expected to ask that the trial judge impose Nebraska’s $2.25 million cap on medical malpractice verdicts, thereby reducing the total award to $4.5 million, to be split evenly between Vivianne and her parents.

If that happens, the attorney for the plaintiffs has promised to contest the request, arguing that the state’s cap is unconstitutional and that the child’s lifetime medical bills will far exceed it.
 

University’s negligence caused them unnecessary suffering, women claim

A group of seven women has sued Yale University Medical School, in New Haven, Conn., for failing to safeguard the pain medication normally used during in vitro fertilization treatments, reports a story on Eyewitness News3 and other news sites.

The women’s suit follows a March 2021 guilty plea by a Yale staff nurse who was addicted to pain meds. In her plea, the nurse admitted to using a syringe to extract fentanyl from vials and then refilling those same vials with saline. Federal prosecutors say that at least 175 vials – some containing only saline and others with trace amounts of fentanyl – were tampered with in this manner.

As a result of Yale’s failure to guard against such actions, the women claim, they were subjected to unnecessary trauma and stress during their IVF treatments, which experts say can be unpleasant and take a physiologic toll on the body without the proper pain control.

The current suit won’t be the last, says the attorney representing the group of seven women. “We have somewhere on the line of 40-50 women who’ve been affected who contacted us,” he says.

A spokesperson for Yale declined to comment on the pending litigation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Iowa Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a case involving a man who received the wrong urologic surgery, according to a story reported in the Des Moines Register, among other news sites.

In 2015, an immigrant from Myanmar named Zaw Zaw was referred by his primary care physician (PCP) to The Iowa Clinic, in West Des Moines, for a circumcision.

Because Mr. Zaw didn’t speak English, a language translation company provided him with an interpreter for the procedure, as well as for any necessary follow-up appointments. The procedure would be performed by urologist Kevin Birusingh, MD, who at the time was employed by the clinic. Prior to the surgery, however, a miscommunication occurred, leading the urologist to perform a vasectomy instead of a circumcision on his patient. It was not until a later follow-up visit that the error was discovered, along with Mr. Zaw’s realization that he was now medically sterile and unable to father more children.

Mr. Zaw sued both Dr. Birusingh and the clinic, which in turn sued the translation company. Against Dr. Birusingh, Mr. Zaw made two claims: one, that the doctor hadn’t obtained the proper informed consent, and two, that he had engaged in “negligent” communications with several key individuals, including other clinic staff members and Dr. Zaw’s PCP.

In 2019, a trial jury found the clinic liable, awarding Mr. Zaw more than $1.4 million in damages. The same jury found no liability on the part of the translation company, however.

Following the verdict, the clinic appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Late last month, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a new trial.

In its ruling, written by Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer, the appeals court said it could find no evidence that, in failing to communicate personally with his colleagues or Mr. Zaw’s PCP, Dr. Birusingh had violated an established standard of care. For this reason, Judge Greer said, the claim of negligent communication should have been dismissed before it went to the jury. Because it hadn’t been, however, she concluded there was no way of determining to what extent, if at all, it affected the jury verdict. She ordered a new trial that would exclude the negligent communication claim.

In its appeal, The Iowa Clinic also sought to have the first claim dismissed – the one involving informed consent. Contrary to the testimony of a defense expert witness, the clinic argued, Iowa malpractice law doesn’t automatically fault a doctor whose patient misunderstands the procedure he or she is about to receive – as long as, that is, the doctor has made a “reasonable effort” to inform the patient beforehand.

Judge Greer agreed on this point of general law but still permitted the retrial to go forward. Why? She did so because, as the decision made clear, no expert testimony is needed to establish medical malpractice if the lack of care is so obvious that it’s within the comprehension of a layperson.

Mr. Zaw and his attorney, Ben Novotny, have petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court to review the appeals decision.

If the high court refuses that petition and the trial court schedules a new trial on the informed consent issue alone, Mr. Novotny is optimistic: “However it’s determined, whether it’s here [district court] or at the Supreme Court, we’ll live with the court’s decision, we’ll retry the case, and we’ll ask for more money.”
 

Jury exceeds state cap in infant head-trauma case

In what’s being called the state’s largest medical malpractice judgment to date, a Nebraska jury has handed down a multimillion-dollar award to a couple whose daughter was improperly discharged from the hospital after suffering a fall-related seizure, a story in the Omaha World-Herald reports.

The fall occurred in 2017 at a day care center, where then 11-month-old Vivianne Marousek hit her head while playing and began experiencing a seizure. Taken to an Omaha hospital, the infant was first treated by an emergency department doctor and then placed in the care of a hospital pediatrician. (The ED doctor wasn’t a party to the subsequent suit.)

According to the plaintiffs, after examining and observing the child, the pediatrician concluded that her seizures wouldn’t persist and that she should be discharged from the hospital. Within 48 hours after returning home, however, Vivianne suffered severe seizures, resulting in debilitating brain damage. Healthy before her fall, the now 6-year-old is blind, in a wheelchair, has a form of cerebral palsy, and can’t communicate beyond rudimentary responses to her parents’ voices.

After a 10-hour deliberation, the trial jury found both the hospital and the pediatrician liable for the child’s injuries. It awarded $21.5 million in damages for Vivianne’s ongoing medical care and $4.6 million in noneconomic damages to her parents.

An attorney for the hospital and pediatrician is expected to contest the award. Specifically, he’s expected to ask that the trial judge impose Nebraska’s $2.25 million cap on medical malpractice verdicts, thereby reducing the total award to $4.5 million, to be split evenly between Vivianne and her parents.

If that happens, the attorney for the plaintiffs has promised to contest the request, arguing that the state’s cap is unconstitutional and that the child’s lifetime medical bills will far exceed it.
 

University’s negligence caused them unnecessary suffering, women claim

A group of seven women has sued Yale University Medical School, in New Haven, Conn., for failing to safeguard the pain medication normally used during in vitro fertilization treatments, reports a story on Eyewitness News3 and other news sites.

The women’s suit follows a March 2021 guilty plea by a Yale staff nurse who was addicted to pain meds. In her plea, the nurse admitted to using a syringe to extract fentanyl from vials and then refilling those same vials with saline. Federal prosecutors say that at least 175 vials – some containing only saline and others with trace amounts of fentanyl – were tampered with in this manner.

As a result of Yale’s failure to guard against such actions, the women claim, they were subjected to unnecessary trauma and stress during their IVF treatments, which experts say can be unpleasant and take a physiologic toll on the body without the proper pain control.

The current suit won’t be the last, says the attorney representing the group of seven women. “We have somewhere on the line of 40-50 women who’ve been affected who contacted us,” he says.

A spokesperson for Yale declined to comment on the pending litigation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Iowa Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a case involving a man who received the wrong urologic surgery, according to a story reported in the Des Moines Register, among other news sites.

In 2015, an immigrant from Myanmar named Zaw Zaw was referred by his primary care physician (PCP) to The Iowa Clinic, in West Des Moines, for a circumcision.

Because Mr. Zaw didn’t speak English, a language translation company provided him with an interpreter for the procedure, as well as for any necessary follow-up appointments. The procedure would be performed by urologist Kevin Birusingh, MD, who at the time was employed by the clinic. Prior to the surgery, however, a miscommunication occurred, leading the urologist to perform a vasectomy instead of a circumcision on his patient. It was not until a later follow-up visit that the error was discovered, along with Mr. Zaw’s realization that he was now medically sterile and unable to father more children.

Mr. Zaw sued both Dr. Birusingh and the clinic, which in turn sued the translation company. Against Dr. Birusingh, Mr. Zaw made two claims: one, that the doctor hadn’t obtained the proper informed consent, and two, that he had engaged in “negligent” communications with several key individuals, including other clinic staff members and Dr. Zaw’s PCP.

In 2019, a trial jury found the clinic liable, awarding Mr. Zaw more than $1.4 million in damages. The same jury found no liability on the part of the translation company, however.

Following the verdict, the clinic appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Late last month, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for a new trial.

In its ruling, written by Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer, the appeals court said it could find no evidence that, in failing to communicate personally with his colleagues or Mr. Zaw’s PCP, Dr. Birusingh had violated an established standard of care. For this reason, Judge Greer said, the claim of negligent communication should have been dismissed before it went to the jury. Because it hadn’t been, however, she concluded there was no way of determining to what extent, if at all, it affected the jury verdict. She ordered a new trial that would exclude the negligent communication claim.

In its appeal, The Iowa Clinic also sought to have the first claim dismissed – the one involving informed consent. Contrary to the testimony of a defense expert witness, the clinic argued, Iowa malpractice law doesn’t automatically fault a doctor whose patient misunderstands the procedure he or she is about to receive – as long as, that is, the doctor has made a “reasonable effort” to inform the patient beforehand.

Judge Greer agreed on this point of general law but still permitted the retrial to go forward. Why? She did so because, as the decision made clear, no expert testimony is needed to establish medical malpractice if the lack of care is so obvious that it’s within the comprehension of a layperson.

Mr. Zaw and his attorney, Ben Novotny, have petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court to review the appeals decision.

If the high court refuses that petition and the trial court schedules a new trial on the informed consent issue alone, Mr. Novotny is optimistic: “However it’s determined, whether it’s here [district court] or at the Supreme Court, we’ll live with the court’s decision, we’ll retry the case, and we’ll ask for more money.”
 

Jury exceeds state cap in infant head-trauma case

In what’s being called the state’s largest medical malpractice judgment to date, a Nebraska jury has handed down a multimillion-dollar award to a couple whose daughter was improperly discharged from the hospital after suffering a fall-related seizure, a story in the Omaha World-Herald reports.

The fall occurred in 2017 at a day care center, where then 11-month-old Vivianne Marousek hit her head while playing and began experiencing a seizure. Taken to an Omaha hospital, the infant was first treated by an emergency department doctor and then placed in the care of a hospital pediatrician. (The ED doctor wasn’t a party to the subsequent suit.)

According to the plaintiffs, after examining and observing the child, the pediatrician concluded that her seizures wouldn’t persist and that she should be discharged from the hospital. Within 48 hours after returning home, however, Vivianne suffered severe seizures, resulting in debilitating brain damage. Healthy before her fall, the now 6-year-old is blind, in a wheelchair, has a form of cerebral palsy, and can’t communicate beyond rudimentary responses to her parents’ voices.

After a 10-hour deliberation, the trial jury found both the hospital and the pediatrician liable for the child’s injuries. It awarded $21.5 million in damages for Vivianne’s ongoing medical care and $4.6 million in noneconomic damages to her parents.

An attorney for the hospital and pediatrician is expected to contest the award. Specifically, he’s expected to ask that the trial judge impose Nebraska’s $2.25 million cap on medical malpractice verdicts, thereby reducing the total award to $4.5 million, to be split evenly between Vivianne and her parents.

If that happens, the attorney for the plaintiffs has promised to contest the request, arguing that the state’s cap is unconstitutional and that the child’s lifetime medical bills will far exceed it.
 

University’s negligence caused them unnecessary suffering, women claim

A group of seven women has sued Yale University Medical School, in New Haven, Conn., for failing to safeguard the pain medication normally used during in vitro fertilization treatments, reports a story on Eyewitness News3 and other news sites.

The women’s suit follows a March 2021 guilty plea by a Yale staff nurse who was addicted to pain meds. In her plea, the nurse admitted to using a syringe to extract fentanyl from vials and then refilling those same vials with saline. Federal prosecutors say that at least 175 vials – some containing only saline and others with trace amounts of fentanyl – were tampered with in this manner.

As a result of Yale’s failure to guard against such actions, the women claim, they were subjected to unnecessary trauma and stress during their IVF treatments, which experts say can be unpleasant and take a physiologic toll on the body without the proper pain control.

The current suit won’t be the last, says the attorney representing the group of seven women. “We have somewhere on the line of 40-50 women who’ve been affected who contacted us,” he says.

A spokesperson for Yale declined to comment on the pending litigation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s difficult enough when a patient’s prostate is removed because of cancer. But it’s another thing altogether when the prostate is removed because of a medical error, as a report on 3 CBS Philly, among other news outlets, makes clear.

The patient, Eric Spangs, lives in southeastern Pennsylvania. Testing indicated an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. He subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate, which appeared to indicate cancer. In time, though, Mr. Spangs learned there had been an error: the tissue section used in the microscopic diagnosis had come from the biopsy specimen of a different patient. Mr. Spangs himself didn’t actually have cancer.

Ordinarily, such news would be cause for celebration. But this was far from a normal situ ation: Following his initial cancer diagnosis, Mr. Spangs underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy at a local hospital. The fact that he was now judged to be cancer free was of little consolation, especially in light of the effects of his surgery, which included urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction.

“It’s devastated me emotionally and physically,” Mr. Spangs said. It has also been emotionally devastating for his wife, Melissa. (The couple has five children.)

Their attorney, Aaron Freiwald, has filed a suit against the health system to which the local hospital belongs and the area’s largest urologic practice.

The Spangs wish to caution other patients not to make the same mistake they did: they failed to get a second opinion from an oncology specialist, as recommended by the American Cancer Society. (Eric Spangs did receive a second opinion from someone at the urologic practice, but that practice doesn’t specialize in oncology.)

The Spangs also worry about the patient who received the false-negative biopsy result. They have been assured, however, that that patient will be properly notified of his actual cancer status.
 

Fertility specialist uses own sperm to impregnate patients

A suit claims that a Rochester, N.Y., gynecologist and fertility specialist used his own sperm to inseminate multiple patients, according to a story reported by the Associated Press and other news outlets.

The suit was filed last month by the daughter — call her “Harriet Jones” — of one of the women who received fertility services from the doctor during the 1980s. Ms. Jones’s suit alleges that at the time, the doctor told her mother that the sperm donor would be a medical student at the University of Rochester. In fact, the donor was the doctor himself. He kept that fact a secret for years, even after Ms. Jones — his own daughter — sought him out for gynecologic services.

The secret gradually began to come to light in 2016, when Ms. Jones’s nonbiological father — the man who had helped to raise her — died. Curious about her biological father, Ms. Jones sought to learn his identity from the Rochester gynecologist who had treated her mother and was now her own gynecologist. The doctor said he couldn’t be of help; he claimed he hadn’t kept the relevant records.

Ms. Jones then submitted a blood sample to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company. The results surprised her: Not only did she learn of her ethnicity, but she also discovered the existence of two half siblings, who were donor-conceived in 1984 and 1985, respectively, the very period when her own mother was undergoing insemination procedures. Ms. Jones subsequently discovered the existence of additional half siblings, all born in the first half of the 1980s.

Initially elated by the discoveries, Ms. Jones soon grew despondent and anxious. She suffered from migraine headaches, among other symptoms. Her biological father, it seemed, had been “a serial sperm donor.”

Still, she continued to go to her Rochester doctor for treatment, having no reason to suspect anything untoward about him. Her visits, including those for prolonged menstrual bleeding, involved routine breast and pelvic exams, transvaginal ultrasounds, and intrauterine contraceptive placements under sedation.

Over this period, her doctor was friendly, asking her a variety of questions about her personal life. During one especially strange visit, however, he began chuckling and said, “You’re a really good kid, such a good kid.” During this visit, he invited his wife into the exam room, presumably to meet Ms. Jones.

It was at this moment that Ms. Jones had a revelation: Could her gynecologist actually be her biological father?

In May 2021, Ms. Jones and a half brother with whom she had been in touch contacted the gynecologist’s daughter from his first marriage. All three underwent genetic testing. The results showed a 99.99% chance of a genetic link.

Ms. Jones has said in her suit that “no reasonable woman” would have submitted to pelvic examinations and other examinations by a doctor whom she knew to be her father.

Besides fraud, her suit alleges medical malpractice, battery, infliction of mental distress, and lack of informed consent. She is seeking compensation for all harm caused to her, including past and future economic damages, past unreimbursed medical expenses, and future expenses related to her mental health treatment and care.

The story included no further details about the civil litigation. As for criminal charges, it’s unlikely Ms. Jones’s biological father — her gynecologist — will face criminal charges for his alleged crimes because they fall outside of the state’s statute of limitations.
 

Parents say daughter’s stroke wasn’t identified

The Georgia parents of a young woman who died from a stroke following a series of alleged misdiagnoses are suing multiple practitioners, reports Legal Newswire and other news outlets

In June 2019, Michaela Smith was training for her job as a detention officer when she began experiencing a variety of symptoms, including headache, shortness of breath, throat swelling, and slurred speech. She was taken to the emergency department (ED) at Hamilton Medical Center, in Dalton, Ga.

There, she was examined by an attending ED doctor, who ordered a CT scan. The results were read by radiologist Michael J. Cooney, MD. In his reading, the Smith family’s lawsuit alleges, Dr. Cooney failed to identify the basilar artery sign, which is a key indicator of a vessel occlusion in stroke patients. Dr. Cooney concluded that Ms. Smith’s scan showed no acute intracranial abnormality. He sent her home without further discharge instructions.

At home, Ms. Smith fell asleep but awoke in an altered mental state, one of several classic stroke symptoms that she had been experiencing. She returned to the ED. This time, she was examined by David F. Hawkins, MD, an ED physician. Although his differential diagnosis identified Ms. Smith’s symptoms as most likely stroke related, Dr. Hawkins allegedly failed to immediately corroborate his findings with additional vascular imaging. Later in the day, Ms. Smith did undergo an MRI, which a second radiologist, Kevin F. Johnson, MD, misread as showing no signs of ischemia in her basilar artery, according to the lawsuit.

That same day, Dr. Hawkins conferred with a second neurologist, Jeffrey T. Glass, MD, who recommended that Ms. Smith be admitted to the hospital because of her deteriorating condition. The Smiths’ suit claims that Dr. Glass also failed to diagnosis their daughter’s underlying condition, although he did sign off on her transfer to Baroness Erlanger Hospital, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

There, Ms. Smith’s condition continued to worsen. She soon required mechanical ventilation and tube feeding. On July 3, 2019, she was pronounced dead.

“This is an egregious case of negligence,” said the attorney representing the Smiths, who are suing the physicians involved and their practices, as well as Hamilton Medical Center and several unnamed defendants.

“Although two radiology studies and her clinical presentation indicated that Michaela was having a catastrophic stroke, her doctors repeatedly misread the studies as normal, failed to diagnose the stroke, and failed to treat her deficits as a neurological emergency,” the family’s lawyer stated.

At press time, there had been no response from any of the defendants or their attorneys.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.