Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawyers Blog

New Study Shows Medical Malpractice Damage Caps Do Not Bring More Doctors into the State

Wed, 16 May 2012 13:46:35 -0600

Illinois medical negligence lawyers at Pintas & Mullins strongly advocate against medical malpractice damage caps that limit a victim's chance at justice. A new study suggests that damage caps may be constitutional, but they do not effectively achieve one of their primary healthcare goals. According to the study, which focused on Texas, the supply of doctors in the state did not increase after a strict damage cap was implemented.

Proponents of tort reform often tout the fact that damage caps increase healthcare availability, but this claim appears to be untrue. Theoretically, one might think that more doctors would flock to a state with a strict budget cap that could help them avoid a large medical malpractice jury verdict. However, the latest data from Texas shows otherwise. State lawmakers passed tort reform legislation back in 2003, which capped medical malpractice awards at $250,000 per provider. It also set an impossible standard of negligence, requiring proof that doctors knowingly and purposefully endangered their patients. Despite these extreme measures, the number of available healthcare providers remains the same.

In fact, the new study suggests that inaccurate data is being used to misrepresent the number of available healthcare providers in the state. Texas officials wrongfully claim that the number of providers has increased in response to the damage cap, based on licensing statistics from 2001 thru 2010. The study gives numerous reasons why the increase is actually due to outside factors. For example, the increased licensing rates came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when doctors that were displaced by the natural disaster may have sought new employment in neighboring states because they were unable to keep practicing at their old locations.

Additionally, the study suggests that licenses do not necessarily translate into more patient care. Licensed doctors also do research and perform other healthcare industry jobs that have nothing to do with patient interaction. Finally, and perhaps most glaringly, the licensing statistics relied on by reform supporters do not account for the number of doctors retiring or leaving their practices in the state. Without balancing forward progress against the rate of deteriorating practitioners, the new study claims that it would be impossible to present an accurate picture of year-to-year care availability in the state. Although statistics are available that factor in the number of outgoing doctors, proponents of tort reform have never used these more precise numbers. This concerns our medical negligence attorneys because damage caps wrongly interfere with a patient's right to collect full damages. Medical victims have a right to accurate information and fair compensation

Retired Airman Forced to Amputate Legs Sues U.S Government for Medical Malpractice

Wed, 02 May 2012 16:32:43 -0600

A longstanding doctrine shields the U.S. government from medical malpractice liability...but a recent legal challenge by a disabled airman may change that. Our skilled medical malpractice lawyers strongly advocate on behalf of all victims of preventable medical mistakes, including dedicated service members. We believe all U.S. citizens deserve quality medical care, regardless of their age, injury, or occupation.

The Air Force Times is reporting on what has been described as one of the worst cases in military malpractice history. In July 2009, 20-year-Colton Read went into the David Grant Medical Center on Travis Air Force Base in California for a routine gallbladder surgery. Doctors recommended the surgery to treat Read's stomach pains before he deployed. According to the lawsuit, early on in the operation a surgical resident punctured Read's aorta, cutting off the blood supply to his legs. Read's blood pressure rapidly dropped and his legs turned cold and colorless. Unfortunately, doctors did not make any attempt to repair the tear until he lost more than two-thirds of his blood supply.

This tragic case of negligence resulted in serious, permanent damage. By the time the airman was transferred to a civilian hospital several hours later, necrosis set in and both of his legs had to be amputated. His gallbladder was also removed the following year. Now Read is confined to a wheelchair, battling depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and excruciating pain where his legs used to be.

The young airman and his wife are suing the government for roughly $54 million for pain, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of earning capacity, and other damages stemming from the botched surgical procedure. Unfortunately, he may face an uphill battle. In order to succeed in his case, the court will have to overturn a well-established doctrine that courts across the board have consistently upheld for the last sixty years.

Active duty members such as Read are effectively barred from suing the U.S. government for service-related injuries, including instances of medical malpractice. The Feres Doctrine dates back to a 1950s case, Feres v. United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot be held liable for personal injuries suffered in the course of military duty.

House GOP Passes Medical Malpractice Legislation That Seriously Restricts Injured Patients Rights

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:18:56 -0600

Illinois nursing home lawyers at Pintas & Mullins have serious concerns about a dangerous medical liability bill that recently passed the U.S House of Representatives. House Republicans pushed strongly for the passage of House Resolution 5, claiming that it will reduce overall healthcare spending. However, we believe that this flawed piece of legislation will severely impact the legal rights of personal injury victims. Elderly nursing home patients are particularly vulnerable, because the bill limits compensation for injuries resulting from nursing home negligence and abuse.

The federal health reform measure passed the House by a vote of 223-181. However, the proposal was met with opposition by at least ten Republicans, who voted against it. One of the most troubling provisions of the bill artificially limits potential medical malpractice awards by capping non-economic damages at $250,000. Non-economic damages compensate injured patients for a range of traumatic injuries, such as the loss of a limb or permanent disabilities. An arbitrary damage cap will significantly impair the rights of senior citizens who are injured in a nursing home, because these victims typically have few economic damages. As a result, some of the most vulnerable members of our society will be forced to suffer instances of neglect and abuse without any recourse or compensation.

H.R. 5 also limits medical malpractice liability, effectively shielding medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians from the consequences of their negligent actions. The bill provides immunity from punitive damages, which are awarded to deter negligent behavior in extreme situations in which compensatory damages would be inadequate. Eliminating the potential for punitive damage awards also eliminates important incentives to avoid future negligent behavior towards patients.

The American Association for Justice issued a statement on the bill, explaining that it will reduce accountability in the federal healthcare system and put Americans at increased risk of injuries caused by the negligence or misconduct of others. It is a sad reality that hundreds of thousands of patients die each year from preventable medical mistakes, and the AAJ believes that this legislation will further increase the potential for errors resulting in injury or death. Our medical malpractice attorneys strongly support the AAJ's position, because we also believe that all injured patients should have equal access to fair compensation. Damage caps unfairly restrict access to justice through the court system that every citizen deserves.

The reform measure also shortens the period of time in which injured patients can file a lawsuit, further restricting the ability of victims to hold negligent parties responsible. Instead, the financial consequences will shift to third-party taxpayers, who will be forced to provide aid in the form of increased taxes. This undercuts the proposed rationale for this legislation, which is purportedly to reduce overall healthcare costs.

State Medical Malpractice Caps: Constitutional?

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:05 -0600

State courts around the country are considering the constitutionality of statutory damage caps in medical malpractice cases, sparking heated debates on both sides of the issue. Although the capped amount varies, a majority of states restrict damage awards in health care lawsuits. Proponents of tort reform argue that limiting excessive jury awards lowers medical malpractice insurance rates. However, our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins strongly advocate on behalf of injured patients and their loved ones. Based on our extensive malpractice experience, we firmly believe that the caps unfairly restrict the legal rights of victims harmed by instances of medical negligence.

The controversy surrounding the constitutionality of damage caps shows no sign of slowing down, with recent state court decisions producing varying results. In March 2012, a federal judge in Texas found that the state's non-economic damage cap is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. The family of former Dallas Cowboys star Ron Springs joined ten plaintiffs challenging the state's 2003 medical malpractice cap on pain and suffering-type awards. In a tragic case of medical negligence, Springs went to the hospital for a simple cyst removal and ended up in a coma for the last four years of his life. Springs and his family were forced to suffer incredible amounts of pain and suffering during this time, but the court ultimately decided to uphold the state's $250,000 damage cap.

Alternately, the Georgia Supreme Court recently overruled a similar state cap on malpractice awards. The court held that the $350,000 statutory cap for pain and suffering violated the right to a trial by jury. Juries are an essential function of our democracy and most state constitutions grant jurors the freedom to determine a fair amount of compensation for injured plaintiffs in a civil case. Restricting this constitutional guarantee does more harm than good, because it strips the rights of the jury and the rights of medical malpractice victims. After deducting the significant court costs that are typically associated with a medical negligence action, malpractice victims are left with very little to compensate for their pain, suffering, and extraordinary medical expenses.

$5 Million Jury Verdict in Chicago Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:32:34 -0600

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins support a recent jury decision awarding $5.18 million to the estate of a 15-year-old boy who died from a drug overdose. The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit was filed in 2005, a year after the boy's untimely death. The suit accused the city of Park Ridge of failing to properly evaluate and respond to an emergency situation. Sadly, this is the type of medical negligence that leads to thousands of serious injuries and death every year.

As the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting, the victim's family called 911 from their Devon Avenue home and explained that the boy was unresponsive. The victim's father tried to administer CPR but was unable to restore the boy's breathing. One of the issues in dispute is whether or not paramedics adequately responded to the call. The lawsuit alleges that after the paramedics arrived at the home, they failed to properly evaluate the victim. They merely asked how he was doing while standing several feet away. An attorney for the paramedics contends that the victim was still awake and responsive at the time of the paramedic's arrival, and his father refused medical services on his behalf. One important piece of evidence that was missing in this case was a release form confirming that the family refused medical care. The paramedic's lawyer admitted that a release form was never signed.

The report goes on to state that paramedics were called to the home a second time, approximately eight hours after the first call. Finally, paramedics took the boy to the hospital. But it was too late. The boy died the next day from opiate and cocaine intoxication. According to the lawsuit, paramedics either knew or should have known that the boy had a history of drug abuse. The paramedics involved in this case also knew or should have known that the boy's condition was life-threatening and provided him with adequate support.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit was originally dismissed by the Cook County Circuit Court, who held that the city of Park Ridge was immune from liability under the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. In October 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the decision and remanded the case back to the lower court. After a three-week jury trial, the city was ordered to pay the victim's estate $5.8 million.

Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawyers Applaud New Healthcare Partnership Aimed at Preventing Medical Mistakes

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:40:52 -0600

Although many doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals treat patients within the appropriate standard of care, a shocking number of preventable medical mistakes still continue to threaten the safety and lives of vulnerable patients. Experienced Illinois Medical Malpractice attorneys at Pintas & Mullins Law Firm have worked with countless individuals and their families who suffered serious personal injuries and even lost their lives due to medical errors that could have been avoided. We understand the overwhelming physical, mental, and financial toll that victims of medical mistakes suffer and we continue to encourage any preventative measures that are taken by the healthcare industry to avoid these life-changing adverse events.

One of the most recent federal efforts to reform the healthcare industry and reduce the prevalence of medical mistakes is the Partnership for Patients: Better Care, Lower Costs initiative launched by the Obama Administration in April of 2011. This new public-private partnership is part of a series of reform measures outlined in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which took effect on March 23, 2010. Although the Act will not be fully integrated until 2016, we are already beginning to see some of its potential benefits.

Partnership for Patients effectively brings together state and federal governments, along with medical professionals from major hospitals around the country. The goals of the partnership are twofold: to prevent patients from being injured by a preventable hospital-acquired infection and to reduce preventable complications that require re-hospitalization. Estimates show that this reform could potentially save the healthcare industry close to $35 billion, and reduce Medicare costs by about $50 billion over the next decade. Improving reliability and safety measures while decreasing healthcare costs will save thousands of lives and provide for a more efficient and dependable healthcare system.

The story of one woman who suffered the devastating consequences of a preventable medical error was recently illustrated in a Healthcare.gov blog. In a tragic case involving serious medical malpractice, Sorrel King lost her 18-month old daughter Josie because of an avoidable mistake. In 2001, King took her daughter to the hospital for the treatment of severe burns. The 18-month-old appeared to be recovering well, until a series of preventable medical errors were made that eventually led to her death.

$2.5 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Brings to Light Risks of Routine Procedures

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:38 -0600

In light of a recent jury verdict, Illinois medical malpractice attorneys at Pintas & Mullins Law Firm are warning of the risks of seemingly routine medical procedures. Last week Amy Garcia, a resident of Southfield, Michigan, was awarded $2.5 million dollars against St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, after she endured a severe injury stemming from a routine surgery.

As reported in the Ann Arbor Journal, Ms. Garcia suffered a miscarriage in 2007, which resulted in the loss of her 14-week old fetus. After the miscarriage, Dr. Norman Gove, an obstetrician and gynecologist, explained to Ms. Garcia that she needed to undergo a dilation and curettage procedure. This procedure is commonly required after a woman miscarries a child. Dr. Gove, told her that this was a standard surgery and that "the procedure would be quick," and that Ms. Garcia would "be home by lunch."

Without Ms. Garcia's knowledge or consent, an unsupervised resident physician of the hospital performed the procedure which resulted in permanent bodily damage. The resident began by dilating the cervix and then perforated the uterus. The resident accidently inserted ring forceps through the perforated uterus in an effort to remove the fetal remains. Instead of removing the necessary tissue, the resident grabbed a piece of bowel which snapped back, causing a tear to the bowel and rectum.

As a result of the mistake, Ms. Garcia required an ileostomy to create an opening to pass intestinal waste to a bag worn outside the body. In addition to wearing the bag for three months, Ms. Garcia lost part of her bowel and rectum, which has resulted in severe pain, altered bowel patterns and scarring. While no amount of money can ever compensate the pain and disruption of daily life Ms. Garcia has endured, the verdict helps to raise awareness of the dangers of all procedures.

All patients are entitled to a good standard of practice and care from their doctors. Moreover, it is the duty of all physicians to provide competent and professional medical care to their patients. While most of the time physicians and their medical teams perform their job properly and without incident, there are the unfortunate instances when a doctor or team member fails and a complication arises. A surgical error typically results in a preventable injury, whether it be minor or severe.

Cases such as Ms. Garcia's demonstrate the devastation of an avoidable injury. Shockingly, in recent years, these types of cases are becoming commonplace in the medical malpractice field. Since patients are less concerned when they believe an operation is routine, they are less likely to pose serious questions to their physician. Chicago malpractice attorneys at Pintas and Mullins Law Firm recommend that people be diligent when it comes to both serious and common surgeries so that they are aware of the possible complications and side effects. Even minor procedures may carry serious complications. If an injury is the result of an error during surgery, there are legal remedies available to help not only the injured person, but also the family members of the victim.

State Health Officials Fail to Investigate Reports of Neglect and Abuse by Illinois Hospital Patients

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:44:22 -0600

A shocking new report by the Chicago Tribune details the state's failure to protect Illinois hospital patients from harm. A vast majority of complaints involving serious abuse and neglect are being ignored, and the court system is the only outlet for many of these medical malpractice victims to be heard.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers are well-versed in federal law, which requires that the Illinois Department of Public Health investigate serious allegations of inadequate care or mistreatment by hospital staff within 48 hours. This law is extremely important to ensure quality care for millions of hospital patients across Illinois. Without proper regulation and investigation, hospitals have no incentive to correct the problem and avoid future mistakes.

Unfortunately, according to the report, at least 85 percent of hospital complaints involving allegations that ranged from dirty needles to patient abuse were ignored last year by the state of Illinois. Some of these complaints involved preventable medical mistakes, such as using proper safety gear and equipment. One hospital patient died from a bacterial infection because the staff failed to wear protective clothing and gloves. This tragic incident was reported to state regulators, but they declined to investigate it further. They also declined to investigate at least four complaints from another downstate hospital, where patients were allegedly left in their own feces and sores for an extended period of time.

Lack of funding and untrained hospital staff are just a few of the excuses that the state has used to explain why the regulatory system is not adequately responding to these complaints. Public health officials have proposed fees that would amount to a few cents per day for each hospital bed, and provide regulators with additional resources to investigate complaints. Several states outside of Illinois use a similar fee-based system to ensure broader inspections. But groups such as the Illinois Hospital Association argue that hospitals are already struggling with Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and additional fees would add to the already increasing cost of healthcare.

Medical Privacy Breach Exposes Confidential Information of 20,000 Emergency Room Patients

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:22:29 -0600

Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins are warning of a major privacy breach that recently occurred at a prestigious California hospital, compromising the confidential data of more than 20,000 emergency room patients. Private information regarding patients' names, discharge dates, and diagnosis codes was exposed for more than a year on a public site. Improperly exposing sensitive medical health information has serious consequences for patients and health care providers who are legally and ethically bound to principles of confidentiality.

The New York Times is reporting on the security failure at Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California, which occurred in September 2010. Although the source of the medical data breach is still somewhat unclear, it appears that a third party consultant, Multi-Specialty Collection Services, lost a detailed spreadsheet containing patient names, account numbers, billing information and diagnosis codes. The spreadsheet ended up on a website called Student of Fortune, a tutoring website that used the spreadsheet to show students how to convert data into a bar graph. The confidential patient information remained publicly available for more than a year, until a patient finally discovered it and reported it to the hospital.

The breach could have a significant impact on the hospital and its patients, particularly because the medical data could be used for identity theft purposes. In light of this risk, Stanford hospital is offering free identity protection services to patients. Fortunately, the exposed data did not include patients' social security numbers or credit card information, but it did include enough personally identifiable health information to create serious insurance fraud concerns.

Sadly, breaches like this one are becoming far too common as more and more hospitals shift to electronic records and rely heavily on outside contractors. Many of these hospitals do not have the financial means available to install firewalls on their computers or use encrypted USB drives. Without adequate security measures in place, patient data is always at risk of being exposed. Records from the Department of Health and Human Services show that the private medical data of more than 11 million people has been publicly exposed over the last two years. Nearly 20 percent of these breaches involved outside contractors.

We understand that all patients have the right to have personal, identifiable medical information kept private. Our entire health care system is structured around principles of confidentiality, which encourages open and honest patient-provider disclosures and promotes public health. Ethical codes also require health care professional to practice patient confidentiality. The American Medical Association sets guidelines encouraging physicians and nurses to safeguard patients' privacy, particularly as the use of electronic health records becomes widespread.

$29 Million Verdict Upheld in Illinois Brain Injury Case

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:26:05 -0600

Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Pintas & Mullins understand that the birth of a child should be a joyous occasion for the child's family, and it is critical that all available measures are taken to protect infants and their mothers before and after the delivery process. Unfortunately, in some cases, the negligence of doctors, nurses, and other hospital employees leads to serious medical errors that result in life-long birth injuries.

The Illinois medical malpractice case of Arroyo v. United States is an example of a medical mistake that had a devastating impact on the lives of a local family. According to the lawsuit, government-employed doctors at the Erie Family Health Center failed to diagnose and treat a fairly common blood infection that caused a newborn to suffer severe brain injuries. The child, now 8-years-old, is a spastic quadriplegic with cerebral palsy who cannot talk, walk, or even swallow.

As the Daily Herald is reporting, an Illinois federal appeals court recently ruled in favor of the newborn's family and affirmed the district court's ruling finding his doctors guilty of negligence. The court reasoned that obvious signs and symptoms of the neonatal infection were visible early on, and preventative measures should have been taken to avoid severe and permanent brain injuries.

One of the most significant issues in this case occurred when the newborn was released from the hospital. At that time, doctors informed his parents that the child suffered brain damage due to a blood infection that his mother transmitted during birth. However, the doctors failed to mention that treating this infection with antibiotics would have reduced or completely prevented the damage. As a result of this critical omission, the family did not realize that the doctors did anything wrong, and that a medical mistake actually contributed to the injury.

The child's mother finally learned about the use of neonatal antibiotics after she gave birth to her second son more than a year later, and eventually realized that she had grounds for a lawsuit. After a $29.1 million verdict was handed down to help the child's family pay for a lifetime of medical expenses, the government appealed. It argued that the two year statutory time limit had expired, barring recovery in this case.

The appellate court disagreed. Although two years is the standard time limit to file this type of malpractice case, the court found that the clock did not begin running until the family knew or reasonably should have known that the birth-related injury was tied to the doctor's failure to administer antibiotics. This did not happen at the time of the child's discharge. Doctors told the family that the brain injury was caused by a birth-transmitted infection, but said nothing about a malpractice-related cause. They did not explain or even suggest that prompt treatment of the infection could have averted the injury or made it less serious. As a result, the family reasonably assumed that hospital staff did everything they could to prevent harm and did not suspect any other cause.

New Illinois Medical Malpractice Website Set to Launch

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:05:48 -0600

Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins applaud the efforts of state lawmakers, who recently passed legislation granting patients access to a computerized database containing detailed information on Illinois doctors and their disciplinary histories. We believe that the law promotes fairness and responsibility, allowing patients to make informed decisions about their medical providers.

According to the Southtown Star, the database will contain important information about a physician's disciplinary history, insurance information, practice specialties, hospital affiliations, and whether or not they participate in Medicaid. Most importantly, it will also include a list of all medical malpractice judgments or settlements involving an Illinois doctor in the last five years.

Approximately 48,000 physicians and chiropractors will be listed on the site when it launches in November of 2011. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is in charge of compiling all of the physician profiles, posting them to www.idpfr.com, and updating the website as new cases are decided. When an Illinois doctor is convicted of a crime, fired, or makes a medical malpractice payment, it will be posted to the website within 60 days for patients to review.

This critical physician information was previously available to patients as part of a medical malpractice reform bill approved by the General Assembly in 2008. The web-based tool proved to be extremely popular, drawing more than 150,000 hits a week. Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, forcing the database to shut down.

Some medical lobbying groups fought to keep this information shielded from the public, arguing that it does nothing more than provide ammunition for malpractice lawsuits. However, the state ultimately decided that transparency is essential to protecting consumer rights. The Institute of Medicine estimates that approximately 98,000 Americans die each year from medical mistakes. Allowing patients open access to a variety of physician information will aide them in making important healthcare decisions that could dramatically affect their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Three Illinois Non-profit Hospitals Lose Tax-Exempt Status, More Rejections Expected

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:35:28 -0600

According to Crain's Chicago Business, three prominent Illinois non-profit hospitals recently lost their tax-exempt status and may now be forced to pay millions of dollars in tax revenues. Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys are concerned that this decision could further compromise the overall quality of patient care, which is already threatened by cash-strapped hospitals operating at minimum staffing levels.

Reports indicate that this is the first of more than a dozen other rulings expected from the Illinois Department of Revenue over the last few weeks of August 2011. The hospitals that were denied their property tax exemptions include Northwestern's Prentice Women's Hospital, Decatur Memorial Hospital, and Edward Hospital in Naperville. The state felt that these hospitals were operating more like businesses than charities, citing a lack of charity and community benefit programs.

The revenue department based its decision on an Illinois Supreme Court ruling handed down last year, which held that Provena Covenant Medical Center in Urbana was not providing enough free services to the poor to qualify for a tax break. Approximately 0.7% of the hospital's revenue was dedicated to charity care. Since the decision, the hospital has been forced to pay about $1.2 million in property taxes.

In order to qualify as a charitable institution, the primary requirement is that the hospital must "dispense charity to all who need and apply." The amount of charity care may vary, depending on the community and its level of need.

The standard for tax-exempt status appears to be getting higher. Tax applications from Northwestern indicate that 1.85% of its $1.7 billion net revenue in 2007 went towards charity care. About 0.96% of Decatur Memorial Hospital's $252 million net revenue helped provide free services to those in need. And Edward Hospital in Naperville reported charity care amounting to 1.04% of $448 million in net patient revenue.

A major concern that arises from these rulings is that hospitals may be forced to increase overall costs for patients and employees, and reduce the number and quality of services that are available. Medicare and Medicaid rates are currently so low that they typically do not cover all of a hospital's costs. In addition, new federal health care laws will put additional burdens on these financially struggling hospitals. Taking on additional property tax expenses may further jeopardize the level of care that hospitals provide.

The hospitals have 60 days to appeal and seek an administrative hearing, and at least two of them have already suggested that they plan to mount a vigorous defense.

New Report Shows Hospitals are More Deadly than Airplanes

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:26:52 -0600

Alarming new research reported in Reuters shows taking a trip to the hospital is deadlier than flying on an airplane. Millions of people die every year from preventable medical mistakes and hospital-acquired infections, making hospitals far riskier than airplanes. The World Health Organization recently found that a hospital patient has a 1 in 10 chance of suffering a medical error, and a 1 in 300 chance of dying from that error. Compare this to the chances of dying in an airplane crash, a significantly less common fatality that only one in 10 million passengers will ever experience.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Pintas & Mullins know the serious risk patients face every time they walk into a hospital. We handle medical error cases on a regular basis, brought by hospital victims who suffered a serious injury or hospital associated infection while under the care of medical professionals. Most of these injuries are caused by neglect, with many hospital workers failing to take simple, hygienic steps such as washing their hands or cleaning surgical instruments with alcohol. Basic infection management strategies could save lives, but critical steps are ignored.

One study revealed hospital workers only wash their hands 25 percent of the time. Some companies offer electronic badge systems to ensure that doctors and nurses wash their hands before treating patients, but budget restraints are preventing many hospitals from taking advantage of this potentially life-saving technology. If health care professionals took just a few extra minutes to clean their hands with soap and water, more than 50 percent of all hospital-acquired infections could be prevented.

According to the report, the United States has a much higher rate of medical mistakes than European countries. Approximately 1.7 million hospital infections are acquired each year in this country, compared to 4.5 in Europe. One of the most common, life-threatening infections patients suffer is MRSA, a staph infection that can lead to many other types of infections. Flesh eating bacteria and strep are also infections that lead to serious patient harm and cost taxpayers up to $40 billion a year.

Other preventable problems, such as hospital falls or medication errors, also result in hospital-related deaths. Hospitals are liable under medical malpractice law when patients are injured by a hospital-acquired infection or preventable medical mistake.

New Study Reveals Most Potentially Deadly Medical Mistakes Happen in July

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:07:32 -0600

Although preventable medical mistakes frequently occur throughout the year, new research suggests that July may be the most dangerous month for hospital patients seeking care. It's a troubling phenomenon known as the "July Effect," when new medical residents begin arriving at teaching hospitals nationwide and patient death rates consequently spike. Nearly 100,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, and many of these victims have sought legal help from our medical malpractice attorneys. The latest study confirms that quality healthcare continues to be a serious concern, particularly during the summer months.

According to Time magazine, researchers recently concluded that the "July Effect" is more than just an urban myth. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine shows that death rates at teaching hospitals increase by at least 8 percent in July, when experienced medical residents graduate and new medical trainees arrive. These new doctors are caring for vulnerable patients for the first time, resulting in increased surgical complications and boosting the number of serious or even fatal medical mistakes.

One possible explanation for the decreased quality of care is that inexperienced doctors may be unfamiliar with the hospital pharmacy system, making them more likely to prescribe wrong medications or wrong doses of medications. The study also found that longer hospital stays, higher medical bills, and unnecessary tests occur more during July.

The so-called "July Effect" is a serious problem affecting about 100,000 staff members in teaching hospitals throughout the country. Some hospitals are taking notice, conducting detailed orientation sessions to ensure that doctors are properly trained and placing more experienced doctors on-call for emergencies during the summer months. But we believe more needs to be done in order to avoid preventable complications. All hospitals should have programs in place to make sure that patients receive consistent quality care, regardless of whether they get sick in July or any other month of the year. Hospitals, doctors, and nurses owe patients a legal duty of care, and this duty is obviously being violated far too often.

Medical Device Lawyers Warn of New FDA Transvaginal Mesh Safety Alert

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:01:51 -0600

A recent, dramatic increase in the number of transvaginal mesh complications led the FDA to issue an updated public safety alert on July 13, 2011, warning users of the serious health risks associated with surgical mesh. Our vaginal mesh attorneys have firsthand experience with a growing number of vaginal mesh victims experiencing severe complications often requiring additional, painful surgeries. Some of the most common mesh-related problems we have witnessed include infections, urinary problems, and pain during sexual intercourse. These injuries continue to form the basis for a number of transvaginal mesh lawsuits against negligent device manufacturers.

Federal regulators first alerted the public to potential mesh complications back in 2008. After receiving more than 1,000 mesh injury reports, the FDA announced that transvaginal mesh used in pelvic organ prolapsed repair surgery may lead to "rare" problems such as serious urinary incontinence (SUI). The agency found that the surgical mesh can erode when implanted in the vagina, causing severe discomfort, bleeding, and pain. Mesh erosion can also require multiple corrective surgeries using additional mesh or stitches that are extremely expensive and may not resolve the problem.

Unfortunately, new data shows that mesh complications are not so "rare" after all. From 2008 to 2010, the FDA received nearly 4,000 reports of mesh-related injuries, including three mesh placement procedure deaths. Chronic pelvic pain, pelvic nerve damage, and painful sexual intercourse were also reported. The FDA's new, stronger warning is intended to spread public awareness about the frequency of mesh complications.

Recent studies show that approximately 10 percent of women who undergo transvaginal prolapse repairs experience mesh erosion within a year of surgery. In our opinion the risk clearly outweighs the benefits as the FDA further reported that the mesh failed to increase the effectiveness of surgery. In most cases, pelvic organ prolapse can be treated without using these dangerous surgical meshes.

Complications were reported against nine transvaginal mesh manufacturers, including Mentor ObTape, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that agreed to a number of large settlements last year with women who experienced debilitating health problems. Mentor ObTape was removed from the market in 2006. A growing number of lawsuits have also been filed by victims of Bard's Avaulta Anterior and Posterior Biosynthetic Support System, alleging that the company failed to warn users of serious health complications resulting in pain and disfigurement.

Our vaginal mesh attorneys know that manufacturers of a defective device are liable for the serious injuries that users suffer. Legal claims such as strict liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of implied or expressed warranty can all be brought against vaginal mesh manufacturers that fail to warn consumers of the risk of serious vaginal mesh side effects.

The FDA found clear risks associated with transvaginal mesh placement procedures, and an advisory meeting is scheduled in September 2011 to discuss the possibility of an outright ban. Mesh-related infections, urinary problems, pelvic discomfort, and other chronic health problems that dramatically impact a women's quality of life are on the rise and negligent manufacturers need to be held responsible. These serious side effects have been known for years, and transvaginal mesh manufacturers should have warned consumers of the serious risks.