Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Future Medical Expenses after the Death of the Personal Injury Plaintiff

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:36:42 -0500

A recent Court of Appeals decision, issued on January 27, 2012, involved a case that began over ten years ago and determined that awards for future medical expenses cannot be voided after the death of the personal injury plaintiff. A copy the judicial opinion regarding the case can be found here.

The case, Spangler, et al. v. McQuitty (McQuitty II), stems from what was initially a medical malpractice action. McQuitty, a minor, by and through his parents, sued an obstetrician and primary care physician, and their practice, for failing to obtain informed consent to treatment, after which McQuitty suffered severe injuries during his birth. In the first case, McQuitty I, the jury awarded McQuitty $13,078,515.00 in damages; $8,442,515.00 of which accounted for future medical expenses. Various post-trial motions were filed regarding this verdict, but McQuitty died in 2009 prior to the resolution of all proceedings.

Spangler, one of the doctors, subsequently filed motions seeking a new trial or reduction in the award of future medical expenses, arguing that McQuitty’s death changed the posture of the case and an award should not exceed that which would actually be expended. McQuitty’s family argued, conversely, that the death of a personal injury patient should not lead to the reopening of the case or the extinguishment of damages as a matter of public policy.

The Court of Appeals agreed with McQuitty’s family, opining that litigation would continue interminably if they accepted Spangler’s reasoning that the death of a personal injury patient should alter the judgment awarded by the Court.

It takes an experienced medical malpractice attorney to litigate cases involving complex circumstances and various post-trial motions, such as this one. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Asserting Claims under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:04:31 -0500

The Court of Appeals recently ruled in University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp v. Muti, a case involving the appropriate interpretation of the Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute found in Sections 3-901 to 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code. A copy of the case can be found here.

The Plaintiffs were the widow and adult children of the decedent. The appeal arose because the Plaintiffs failed to disclose in their Complaint the existence of a stepson whom the decedent had adopted during a prior marriage. Plaintiffs asserted that they had not had any contact with the adoptive son for over twelve years and had no idea if and/or where he was living.

The hospital argued that a wrongful death claim requires that there may only be one action by all possible beneficiaries, and that action must be brought within three years. As a result, the failure to identify the adopted son was a failure by Plaintiffs to join a necessary party and the expiration of the three year statute of limitations precluded the plaintiffs from amending their claim.

The circuit court dismissed the complaint because of the failure to name the adoptive son as what is called a “use plaintiff.” The trial court noted that Plaintiffs had not filed an affidavit affirming that they were unable to locate the adoptive son, and even if they were unable to locate him, The circuit court decided that Plaintiffs had a duty to put "everyone" on notice of his possible existence. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which found that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs leave to amend without considering prejudice to the adoptive son, and the case was remanded back to the circuit court.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, University of Maryland argued that Plaintiffs, who timely sued in this case, are barred from maintaining their claim because of the potential existence of another beneficiary, leaving the hospital theoretically exposed to more than one wrongful death action. The Court of Appeals declined to agree that the statute requires a wrongful death action to be a unitary action by all actual or potential beneficiaries. Further, while acknowledging that Plaintiffs should have identified the adoptive son since lack of knowledge of his location did not prevent compliance with the law, the Court found no basis for inferring that the omission was for the purpose of hiding the litigation from him or in the hope that Plaintiffs would increase their recovery.

Ultimately, under the totality of the circumstances, Maryland’s highest court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims as a sanction for the omission and remand the case back to the circuit court.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled hundreds of wrongful death cases on behalf of parents, spouses and children of the deceased. It is critical to join all of the potential claimants or the case can be adversely affected. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Birth Trauma Verdict Upheld Against The University of Maryland Medical Center

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:13:17 -0500

Maryland Appellate Courts Weighs In On Medical Malpractice Suit Against University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (UMMS)

The Court of Special Appeals recently published an opinion concerning a medical malpractice complaint brought against University of Maryland Medical System Corporation. A copy of the Court of Special Appeals opinion can be found here.

The medical malpractice suit was brought by a minor, through his mother, and alleged that the care the child received following his premature birth was negligent. On the morning of the child’s birth, tests revealed that there was significant potential for a dangerous condition called “cord prolapse,” a condition in where the umbilical cord is squeezed by contractions thereby cutting off blood flow to the fetus. The child was delivered by emergency Cesarean section shortly after these tests and remained in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for two months after his birth as a result of numerous medical complications.

In the medical malpractice case, the child’s mother alleged that as a result of the negligent care the boy received he is physically and developmentally delayed. The hospital contended that the child’s injuries were the result of his premature birth, not inadequate care by their staff. The medical malpractice suit, tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the child for $4.1 Million Dollars (ultimately reduced by agreement to $3,605,000.00 Dollars because of Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages).

The plaintiff alleged in the case that the University of Maryland Medical System breached the standard of care, causing injury and resulting in damages. The allegations centered on two incidents: the hospital’s failure to deliver the child as soon as it noted cord prolapse and the hospital’s failure to diagnose a cervical infection in the mother that should have led to immediate delivery. The hospital, on appeal, argued that the evidence produced by the child at trial was legally insufficient to support a reasonable finding, by a preponderance of the evidence (the legal standard for proof for negligence), that any breach in the standard of care by its doctors or nurses was the cause of the child’s injuries. Specifically, one expert witness for the child testified as to the cause of the injuries, finding to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the child suffered a “hypoxic [lack of oxygen] brain injury” due to the effects of the untreated cord prolapse and the delay in delivery, and his injuries were not the result of his premature birth.

The Court of Special Appeals, in affirming the jury’s decision, found that whether the child’s deficits were caused by negligence was a question for the jury, to be made by weighing the testimony of the expert witnesses. The appellate court determined that the jury’s verdict clearly set forth their decision---they believed the child’s expert.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries and hospital errors. Filing a medical malpractice claim means proving the that a duty of care was owed by the hospital to the patient, that the standard of care was breached, that the breach was the proximate cause of an injury, and that damages resulted. These cases are extremely complicated and require expertise that most general personal injury attorneys do not have. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Expert Witness Testimony in Catastrophic Injury Cases

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:23:42 -0500

In recent appellate opinion, a catastrophic injury case, Yiallouro v. Tolson, was reviewed for error concerning expert testimony. Yiallouro was severely injured in a car accident while in the scope of his employment, causing him to ultimately lose his job because he could no longer perform his previous tasks and there was no “light duty” work available. When Yiallouro brought suit against Tolson, the driver of the other vehicle, the Montgomery County jury who heard the case awarded Yiallouro $925,000.00 in damages: $32,000.88 for past medical expenses, $35,191.80 for past lost wages, $409,787.00 for loss of future wages, $224,010.16 for pain and suffering, and $224,010.16 for loss of consortium. However, after the verdict, the judge determined that the he had erroneously permitted one of plaintiff’s experts to testify because the testimony was too speculative and lacked an adequate factual basis for opinion under Maryland Rules 5-702 and 5-703. The expert in question was a vocational rehabilitation expert who testified that Yiallouro’s future lost wages were over $400,000.00. A copy of the Court of Special Appeals opinion, filed on March 2, 2012, can be found here.

As a result of the judge’s belief that he had erroneously permitted the expert testimony, and the jury had awarded excessive damages in the wake of hearing that testimony, the case was retried. Interestingly, the vocational rehabilitation expert was permitted to testify in the second case, having met the standard for expert qualifications as set forth in the Frye/Reed test. However, defense counsel presented their own experts in the second trial, and the jury trial found contributory negligence, barring Yiallouru from recovering damages.

Yiallouro appealed, alleging the trial judge should not have excluded the expert’s testimony at the end of the first trial and ordered a re-trial. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the decision in part, finding that the expert had been appropriately qualified in the first case, and holding that only the issue of non-economic damages should have been retried in the second case – not liability. The appellate court found that when the trial court granted the motion for new trial, it confused the weight of the evidence with its admissibility. The expert’s experience, knowledge and skill qualified her to testify before the jury, and it was up to the jury to evaluate the weight of that testimony in reaching their verdict.

Maryland law draws a fine line when it comes to future lost wage claims. Such testimony is permitted as long as the factual basis underlying the expert’s calculation is based on sufficient foundation. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of catastrophic injury cases involving expert witnesses. Since many of these cases involve future lost wages, they are extremely complicated and require expertise that most general personal injury attorneys do not have. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Johns Hopkins Study Finds Hospital Websites Exaggerate Success

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:54 -0500

Research conducted by Johns Hopkins doctors has found that an estimated forty percent of hospital websites advertise the use of robotic surgery as superior to conventional surgery. However, there is a no evidence to suggest these statements are true. In particular, hospitals often exaggerate the benefits associated with robotic surgery while ignoring the risks.

A copy of the article about the study can be found here.

Johns Hopkins researchers warn that the lack of candor in promotional materials is potentially dangerous for various reasons. Much of the positive advertisement is provided by the surgical robots' manufacturers, as opposed to independent analysis by doctors or hospitals. This is a concern because the general public relies on hospitals, including their websites, to provide honest and complete information. Essentially, many would consider the material on a hospital's website to be as if it was coming directly from a physician.

The study conducted by Johns Hopkins researches yielded startling results. Of the sample of hospital websites studied, forty-one percent described the availability of robotic surgery. Of those, eighty-nine percent (89%) indicated that robotic surgery is clinically superior over conventional surgery. Specifically, eighty-five percent (85%) said there would be less pain, eighty-six percent (86%) said there would be a shorter recovery, eighty percent (80%) said there would be less scarring and seventy-eight percent (78%) said there would be less blood loss. Shockingly, none of the websites mentioned any risks associated with robotic surgery at all.

The researchers at Johns Hopkins warn that the continuation of this type of behavior by hospitals could ultimately result in medical malpractice suits. When hospitals rely on device manufacturer's to provide patients with information, and the information is not substantiated, hospitals are providing content that is dishonest and misleading. While the use of surgical robots to perform minimally-invasive common procedures has grown at a rapid pace, claims of smaller incisions, more precise results, less pain and shorter recovery time remain unsubstantiated. However, as more and more hospitals buy this expensive equipment, they continue advertising these results to patients. In actuality, studies have shown that robotic surgeries present numerous risks because they take more time and keep patients under anesthesia for longer, in addition to the fact that they are more costly; but none of these concerns are usually provided by hospitals promoting its use.

The biggest problem with a hospital’s use of manufacturer-provided information is the inherent conflict of interest. Hospitals hold a trusted role as medical advisors and must make all effort not to misinform patients. To use the information provided by manufacturers of the robotic devices without verifying the accuracy and truthfulness of that information is a violation of public trust, according to Johns Hopkins researchers.

This is an important study because it shows that there is possibly significant malpractice at many of Maryland's hospitals as a result of the failure to adequately inform patients regarding their care.

$178 Million Dollars in Damages Awarded to Medical Negligence Victim

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:08:37 -0500

In 2007, an active lieutenant with his local Sheriff’s Department made the decision to undergo weight-loss surgery. At 6-foot-1 and 375 pounds, the risk of a routine laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery seemed slight compared to his many weight-related health risks. Then suddenly, the day after the procedure, he went into respiratory failure and had to be placed in critical care. For over a week, he showed signs of complications but doctors did not take him back into surgery to repair the problem for eight days. This was a serious medical error, even based on the testimony of the hospital’s own experts who admitted that most bariatric doctors would have performed the surgery as soon as the patient exhibited the symptoms, but certainly no later than six days after.

As a result of the delay in treatment, the patient’s blood pressure dropped and he experienced a “low-flow stroke,’ meaning his brain was not getting enough blood, causing him to remain comatose for two weeks following the surgery. Then, in another shocking medical mistake, doctors failed to give him eye drops while he remained on a respirator which resulted in a permanent loss of his eyesight. This avoidable complication was a clear breach of the standard of care.

The man’s family filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital alleging medical negligence and fraud. Now brain damaged and confined to a wheelchair, this once active lieutenant has lost his ability to speak, walk and perform basic tasks such as feeding or bathing himself, but he understands what has happened to him. The family’s attorney insisted that this tragic outcome was the result of improper care by an inexperienced doctor. Specifically, the hospital advertises that its bariatric surgeons have performed upwards of fifty surgeries when, in fact, this man’s surgeon had performed only about twenty.

On January 23, 2012, after finding that the accreditation advertising was fraudulent and the care received by the patient in this case was negligent, a jury returned an award of approximately $178 million dollars in damages in favor of the patient and his family. The hospital has since indicated that they intend to appeal the verdict but the family’s attorney maintains that this is the appropriate outcome given the circumstances.

A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

For families experiencing the devastation associated with serious medical negligence, it is important to investigate whether a medical malpractice claim is warranted due to the expense associated with long-term care. As an experienced medical malpractice attorney I routinely handle cases that involve catastrophic injuries, and have handled cases just like this. These cases are extremely complicated and require expertise that most general personal injury attorneys do not have.

7-Year-Old Left Blind as a Result of Untreated Bacterial Meningitis

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:07:55 -0500

A Hartford, Connecticut boy's family has filed a medical malpractice suit against his pediatrician, alleging that the doctor's failure to timely diagnose the child's bacterial meningitis lead to the 7-year-old losing his eyesight.

The boy went to his pediatrician complaining of severe headaches. However, this symptom went unnoticed and he was diagnosed with an ear infection, the first of several medical errors. He returned to the doctor when his condition did not improve but was sent away by a receptionist who said there was nothing more the office could do for him. When the child was finally sent for a CT scan, he was only diagnosed with a migraine. This was yet another medical mistake in the young boy’s care. This several day delay in diagnosis allowed the condition to worsen, and the infection to spread.

Bacterial meningitis is a potentially fatal condition where the membranes that cover the brain and spinal cord become inflamed as result of a bacterial infection. The CDC has stated that early diagnosis is critical to the successful treatment of bacterial meningitis.

The child ultimately was not properly diagnosed with bacterial meningitis until he fell into a coma. When he awoke weeks later, he was blind. The child also suffered from fever, respiratory failure, impaired speech, impaired hearing, seizures and brain damage, the combination of which required that the 7-year-old undergo extensive rehabilitation.

The lawyer representing the pediatrician and her office characterized the suit as a false allegation and maintained that the doctor did nothing wrong. However, the child's attorney disputed that the "standard of care" afforded to the child was proper. In this case, all the symptoms were there, and the doctor just missed them; had the pediatrician sent the boy to an emergency room, a spinal tap would have revealed the meningitis, allowing antibiotics to stop the disease before it took his eyesight.

A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

Anesthesia Malpractice During Dental Surgery Cause Death of Teen

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:52:35 -0500

In late March, a Maryland teen died at Johns Hopkins Hospital after she was deprived of oxygen during routine wisdom tooth surgery. Her parents have since brought a medical malpractice suit against the oral surgeon and anesthesiologist who performed the dental procedure.

At the outset of the surgery, the teen was administered a standard dose of anesthesia. This dose was not sufficient to perform the surgery and an additional dose was administered. Shortly afterwards, the teen’s heart rate began to slow.

The medical malpractice suit, brought in Howard County, alleges that the doctors were negligent in their care of the teen. The suit states that they committed a serious medical error when, during the course of the surgery, the teen’s heart rate slowed to 40 beats per minute and her oxygen level began to drop, but doctors failed to resuscitate her. By the time emergency personnel arrived, the teen had no pulse and had suffered permanent and irreversible brain injury.

The teen was transported to Johns Hopkins Hospital where she remained in a coma until she died ten days later. The cause of death was determined to be damage to the brain from lack of oxygen and severe swelling of the brain tissue. A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

Family Wins Medical Malpractice Case Against Johns Hopkins Hospital

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:37:14 -0500

In early 2010, the family of a 17-year-old girl with a rare genetic disorder brought a medical malpractice suit against the Johns Hopkins Hospital alleging that the Johns Hopkins doctors and nurses provided inappropriate treatment to the disabled girl.

The Baltimore City jury that heard the medical malpractice suit found the staff at Johns Hopkins negligent in restraining the girl in a manner that caused extensive bruising. The girl, a long-time patient at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was extremely frail as a result of her condition and required special treatment. The girl’s father alleged that following an overnight stay at Johns Hopkins Hospital on March 12, 2007, he noticed "numerous bruises" on the girl’s body in addition to a "large lump on her forehead." Johns Hopkins Hospital staff provided no explanation for the bruises other than "spontaneous bruising" caused by her disorder. The girl’s father was not satisfied with this response, and brought the medical malpractice suit against Johns Hopkins Hospital. A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here. Ultimately, the jury found that Johns Hopkins Hospital was negligent and committed malpractice for the bruises awarded the girl $250,000.00.

Undiagnosed Strep Infection Leads to Amputation of Child’s Legs

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:59:04 -0500

A six year old boy went to Baltimore-Washington Medical Center complaining of a fever, swollen tonsils, and unexplained hip pain. The hospital, located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, allegedly failed to perform a "rapid strep test" - standard safety protocol at hospitals in such situations. It has been alleged that this medical error led to the amputation of the boy’s legs as that was the only way to save his life.

A year later, his parents have filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the Maryland hospital, and the doctor who failed to adequately treat the boy, seeking compensation for his medical costs. The family alleges that, because the boy was wrongly diagnosed as suffering from a hip strain and nasal congestion, his strep infection worsened. In addition, they allege that the standard of care dictates he should have been given antibiotics, even if just as a precaution. Instead, his condition continued to deteriorate as he went untreated. When the boy’s parents rushed him back to the hospital, it was only to learn it was too late. The strep infection, which had gone undiagnosed, had entered the boy’s bloodstream. The infection was so severe that it had begun to attack the child’s organs. A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

Both primary strep infections, which invade healthy tissue such as the throat, and secondary strep infections, which generally invade tissue weakened by injury or illness, can travel from tissue to glands, at which point they enter the bloodstream and spread throughout the body. Ultimately, in an effort to save his life, doctors at the University of Maryland Medical Center amputated both of the boy’s legs. Baltimore Washington Medical Center said, in a statement, that the boy’s symptoms were not indicative of the strep infection and the care he received was appropriate at the time.

I have handled a number of cases involving failure to timely diagnose and treat infections. These cases are especially troubling when they involve serious injures to children.

Medical Mistake Regarding Organ Transplant Leads to Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:37:09 -0500

A couple in Pennsylvania has filed two medical malpractice lawsuits following, what should have been, a routine organ transplant.

The couple alleges that the organ transplant went awry when, despite test results indicating the donor-spouse had hepatitis C, the hospital transplanted her kidney into her husband. Hepatitis C is an incurable infectious disease that attacks the liver causing a wide range of problems including damage, cirrhosis, cancer or failure. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here

The first lawsuit was filed against the hospital and various staff members. The suit, filed by the donee and the donor, alleges negligence. The couple states that the donor’s blood results were available months before the organ transplant, but that the hospital and physicians missed them. The organ transplant, which took place in April, was preceded by a blood test on January 26 which indicated that the donor had hepatitis C. The hospital never notified the donor of these results or disqualified her as an organ donor. Another test, which occurred weeks after the organ transplant, also indicated the presence of the infection. It was not until a month after the kidney transplant had taken place when the donor was notified of these results.

The second lawsuit claims that physicians provided the donor with the option of keeping her infection a secret from her long-time boyfriend, despite the transplant of the hepatitis C kidney. The suit also alleges that the physicians made several accusations against the donor, including her having cheating on her boyfriend and having used cocaine. The Pennsylvania couple has been together for 21 years and they have an 18-year-old son.
The hospital has stated that the transplant was a “medical mistake” and an investigation was completed; the results found that human error was to blame. This mistake comes after guidelines were recently issued by the CDC to reduce the risk of transmitting disease during organ transplants, specifically focused on donor screening.

Failure to Timely Diagnose and Treat Heart Attack

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:19:48 -0500

In early 2003, a Pennsylvania pharmacist died of a heart attack while at work. In 2009, a jury found his family doctor negligent and awarded the man’s widow $4 million. Later, after determining the delay in the conclusion of the case was improper, the presiding Judge awarded the man’s widow an additional $1.2 million in damages. Last month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld that $5.2 million award in the medical malpractice case. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

This case is an example of the catastrophic results of a doctor failing to correctly diagnose and treat his patient. The man went to see the doctor four days before his death as a result of unexplained chest pain, jaw pain and anxiety. The doctor advised him that these symptoms were the result of anxiety. However, the man’s attorneys argued that the the doctor made a critical error by failing to take into account the following: the man was overweight, he had high cholesterol, he had high blood pressure and he had a history of heart disease in his family. On the day of his death, the man again contacted the doctor as a result of his symptoms persisting. By the time the doctor returned his call, the man was already in cardiac arrest.

Ultimately, jurors agreed that when the doctor analyzed the man’s complaints in light of the risk factors he had, the doctor should have immediately sent the man to an emergency room because the mans’ symptoms were suggestive of a heart attack. The autopsy results further confirmed this determination as it showed heart damage, specifically indicating that the man had a heart attack a few days before his death.

Failure to Diagnose and Treat Infection Causes Amputation

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:28:33 -0500

A woman in Pennsylvania was recently awarded one of the highest sums ever recorded in a medical malpractice suit after an infection went unnoticed and nearly killed her. The lawsuit was based upon medical negligence and medical errors committed by a home nurse that was treating the woman, who was suffering from Crohn’s disease. The woman was receiving care from a home nurse when the R.N. failed to recognize that she had an infected catheter. As a result of the nurse failing to refer the patient to a physician to treat the infected catheter, both of the woman’s legs were amputated below the knee. This was a result of the infection spreading to the bloodstream. A copy of the article regarding the award can be found here.

The jury in this case awarded the woman $23.12 million after hearing about the failure of the nurse to treat the bacteria-infected catheter and found both the nurse and the employer negligent. The damages were based on compensatory awards of economic damages for medical expenses and lost wages, as well as non-economic damages associated with pain and suffering. A medical malpractice case requires a plaintiff to establish that a health care provider undertook care of a patient, and thus had a duty to the patient; the duty was breached by the health care provider upon their failure to perform at the standard level of care; and that damages to the plaintiff resulted. A finding of negligence means the jury thought that the evidence showed that the woman’s health care provider committed a medical error resulting from an omission which deviated from the standards of practice generally accepted in the medical community, and found that this failure caused injury to the patient.

$2.5 Million Malpractice Award to Maryland Family

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:19:17 -0500

A Maryland jury awarded the wife and two children of a 59-year-old man $2.5 million in damages following his untimely death from medical malpractice at Montgomery General Hospital in 2007. The lawsuit alleged that the doctor attending to the man at Montgomery General failed was negligent in failing to recognize and diagnose that he was suffering from "hemorrhagic shock" and treat the same. A copy of the article regarding the settlement can be found here.

The man’s death occurred two days after he fell and fractured his pelvis. The family alleged that the primary care physician, who was the sole defendant in the medical malpractice case, did not realize that the man was suffering from internal bleeding. The family believes that had the doctor treated this condition when he first examined him, he could have saved the man’s life. Instead, the man ultimately died from multiple organ failure due to the internal bleeding.
While the primary care physician argued that the man died as a result of a side effect to medication that restricted his intake of oxygen, this theory was discredited because no mention was made of any such complication on the death certificate.

Further, the family’s attorney was able to present numerous signs that the doctor should have alerted the doctor to the problem. For example, the man had both low blood pressure and a rapid heartbeat. Another example is that, within a 24-hour period, the man had not produced urine. Each of these circumstances, in addition to others, were clues that the patient was experiencing blood loss.

The $2.5 million in damages consisted of $1 million each to the man’s estate and his wife, and $250,000 was awarded to each of Dixon's children.

Peninsula Regional Medical Center Settles Stent Medical Malpractice Cases

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0500

Peninsula Regional Medical Center, located in Salisbury, Maryland is the latest Maryland hospital involved in medical malpractice suits arising from unnecessary stent procedures.

Last month, cardiologist John R. McLean, M.D. was convicted of health care fraud offenses after implanting cardiac stents in more than 100 patients who did not need them. McLean was found to have performed unnecessary tests and made false entries in medical records when he submitted insurance claims for the stent procedures.

Despite its attempt last year to be dismissed from the case involving McLean, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Peninsula Regional Medical Center agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle the case in early August. The allegations set forth in the suits against Peninsula Regional Medical Center were that it failed to act to prevent the unnecessary procedures even though it were aware of McLean’s behavior. There were fifty-two parties named as plaintiffs. Additionally, under the settlement, the hospital must also repay the money it received from federal health benefit programs while the unnecessary medical procedures amounting to fraud were going on.