Posted on January 26, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

An Alabama jury has awarded $20 million in a medical malpractice case in which a woman died after receiving negligent anesthesia care. The woman, a wife and mother of two, died in 2006 after receiving anesthesia during exploratory surgery. The woman, who had been suffering from severe abdominal pain, aspirated bile from her stomach into her lungs, causing aspiration pneumonia. The family claimed that the defendant doctors did not examine the woman’s abdomen or look at her medical records before the exploratory surgery, which would have revealed her risk factors for breathing fluid into her lungs.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases, including some involving the negligent administration of anesthesia. In one case, a woman died from improper monitoring during anesthesia. In another case, a patient died of aspiration pneumonia during the days after surgery. These are tragic cases. They can easily be prevented with just even the minimum care and attention. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 26, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

The New York Times published a detailed article this past weekend on radiation overdose malpractice in New York hospitals. The article reports a number of shocking instances of people who have been given too much radiation during treatment for various cancers. Many of them have suffered terrible health complications from this malpractice, including gaping wounds, loss of hearing, sight, the ability to heal, walk and otherwise function. A copy of the article can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 26, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

A Missouri woman has settled a medical malpractice lawsuit for $2.5 million. The woman was treated at University Hospital in early 2005 for dehydration, which was the result of a gastrointestinal condition. Apparently, doctors infused her with nutritional supplements through an IV in her subclavian artery, just below the collarbone, instead of the subclavian vein, where it was supposed to go. This caused fatty blockages to travel to her brain for five consecutive days, causing severe strokes and neurological and mental impairment. She is mentally and physically handicapped as a result.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving the incorrect administration of mediation or nutrition through IVs. These cases usually involve clear medical negligence as the wrong product (medication or nutrition), dosage or entry point is used. In one case, a hospital gave the wrong medication dosage to a patient causing the patient to die. The error was clear from the medical records. In another case, a woman was given 5 times the proper dosage of nutrition supplement causing her to go into cardiac arrest and die. These are terribly upsetting cases because they can easily be prevented with just a little care and attention. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 25, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

A Massachusetts jury has found that two doctors at Children’s Hospital Boston were guilty of medical malpractice that caused the death of a 3-year-old boy, and awarded the parents $15 million. The boy died a year and a half after he underwent surgery for a birth defect. The child was born with a severe congenital heart defect called Tetralogy of Fallot, a complicated but treatable birth defect that affects the flow of blood through the heart. He underwent eight procedures, 7 of which were cardiac catheterizations, before coming to Children’s for another catheterization procedure to widen his arteries. After the Boston procedure, the child suffered a seizure. A CAT scan revealed that that contrast dye, which is used during the procedure to better see the patient’s anatomy, had leaked into his brain. Later, an MRI revealed that a piece of metal had lodged in the boy’s brain, probably from a medical instrument. When the child left the hospital, he was unable to walk or speak. The jury awarded damages of $5 million for the child’s pain and suffering, $5 million for the parents’ loss of their child, and $5 million for the child’s wrongful death.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 25, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

Washington state has agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle a medical malpractice lawsuit that was brought by one of its former hospitals by a man who escaped out of the window of a county-owned mental hospital and hurt himself jumping onto a fire-escape landing. It was alleged that, while the man was being held in a "seclusion room," he was not adequately monitored by the hospital and that the room was not adequately secured. The man climbed out of a window, walked along a narrow area, and then jumped to the roof of an adjacent area, which enabled him to reach the roof of another building. He then jumped to the fire escape landing. The man suffered multiple fractures in the fall.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I and my office have successfully handled a number of cases in which people are injured or killed due to the failure of those in charge of persons to properly care for them. In one case, a psychologist and psychologist who saw a psychotic patient in an emergency room improperly discharged him, resulting in the patient’s suicide the next day. In another case, a hospital failed to properly restrain and monitor a patient, causing his death from asphyxiation. In yet another case, a teenager at a youth facility was improperly put into a prone restraint, asphyxiated and killed.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 25, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

There has been a lot of publicity lately about a doctor at St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, Maryland, that supposedly implanted cardiac stents that may not have been necessary. The publicity started after St. Joseph Medical Center sent out letters to 369 former patients stating that a review of surgeries by Dr. Mark Midei revealed that Dr. Midei may have told these people that they had severe coronary artery blockages that they actually didn’t have, and then recommend and performed stent surgery on these people when it was not necessary. Usually, such stents are only placed in people who have blockages of 70% or more.

In the article, a women is quoted who was told that she had a 90% blockage and underwent stent surgery as a result, but after getting a letter discovered that she only had a 10% blockage and didn’t need the surgery. Not only did she undergo unnecessary surgery, but she incorrectly believed she had severe cardiac disease and now has to take blood thinners for life due to the stent.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 21, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

One common type of malpractice concerns the failure of a clinician or radiologist to properly diagnose a patient’s musculoskeletal tumor based on the relevant clinical and radiological features. One sub-type of these musculoskeletal tumors is a cartilage tumor, a tumor that grows within a human bone.

Musculoskeletal tumors are benign or malignant lesions that form in human bone and the connective tissues. Cartilage tumors are musculoskeletal tumors that produce cartilage inside the host bone. There are only two types of cartilage tumors: enchondroma (benign) and chondrosarcoma (malignant). Cartilage tumors range in severity from benign enchondroma to low-grade malignant chondrosarcoma to high grade chondrosarcoma. Chondrosarcoma is the second most common primary malignant bone tumor, accounting for 25-30% of all primary bony malignancies.

Several well-established clinical guideposts and principles exist regarding location, size, presence and duration of pain, and age of the patient, that assist physicians in distinguishing a benign enchondroma from a low-grade malignant chondrosarcoma. Clinically, benign enchondromas most commonly involve the tubular bones of the hands and feet. When present in long bones, such as the femur, enchondromas most often are located in the distal femur (furthest from the hip). Enchondromas are usually asymptomatic; i.e., with no associated pain, and therefore, the vast majority are discovered incidentally on radiographs or bone scans done for other reasons. The majority of enchondromas are approximately 3 cm in maximum dimension. Benign tumors larger than 5 cm in maximum dimension are extremely rare. In contrast, chondrosarcomas are most commonly located in the proximal femur (closest to the hip) and pelvis. Like other malignant tumors, the single most common clinical symptom for chondrosarcoma is the presentation with pain that is directly referable to the bone in which the tumor is growing. Published literature indicates that the pain is typically present for 1-2 years prior to diagnosis and is most often described by patients as an insidious or achy pain that is initially constant in nature, but that ultimately progresses in severity. Generally, patients with chondrosarcoma are over the age of 40, while those with benign enchondroma are typically under the age of 40.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 21, 2010 in Real Estate

Our Maryland plaintiff’s attorneys are experienced in handling cases involving Marylanders who are injured by unscrupulous realtors. Often we prosecute malpractice claims against the realtor for claims such as fraud or conflict of interest. During the course of this representation, we are asked how to file a complaint with the Board against these realtors for sanctions against the public.

Below is our internal memo which outlines the process:

(1) File complaint with The Greater Baltimore Board of REALTORS (GBBR) for violating Code of Ethics a. If found to be in violation of Code of Ethics – REALTOR may be subject to a fine, suspension of membership or expulsion from the association i. Must cite which section of Code of Ethics they violated
b. Claim = per incident
i. CANNOT process claims for monetary damages
ii. If legal action has been filed with Courts, CANNOT consider any complaint filed with GBBR until legal action has been resolved
iii. Complaint must be filed 180 days after facts were known
iv. Individual complaint being filed against must be member of GBBR
c. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 21, 2010 in Personal Injury

The most recent Maryland Court of Appeals case discussing whether Maritime Law applies can be found in Matthews v. Howell, 359 Md. 152, 753 A.2d 69 (2000).

Facts: Four friends boarded a boat and traveled to a bar. After consuming a variety of alcoholic drinks, the friends returned to the boat and headed back to the marina. On the way back, the conditions worsened (wind increased, water was choppy, and it was dark). While traversing the Chesapeake Bay, the captain (one of the four friends), abruptly throttled back, thereby slowing the boat, but did not anchor. The captain announced that he wanted to take a swim, and dove into the Bay, jumping from the seat at the helm. Then, one of the four friends, Ms. Matthews, either fell or jumped into the water. Rescue attempts by the friends failed. The US Coast Guard and a helicopter could not locate Ms. Matthews. Two days later, Ms. Matthews’ fully clothed body was found. Cause of death was drowning.

Analysis:
• (1) Navigable waters of the US -Parties do not, and cannot dispute, that the Chesapeake Bay is a navigable waterway of the US
• (2) Whether the incident caused a potential hazard to maritime commerce –
-Boat was stopped in the middle of a major shipping waterway -Boat remained adrift during rescue efforts -The parties remained adrift in the area while search parties arrived -Search parties spent a great amount of time scouring the area of the navigable waterways for Ms. Matthews
-No evidence of disruption of maritime commerce, but travel by any other vessel through that portion of the Bay would have been restricted by the search effort • Whether the actions surrounding the incident bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity –
-Does not matter that the parties were not engaged in commercial shipping at the time -Under certain circumstances, the act of diving from a boat could bear a relationship to maritime activity -Unclear whether Ms. Matthews actually dove from the boat or fell into the water -Search effort by the Coast Guard is a traditional maritime activity -Broader view of “traditional maritime activity” – captain’s actions are lack of proper navigation; failure to manage, direct, and position his vessel properly
+Captain navigated the boat by stopping it and leaving it adrift in a major navigable waterway prior to diving from the boat
+He abandoned the helm without taking the proper precautions that maritime law requires
+Failed to assist in the rescue of a woman overboard from his vessel
Holding: Maritime law applies to the facts and allegations of this case.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 21, 2010 in Personal Injury

In many personal injury actions which happen on a boat or on the water, the value of the case and the way lawyers approach the case depends on whether maritime law applies. Originally, maritime or admiralty law was applicable when any claim arose upon the navigable waters of the United States. The Plymouth, 70 U.S. 30 (1866). However, several U.S. Supreme Court cases have changed this rule.

Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972): A plane taking off from a runway hit a flock of birds, lost engine power, and crashed into Lake Erie, sinking to its bottom. The plaintiffs sought damages under traditional maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that, for maritime law to be applicable, a court must find, not only that the action accrued upon or in navigable waters, but that the incident alleged in the claim bears a “significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982): Two pleasure boats collided, resulting in the death of a passenger in one of the boats. The Supreme Court held that the collision was actionable under maritime jurisdiction because there is no requirement that maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one. All operations of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The Court held that “[b]ecause the ‘wrong’ here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters . . . it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction.”

Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990): Fire started on a yacht moored at a marina, which destroyed the yacht, and damaged the marina and several other boats nearby. The Court stated that there are two essential prongs to the “nexus” test:
(1) that the incident caused a “potential hazard to maritime commerce” and (2) that the actions surrounding the incident bore a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.”

Continue Reading ››