Posted on July 20, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

Almost one year after being charged with violating the Medical Practice Act and engaging in medical malpractice in Towson, Maryland, former St. Joseph’s Medical Center cardiologist Dr. Mark G. Midei has had his license revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians. This case has proven to be instructive as to the steps the Board takes when determining appropriate sanctions for misbehaving doctors.

In one of the most talked-about medical malpractice cases in the Baltimore-area, Dr. Midei was accused of implanting unnecessary cardiac stent in many patients. Specifically, the Board found that Dr. Midei falsified blockage percentages in five patients’ coronary arteries and unnecessarily implanted cardiac stents in four of those patients.
The formal findings of the Board were as follows:
• that Dr. Midei committed unprofessional conduct by failing to deal honestly with patients and colleagues;
• that Dr. Midei made intentional, non-accidental and non-inadvertent false reports;
• that Dr. Midei over-utilized health care services;
• that Dr. Midei violated the standard of quality care; and • that Dr. Midei failed to keep adequate medical records.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 13, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

Dr. Mark Midei’s medical license was revoked today by the Maryland Board of Physicians. A copy of the Final Decision and Order can be found here. As set forth in decision, the Board found that Dr. Midei engaged in "unprofessional conduct" and "blatant falsehood." It found that he is guilty of "failing to deal honestly with patients and colleagues," that he created "willfully false reports," and that he unnecessary implanted people with cardiac stents. The Board stated that it found Dr. Midei’s testimony "not credible." The Board also indicated that Dr. Midei had economic motivation for his misconduct.

In the 11 page decision, other phrases that were used to describe Dr. Midei included the following: "implanted cardiac stents unnecessary"; "falsified the extent of blockage of the patients’ coronary arteries by reporting that it was 80% when it was in reality lower – and in most cases much lower"; in three of the patients, he also falsely reported that they suffered from unstable angina when in fact they did not"; "violated the standard of quality care"; "falsely reported"; "intentional, non-accidental and non-inadvertent false reports that exaggerated the degree of coronary stenosis"; willfully false reports"; "overutilized health care"; "implanted stents unnecessarily, documented clinical indications inaccurately, exaggerated the extent of stenosis and failed to consider more optimal therapies"; "blatant falsehood"; "willfully false nature of some of Dr. Midei’s reports"; "Dr. Midei’s violations were repeated and serious"; "unnecessary stents exposed patients to the risk of harm"; "Dr. Midei’s willful creation of false percentage numbers for the degree of occlusion of coronary arteries is indefensible and amounts to a deliberate and willful fabrication of medical records"; "false findings used to justify unnecessary stent insertions"; "Dr. Midei acted in bad faith."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 11, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

A study published in June 2011 provided a somewhat unexpected result – doctor’s offices and hospitals are equally as likely to be sued for medical malpractice. This finding is surprising because the majority of patient safety initiatives focus on inpatient care at hospitals. The finding of this study, however, indicates a need for the focus to shift to outpatient settings as well. The Journal of the American Medical Association study can be found here.

In 2009, of approximately 11,000 medical malpractice payments made on behalf of physicians, close to half stemmed from errors occurring in doctor’s offices. The study revealed that while hospitals and doctor’s offices are equally as likely to face medical malpractice suits – the error or negligence behind those suits differ. In hospitals, malpractice most often results from unsuccessful surgery giving rise to negative outcomes. In doctor’s offices, on the other hand, incorrect diagnosis is most often to blame. While this indicates the necessity that doctor’s offices adopt the same kind of checklists and systems that have been in place in hospitals for many years, it also demonstrates how essential it is that outpatient care standards become a greater focus in the medical community.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 11, 2011 in Criminal Defense

As an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney, I represent people charged with violations of the controlled dangerous substance laws virtually every day in Maryland courts. I have blogged many times in the past about the importance of hiring an experienced full time criminal attorney if one finds him or herself charged in a criminal case. As I have noted in the past, I witness far too many instances in which accident or divorce lawyers represent (or should I say misrepresent) people in criminal cases and it usually doesn’t work out very well for the person charged.

I had an a case today in Baltimore County Circuit Court that was an excellent example of a person realizing before it was too late that her attorney was not really qualified to represent her. This is unusual. More often than not, people don’t figure it out until they suffer a very bad result. Here are the facts of the case.

My client was sitting in front of her home in her car arguing with her boyfriend. A Baltimore County Police Officer drove by and decided this situation warranted investigating. He turned his car around and parked behind my client’s car. He did not utilize his emergency equipment and did not draw his weapon. Instead he simply walked up to the window of the vehicle to speak with the occupants. This is known as a "mere encounter" in legal parlance and does not require probable cause.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 01, 2011 in Divorce

In our June 28, 2011 blog we discussed how Courts in Maryland seem to be divided on whether same sex couples legally married in other states should be granted a divorce in Maryland. To confuse matters even more, as reported by the Maryland Daily Record on June 24, 2011, a criminal Judge has ruled that same sex couples are permitted to assert their spousal privilege in criminal matters. So while some family law Judges may not recognize same sex couples as spouses, it appears that some criminal Judges are. In the Washington County case, the lesbian partners were married in Washington D.C. Recently, one has threatened the other with violence, and therefore was charged with assault. However, in criminal matters spouses can invoke their right not to testify against their spouse. In this case, the victim of the alleged threat has asked to assert her privilege not to testify against her partner. The Judge has recognized the partners as spouses and allowed her to do so. The Judge specifically ruled that “Maryland generally recognizes a marriage as valid as long as it was valid in the jurisdiction in which it took place.”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 30, 2011 in Criminal Defense

This week, a judge sitting in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland ruled after a lengthy motion’s hearing that the prosecutor violated my client’s due process rights. The result was that all charges including attempted murder and first degree assault were dismissed. This case involved some unique facts and circumstances that if appealed, may garner some attention by the appellate courts.

Pertinent Facts:

On May 22, 2009, a district court charging document was issued by the Harford County police charging the Defendant with assaulting his wife on May 20, 2009 and charging him with the attempted murder of his brother in law on May 21, 2009. The Defendant was held without bail from May 22, 2009 until June 10, 2009 when bail was set at $25,000. The Defendant paid a bondsman and was released. On that date, the charges with respect to the incident with his brother-in-law were dismissed. At that time, the State dismissed the charges because the brother-in-law was on active duty and soon to be deployed out of the country. Thereafter, in October, 2009, the Defendant’s wife invoked her marital privilege and the Defendant was found not guilty of assaulting her.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 30, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

A recurring controversy in the military is a legal doctrine – called the "Feres Doctrine" – which forbids any active-duty personnel from filing a medical malpractice case against military doctors. In the past, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear any challenges to the doctrine, but that might change as soon as this week. The Supreme Court decision of whether the Justices will hear a case could come as early as this week.

The Feres Doctrine was created from a consolidation of three cases in the 1950’s that netted the practical effect of barring military personnel from collecting damages for any personal injuries from the United States Government. The Feres Doctrine also prohibits family members of these of service men and women from filing wrongful death or loss of consortium actions when a service member is killed or injured due to medical malpractice.

The theory behind the doctrine is that there are other ways military members are compensated for their injuries or death. An example is the Veteran’s Administration. If a military member is injured while serving, they are referred to this organization for medical care and other services.
The case that’s instituting this potential second-look at the long standing doctrine is being brought by the family of an airman in Sacramento. The man, who was diagnosed with acute appendicitis, was left in a persistent vegetative state allegedly due to medical malpractice. The family argues that they should not be denied the ability to bring a medical malpractice action because the man survived the surgery; it was the subsequent breathing complications that arose and ultimately led to his current condition when a nurse negligently put a breathing tube into his trachea instead of his esophagus.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 28, 2011 in Family Law

On June 24, 2011 New York passed the law allowing same sex couples to wed in their state. New York is the sixth state to allow same-sex couples to wed, following Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C. Like the bill that was proposed, but failed, earlier in Maryland this year, the law in New York will call for religious exemptions, meaning that there will be strong protections in place for religious groups that oppose gay marriages. New York does not have a residency requirement for marriage, so commencing July 24, 2011 it is predicted the state will see a lot of same sex couple weddings.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 28, 2011 in Divorce

As we had previously reported in our March 1, 2010 blog the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion in February 2010 that states Maryland should recognize same sex marriages performed legally in other states as valid marriages in Maryland. However, the bill to allow same sex couples to marry in Maryland did not pass in the legislature this term. This has left Maryland Courts in limbo with how to handle same sex couples who file for divorce. Local news station, WTOP, reported on Friday, June 24, 2011 that a local Prince Georges County same sex couple was recently denied a divorce based on “the unnatural circumstances of their marriage.” The Judge specifically stated in his opinion “to recognize the alleged marriage would be contrary to the public policy of Maryland.” The Prince Georges County couple has filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 25, 2011 in Family Law

Most family law matters, such as divorce proceedings, and custody proceedings, do not involve the Maryland criminal system, or involve any imminent punishment such as jail time. However, when a non-paying child support obligor (parent who is supposed to be paying child support) is brought to court after the child support obligee (parent who is supposed to be receiving child support) files a Petition for Contempt, that obligor may be sentenced to jail time. Because this obligor faces jail time at this contempt proceeding, the proceeding, while civil in nature borderlines a criminal proceeding because of the punishment that can be imposed. While criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney have the option of obtaining a public defender, civil defendants in most cases do not. Therefore, it has often been a question whether these non paying child support obligors are entitled to an attorney due to the threat and/or possibility of incarceration?

On Monday, June 20, 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States issued an Opinion on this very question. As the New York Times reports, "The Supreme Court on Monday gave a complicated answer to the simple question of whether poor people facing jail time for failing to pay child support are entitled to court-appointed lawyers." The Supreme Court case, Turner v. Rogers, involved in a man who had been sent to jail numerous times after civil contempt proceedings for his failure to pay child support. He was not represented by an attorney at these hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that there is not an automatic right to counsel in these civil contempt proceedings, however cautioned that if the opposing side (the obligee) has an attorney then it may be a different story. The Court cautioned that courts should warn those facing civil contempt that their non payment is a "critical issue."

Continue Reading ››