Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

When we look for medical attention, we prefer a doctor or nurse who is qualified and competent to take care of us. Sadly, this is not always the case. To error is human and doctors and nurses are also human, so they can also make mistake that can result in medical malpractice.

It is not always easy to file lawsuits when you are suffering from problems caused by medical malpractice. Therefore, it is recommended to turn to a professional medical malpractice lawyer. These lawyers have specialization in medical malpractice law and have a lot of experience in dealing with cases that arise due to the negligence of a doctor or other medical staff in a hospital.

The number of medical malpractice incidents is on the rise. So, most countries have noticed this trend and formulated stringent laws in order to prevent such incidents and hold the guilty party liable. This help the victim receive compensation from the guilty party for the injury he or she received due to the medical malpractice.

If you have suffered from a serious injury or illness due to the negligence of a doctor or hospital, you can file a case against them in order to receive a reasonable amount of compensation. As there are different types of doctors, some are good and some are bad. In the same way, some lawyers are experienced and bona fide, while others are inexperienced and selfish. The selection of a good lawyer to fight a medical malpractice case is of paramount importance, especially in a medical malpractice case. This article explains how you can choose a competent attorney to help you deal a medical malpractice case.

First off, you should know that medical malpractice is associated with personal injury law. Therefore, we cannot say that all personal injury lawyers can handle medical malpractice cases competently. You might opt for a lawyer who has a lot of experience dealing with medical malpractice cases. Go for a lawyer who is experienced in dealing with medical malpractice lawsuits and litigating such cases to achieve success.

You can find scores of lawyers out there who are medical doctors as well. You might choose an attorney who boasts a JD as well as an MD. If you are going to hire a medical malpractice lawyer who does not boast an MD, make certain they have enough knowledge about medicine. Before you enter into an agreement with the lawyer, let them check on your medical records. You need to make certain the lawyer has knowledge about your injury, illness or underlying condition. The lawyer should also know about what the doctor or hospital could have done to prevent the injury caused to the patient.

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Several days later Oliver returned to her surgeon, who noted that Oliver had a fever for several days.

On Aug. 31, Oliver visited the Kaiser facility again and the staff performed a tap on her knee and completed a culture. She was diagnosed with a gram-negative infection.

Oliver sued Kaiser, alleging that the hospital delayed in diagnosing her knee infection.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that during the Aug. 10 visit the Kaiser emergency room physician should have tapped the knee and then performed a washout in addition to placing Oliver on antibiotics. None of this was done, counsel contended. Counsel claimed that Oliver’s elevated blood sugar level, temperature and white blood cell count was indicative of an infection.

Defense counsel stated that Oliver’s temperature was normal when Oliver returned to her surgeon several days later.

Defense counsel contended that Oliver did not have a temperature while in the emergency room and the staff could not duplicate the fever she had at home. Counsel claimed that Oliver’s lab results were only slightly elevated and indicative of a post-operative response to pain, and that the minimal effusion was normal post-operative swelling.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

They further claimed that this condition required the procedure to be performed slowly and methodically, using a sternal saw halfway through the sternum and then using manual tools such as electro-cautery, heavy scissors or surgical chisel. They also argued that the plaintiff’s groin should have been pre-surgically prepared for an emergency bypass in case of emergency. They claimed that the defendant failed to do these things, which they asserted would have prevented the laceration from occurring, or at least lessened the degree of injury and prevented severe brain injury from occurring.

The plaintiff cardiac expert opined that the surgeon moved too quickly, and not carefully, awing into the aorta approximately 10 minutes into surgery, which he opined was about half the time it would take to have performed carefully.

The surgeon testified that while he had no specific recollection of any portion of the surgery, he had performed the procedure carefully and had never before in his career entered a patient’s aorta.

The defense surgery expert testified that entering the aorta is a known complication of the procedure and can happen despite incompliance with the standard of care.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: Plaintiff minor was examined, diagnosed, and treated between October 14 and October 22, 2004, by personnel of “Clinic”, in San Jose, California. Plaintiff minor, through her guardian ad litem, claimed that she was brought into the Clinic, a federally supported health center, with clear signs and symptoms of appendicitis. Instead, the Clinic treated her for cystitis. Plaintiff claimed that, despite returning several times, a correct diagnosis was never made.

Plaintiff said that eventually her appendix ruptured, resulting in the formation of pelvic abscesses and scar tissue. Due to the advanced stage of her condition at the time of diagnosis at San Jose HOSPITAL, she was initially treated non-surgically with antibiotics. Plaintiff developed multiple complications, including persistent abscess, pelvic scarring, Gentamicin toxicity, renal failure,hypertension, and permanent hearing loss.

Defendant filed a third-party complaint against HOSPITAL for indemnity, comparative indemnity, and contribution. Defendant argued that when plaintiff was taken to HOSPTIAL, she was seen by an emergency room physician. Radiology tests were performed which showed evidence of free fluid in plaintiff’s abdomen, caused by a perforated appendix. The diagnosis was confirmed by third-party defendant “D”, a pediatric surgeon. Third-party defendant “D” administered three antibiotics, including Gentamicin. During plaintiff’s stay, she was seen by third-party defendant “D”, third-party defendant “H” and two nurse practitioners.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Oliver suffered from an infection in her knee and that because the hospital delayed in diagnosing the condition, she lost her hamstring graft and all of her articular cartilage in the knee. Her knee was tapped and washed out and then she underwent an open surgery to remove the hardware and a hamstring graft. She underwent another procedure in October 2007 to manipulate the knee under anesthesia. She underwent a scar tissue removal in February 2008 at a different facility, which was unsuccessful.

Facts:

On Aug. 1, 2007, plaintiff Kim Oliver, a registered nurse, underwent arthroscopic surgery at a Kaiser facility for a torn medial meniscus, a torn lateral meniscus and a torn anterior cruciate ligamentin her right knee. She had injured her knee playing soccer.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: The plaintiff had severe brain damage.

Facts:

In 2005, the plaintiff, age 5, was scheduled to undergo the third and final heart reconstruction procedure called the “Fontan” completion operation. He was born with congenital heart defects, including dextrocardia, in which the heart is in the right chest instead of the left, being born with only one ventricle.

The single ventricle deformity is addressed via the three-part Fontan surgery. The plaintiff underwent the first operation as an infant and the second one at age three. After the third, oxygen levels are typically nearly normal and most children can lead healthy, normal lives.

In the first part of the surgery, the surgeon performs a re-sternotomy, opening the sternum via a previous, healed incision. During this procedure, the defendant surgeon used an oscillating saw and entered the plaintiff’s aorta, resulting in massive blood loss for more than 12 minutes. The plaintiff sustained severe brain damage.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court. It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendant contended that he met the standard of care in all aspects of his care and treatment. The injuries claimed by plaintiff were known complications of surgery. It was not uncommon for subarachnoid shunts to displace after surgery, requiring further surgery to reposition them. Defendant did not make any guarantees of success before informed consent was obtained. He also obtained informed consent, as evidenced by two separate informed consent forms signed by plaintiff, one signed weeks before the surgery occurred. Defendant further contended that plaintiff was able to function at a much higher level than she claimed, as demonstrated by sub rosa video obtained of her walking without her walker and bending over to pick up sticks in her yard while fully bearing weight on both legs. Defendant contended that most of plaintiff’s physical symptoms were a result of a psychological somatoform disorder.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Defendant: Plaintiff Ruth Clementine: Pain and paralysis in the left, lower extremity, loss of sensation in the left leg and buttocks, constant pain, tingling and heaviness of the leg, and lack of bladder control. She claimed she was unable to walk with or without an assistive device, suffers from permanent physical impairments, and continues to suffer from debilitating pain in her left leg. Plaintiff Calvin Clementine: Loss of comfort and affection.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

As per DOCTOR’s prescription, plaintiff met with him for a second DRE on May 2, 2006, and plaintiff had blood drawn on May 3, 2006 for a total PSA test.

On May 9, 2006, DOCTOR telephoned plaintiff and informed him that his total PSA test result was 5.34 and it might indicate that plaintiff had prostate cancer. DOCTOR wanted plaintiff to come and have another blood draw to re-test for total PSA and additionally test for free PSA. Plaintiff had the blood drawn on May 10, 2006. His total PSA tested at 5.2 and his free PSA tested at 21 percent, the same as on April 22, 2004 just prior to DOCTOR prescribing a two-year interval between tests.

On May 9, 2006, plaintiff informed DOCTOR that he wanted to get a second opinion from the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Center. Plaintiff asked DOCTOR for his Notes Reports and recent PSA Laboratory Reports, and DOCTOR indicated that his assistant would provide said medical records. Plaintiff talked to the assistant three times during the next two weeks requesting the records and each time the assistant said that she did not have the time to fax the records to plaintiff.

On May 23, 2006, plaintiff was informed by another DOCTOR’s assistant after telephoning the assistant for a fourth time that plaintiff had to get the records from the central office of HOSPITAL. Plaintiff alleged that it was during this two-week period in May 2006 that DOCTOR forged and falsified plaintiff’s medical records and the assistant knew that he was doing so.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Relish suffered kidney failure and pneumonia. She was on dialysis and hospitalized from December 2005 until her death on July 26, 2006. She is survived by her two adult children.

Facts:

On Oct. 29, 2005, plaintiffs’ decedent Mary Relish, 78, was admitted to a Kaiser hospital suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and trigeminal neuralgia. She was prescribed Tegretol for her condition, which she took until she presented to Kaiser on Dec. 8, 2005, suffering from possible Tegretol toxicity. Her kidneys failed, and she ended up on permanent dialysis as well as operating on a ventilator and suffering from pneumonia.

Relish died July 26, 2006. She remained in the hospital until her passing.

Relish’s two grown children sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, alleging medical malpractice. They contended that Tegretol was contraindicated since their mother had been taking Prozac, Claritin and Darvocet as of Oct. 19, 2005. They claimed that Kaiser staff failed to conduct an initial blood work analysis and failed to discontinue the drug when Relish showed the first signs of Tegretol toxicity. They also contended that the hospital’s negligent care is what kept Relish hospitalized until her death.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›