Recently in Medical Malpractice Category

April 10, 2014

What Is Personal Injury Law

What is Personal Injury Law: It is a legal term or an injury to the body, mind or emotions. It covers physical injuries, mental injuries and death that result from the negligence or intentional misconduct of another person, group of individuals, or entity. The most common types of personal injury claims are automobile traffic accidents, accidents in the workplace, slip & fall or tripping accidents, assault claims, accidents in the home and defective products. Also, included in the personal injury realm are medical and dental accidents, which can lead to medical negligence claims.

Depending on how bad the injury to the person is and the level of intent or negligence of the responsible party, the injured person may be entitled to monetary compensation from the at fault party through a settlement or a judgment.

Most personal injury attorneys represent their clients on a contingency basis or a contingency fee retainer agreement. This means that the attorney's fee is a percentage of the plaintiff's (injured party) eventual monetary compensation, payable to the attorney, once the case is resolved and settled, with no payment necessary if the case is unsuccessful. Also, when in this type of contract with a personal injury attorney, the attorney will pay all upfront costs and fees, which can include costs for obtaining medical records, copies, postage, faxes, correspondence, and obtaining police reports. These upfront costs and fees are reimbursed back to the attorney once the case settles and is separate then the attorney's fee for representation.

Damages: Damages are categorized as either special and/or general. Special costs are measured and itemized to include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damage and other out-of-pockets expenses. General costs are less measurable such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium and emotional distress. Personal injury claims include and consider both special and general damages when a claim is submitted to an at fault party.

The amount of compensation for special and general damages in a personal injury claim depends on the severity of the injury, the amount of treatment received and whether or not an injury is permanent in nature. The worse the injury is, the greater the compensation.

Time Limitations: In the United States, each state has different Statutes of Limitations - laws that determine how much time you have to file a legal claim. Different types of injuries have different statutes of limitations. In Maryland and the District of Columbia the Personal Injury Statute of Limitations to file a claim is 3 years from the date of accident and in Virginia it is 2 years from the date of accident.

Personal Injury Claim Settlements are not taxable. Therefore; any monies awarded on a personal injury claim you do not have to claim on your taxes. The official statement from the IRS states:

"If you receive a settlement for personal physical injuries or physical sickness and did not take an itemized deduction for medical expenses related to the injury or sickness in prior years, the full amount is non-taxable. Do not include the settlement proceeds in your income."

February 12, 2014

Lawmakers in Maryland Propose New Birth Injury Fund

Legislators in the state of Maryland are trying to create a brand new fund for children and families with health problems that may have been caused by medical mistakes during child birth and labor. They propose to call this new fund the Birth Injury Fund. If and when this new fund is implemented, it would limit the ability of families to pursue medical malpractice lawsuits against medical providers, institutions, etc., and it would serve as a form of tort reform.

Eligibility for the Maryland Birth Injury program would be restricted to children born in a Maryland hospital, whose injuries fir the definition of a birth-related neurological injury. Each case would be reviewed on an individual basis by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Maryland Board of Physicians. Each of these organizations would review the hospitals and doctors for indications of less than standard care and practices. An administrative law judge would make the final eligibility determination and there would also be an appeals process, if needed. Once the administrative law judge approves eligibility, the child and their parents could seek compensation and care from the program in less than 90 days.

The Birth Injury Fund would give a one-time monetary award of up to $100,000.00, plus lifetime medical care, lost earnings compensation for the years 18 to 65 and no cap on the health care benefits of the injured patient/person.

The purpose of this New Birth Injury fund program is to prevent birth injuries through improved medical care and not to provide negligent doctors and hospital with immunity from the consequences of their poor medical care and practices. The new program would also result in more infants obtaining compensation and the needed lifetime medical care sooner because their parents would not need to wait to win in a medical malpractice lawsuit/trial to get access to the fund. Acceptance in the program is based on the injury and not the outcome of a medical malpractice lawsuit.

The funding for the New Birth Injury Fund would come entirely from hospitals and doctors. John Hopkins Hospital and the University of Maryland Medical System have already shown their support for the bill.

October 9, 2013

VA Medical Malpractice Case Ends in Deadlocked Jury

A jury in Culpeper County Circuit Court could not decide the outcome of a medical malpractice case brought on by Carol Nettles against the orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert Rutkowski, which resulted in a hung jury, after 11 hours of deliberations. A hung jury means that the jury members cannot, by the required voting threshold, agree upon a verdict after an extended period of deliberations and is unable to change its votes. It is sometimes also called a deadlocked jury.

Ms. Carol Nettles, a 68 year old woman filed a $1 million medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Rutkowski for causing severe and permanent injury to her left collar bone, shoulder and arm as a result of surgery that Dr. Rutkowski performed on Ms. Nettles' clavicle on October 26, 2011 at the Virginia Orthopaedic and Spine Center. Out of the $1 million. Ms. Carol had originally been examined by Dr. Rutkowski to help ease some of her carpal tunnel pains at which time he recommended surgery. Dr. Rutkowski performed an operation that involved attaching a six-inch metal plate to her clavicle to help stabilize the bone. Unfortunately, the bone was so weak that Dr. Rutkowski could not attach the metal plate using traditional materials. Dr. Rutkowski instead used sutures to secure the metal plate to Ms. Nettles' clavicle instead of using traditional screws. It is believed that by using the sutures instead of the screws her clavicle suffered a permanent injury due to the sutures rough edges sawed through her clavicle. As a result of this permanent injury Ms. Nettles is unable to move her left arm and shoulder and has been left with a disfigured left collarbone and shoulder.

Dr. Rutkowski alleged to Ms. Nettles at a post-operative appointment that her injury was a result of her weak bone, when in fact it was because of the sutures he used, instead of the screws that he was suppose to have used to properly attach the metal plate to Ms. Nettles' clavicle. Ms. Nettles continued to complain about the pain to Dr. Rutkowski on various visits post operation and it wasn't until December 2011 that Dr. Rutkowski referred Ms. Nettles to a shoulder surgeon at the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, Dr. Angelo Dacus, who removed all of the hardware implanted by Dr. Rutkowski, alleviating some of the pain and discomfort that Ms. Nettles was experiencing, but still left her with a permanent injury.

Ms. Nettles therefore; made the following claims/charges against Dr. Rutkowski in the suit filed in Culpeper County Circuit Court:

- Failing to refer Ms. Nettles to a more qualified physician;
- Failing to explain the risks of the surgery;
- Failing to foresee that sutures would saw through the bone instead of stabilizing it, and
- Performing a complicated surgery that was not worth the risk to the patient's otherwise good health.

The jury was in the end unable to determine whether or not Dr. Rutkowski was completely responsible for Ms. Nettles permanent injury. The jury consisted of six people, three men and three women. During the deliberation process the jurors presented the court and the judge with five questions, all of which could not be answered because as Judge Susan Whitlock answered "The court cannot answer these questions because the evidence is in."

May 24, 2013

Medical Malpractice Payments Do Not Really Have an Effect on Healthcare Costs in the U.S.

Medical malpractice payments do not really drive up healthcare costs, says a study conducted by Johns Hopkins. The study released by Johns Hopkins in early May 2013, shows that health care costs only rise about 1% when payouts are made in substantial medical malpractice claims, in the United States.

The study was published in the Journal for Healthcare Quality and it examined payments made in what they describe as "catastrophic medical malpractice claims". These catastrophic medical malpractice claims involve payments of more than $1 million, which involve patient deaths, birth injuries, and/or other claims for problems that result in the need for lifelong medical care as a result of a medical mistake.

The Johns Hopkins study examined data from 2004 to 2010 and found that catastrophic medical malpractice claim payments totaled $1.4 billion, and it is estimated that the United States healthcare costs are around $2.8 trillion annually, therefore medical malpractice payments don't really have as high an effect on healthcare costs as is reported by health insurance companies, doctors and other members of the medical field.

Medical malpractice payouts are much lower than is portrayed by tort reform advocates. These people advocate that the high cost of healthcare in the United States can be blamed on medical malpractice lawsuit payouts and the fact that state legislatures have the power to arbitrarily override jury decisions and cap awards, but the Johns Hopkins study shows that it really does not have as high an effect as these advocates make it out to be.

On the contrary, the Johns Hopkins study shows that the cost of actual claims pales in comparison to the cost of defensive medicine, which is unnecessary medical procedures and tests doctors conduct on patients in order to avoid lawsuits in the first place. That cost totaled about $60 billion annually, or about 40 times the cost of actual medical malpractice payouts.

In the date used from 2004 to 2010 for this study, there were a total of 77,621 medical malpractice claims paid. 6,130 of those claims were considered "catastrophic" payouts, therefore; tort reform advocates are wrong when they make the assumption that medical malpractice claims payouts result in $100 million payouts.

The New England Medical Journal, in 2011, published a study that found that only 7.4% of physicians face the risk of medical malpractice claims each year. That means that only one out of every five claims result in a settlement or payout.

Therefore; it is fare to say that far too many tests and procedures are performed annually in the name of defensive medicine, as many physicians dear they could be sued if they don't order them. It is not the payouts that are bankrupting the system... it's the fear of them that are.

February 26, 2013

Conduct and Privacy Allegations Against Dr. Nikita Levy of Johns Hopkins Medical Center

Dr. Nikita Levy, a Johns Hopkins Medical Center Gynecologist, committed suicide on Monday, February 18, 2013, after he was confronted with allegations of recording and photographing his patients during exams in his 25 year career. Dr. Levy obtained his medical license in Maryland in 1988 and started working at Johns Hopkins Hospital shortly after. Dr. Levy was contacted by Johns Hopkins on February 4th, 2013, suspended on February 5th and ultimately terminated on February 8, 2013. On February 18, 2013, Dr. Levy's body was found at his home, in Towson, Maryland, with a plastic bag wrapped around his head and Helium being pumped into it. An apology letter to his wife was also found, near his body.

When Dr. Levy's home was searched by police, unauthorized photographs and video recordings of patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital were found. Multiple computer hard drives filled with images and records, photographic equipment and hidden cameras, such as a pen camera, were found and taken as evidence.

Several lawsuits are now being filed in Maryland on behalf of former patients of Dr. Levy due to these allegations. Hundreds more are expected to be filed in the coming months. Dr. Levy had over 600 former patients whom may have been secretly photographed or recorded.

Baltimore Police have yet to contact the patients identified in the photographs and recordings and have not confirmed whether any of the material was distributed over the internet, therefore; some lawyers of these former patients have submitted a request to the Baltimore Police to release this information.

Johns Hopkins issued a statement, which in part says, "An invasion of patient privacy is intolerable. Words cannot express how deeply sorry we are for every patient whose privacy may have been violated... " The hospital further says that Dr. Levy's alleged behavior violates its conduct and privacy rules. The allegations were brought to light by an employee of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, who on February 4th, 2013, noticed something unusual about Dr. Levy's examination of a patient and so a supervisor was alerted.

Baltimore Police are treating this as a criminal investigation while Johns Hopkins' board or trustees has opened their own investigation. Hospitals, in the past, have been held liable for failing to protect patients' privacy and for doctor's actions, but it depends on whether there is enough evidence to prove negligence. It all depends on whether the women can be identified in the images and what they show. If patients cannot be identified, they cannot really say that they were embarrassed or humiliated.

February 7, 2013

DePuy ASR Hip Implant Recall

DePuy Hip Implant.jpg
Over 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against the company Johnson & Johnson for their distribution of the DePuy ASR hip implant, since a recall was issued in August 2010. The DePuy ASR hip implant has a metal on metal design, which means that a metal head rotates within a metal cup. This design causes metal debris, caused from the metal parts rubbing against each other, to be released into the surrounding tissue and cause medical problems. The failure occurs within five years of replacement.

When the recall was first issued, Johnson & Johnson stated that the failure rate was only about 13%, but after documents were released as part of the litigation, it was estimated that the failure rate of the DePuy ASR hip implant is as high as 37%. This means that one out of every eight DePuy ASR hip implants were failing within five years of replacement surgery.

There is currently a case going on in California against Johnson & Johnson for the marketing, manufacturing and sale of the defective DePuy ASR hip implants. It is being said that the company failed to properly warn the public, as well as healthcare professionals, about the risk of loosening and other complications that may develop shortly after hip replacement surgery.

In testimony in the current case being heard in California, a DePuy engineer testified that Johnson & Johnson only tested one angle of implantation and that the company failed to use the right engineering controls when trying to assess potential problems. The engineer further stated that the testing conducted failed to predict how much wear the hip implants would experience and how much they could loosen.

The FDA released a new guidance for metal on metal hip replacements in January of this year. Doctors were advised that metal on metal hip replacement systems should only be used if other artificial hip implants were not appropriate for the patient, and called on all manufacturers to prove that their implants are safe enough to stay on the market. Also, future metal on metal hip designs will have to undergo extensive human clinical trials before being made available for sale to the public.

July 12, 2011

Basis for Product Liability Legal Claims

When consumers make purchases they expect them to function properly and safely. It is when the purchased defective item causes injuries and illnesses that there are basis for product liability lawsuits. Some of these items are: automobiles, prescription drugs, beauty products, frozen foods, automobile parts and tires, etc.

When Manufactures realize that a product is defective they issue out a recall of that item to consumers. However, recalls do not always keep the consumer safe.

Product liability claims are based on the theory of negligence. The manufacturer has a duty to exercise a reasonable standard of care for developing a particular product, and has failed to do so; thus resulting in harm to the consumer. When making a negligence claim, the injured consumer must prove that the defective product was the actual and proximate cause of the injury. One must show that had it not been for the defective product, the injury would not have occurred. The manufacturer should have foreseen the danger and risk when it sold the product.

Design defect, failure to warn/improper labeling and manufacturing defects are the most common scenarios that form the basis for a product liability claim.

Product liability claims can also be based on the following legal theories:
- Breach of Warranty - failure to fulfill terms of a promise or claim made regarding the quality and safety of a product. A manufacturer must guarantee certain warranties on products sold and needs to be held accountable when they are breached;

- Strict Liability - responsibility of the manufacturer to all consumers who might be injured by a product and does not require the injured consumer to prove negligence. The consumer only needs to prove that the product was defective and therefore cause the injury, therefore; making the product unreasonable defective and dangerous. The designer, manufacturer, distributor and seller of the defective product can and should be held liable for the injury and illnesses cause to the consumer.

- Misrepresentation - when a manufacturer gives the consumer false or misleading information on the safety and reliance of a product. When the consumer relies on this information and is harmed, they can recover money damages.

A consumer can also contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission for further details and advice.

May 17, 2011

To Prevent Hospital Infections the FDA is Proposing New Guidelines For Cleaning Medical Devices

Endoscopes.bmpThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing new guidelines for the cleaning of reusable medical equipment, which if not done properly, can cause infections at hospitals and other medical facilities and doctors offices.

The new guidelines would require manufacturers to provide detailed instructions on how to clean any medical device that will be reused on multiple patients, properly. The guidelines would also provide cleaning instructions of those devices for health care professionals.

These guidelines are being implemented because when these instruments are not cleaned and/or sterilized properly, they could carry bodily fluids and other materials from one patient to the next and therefore; cause infections. These infections can be life threatening and should be avoided, and with these new guidelines, they could potentially be avoided.

A report released by the FDA, from January 2007 to May 2010, they received 80 reports of inadequate cleaning of endoscopes and 28 reports of hospital acquired infections that were most likely spread by endoscopes. Endoscopes are small cameras that are inserted into the body. They are most commonly used in colonoscopy procedures, but can also be used on ears, nose and throat procedures.

The FDA has a public workshop scheduled for June 8 and 9th of this year, to discuss the draft guidelines with manufacturers, health care providers and other government agencies, after which, the FDA would draft a final guidance. Guidance are recommended procedures that are recognized as federal standards.


September 20, 2010

$55.6 Billion Spent on Medical Malpractice Lawsuits in the U.S. in 2008

Medical Malpractice.jpgIn 2008, the cost of health care was $2.3 trillion, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That averages out to about $7,681.00 per person. The U.S. spent nearly $55.6 billion on medical malpractice lawsuits and defensive medicine, which represents about 2.4% of the entire budget. Defensive medicine however, made up about $45.6 billion of that, meaning that only $10 billion was spent on medical malpractice lawsuits in 2008.

Defensive medicine is defined as medical tests and procedures performed to avoid medical malpractice liability and not to improve the patient's health.

Researchers for the journal Health Affairs, published by the Harvard School of Public Health in September 2010, found that attempting to reduce the number of medical malpractice lawsuits would result in only a negligible effect on the cost of health care, and reducing the cost of defensive medicine would do little more.

If we could improve the quality of health care in the United States, we would be saving a lot of money a year. By improving the quality of health care, we would reduce the need for medical malpractice lawsuits and costs, such as longer hospitalizations due to hospital acquired infections and pneumonia, bedsores, and wrong site surgeries, all of which are avoidable medical problems.

June 23, 2010

Physhield Insurance Exchange, a Risk Retention Group, Approved in Maryland

Physician Pic.jpgPhyshield Insurance Exchange, a risk retention group (RRG), has been approved in Maryland, to write medical professional liability insurance policies. Physhield now has the authority to operate as a liability insurer in Maryland, as well as other states, such as Florida, Texas and Nevada. According to Robert Trinka, Chief Executive of Phyhealth (an affiliate of Physhield) says that Physhield can also write policies in Washington, D.C.

This RRG will insure large, single speciality or multispeciality doctors groups that have more than $500,000 a year in premiums. The insurance will be sold through the sales force and Internet site of Maryland-based Palumbo Insurance Associates, a full service commercial insurance agency in Maryland.

Physhield's business model is to bring together groups of local physicians who will form a delivery network, and be the primary owners of the groups HMO license. They will develop and market HMO products for their community of patients. This is the doctors that Physhield will offer medical professional liability insurance to. It is these physicians that have the financial responsibility over the care that is delivered, and therefore, have a great deal of control over their own liability insurance situation.

Putting physicians in control of the care and the liability, results in more effective medicine practices. With more control come greater responsibilities, and these Physicians are held liable for the treatment and services they render.

June 7, 2010

Asbestos Regulations in Maryland

Asbestos.gifAsbestos: a naturally occurring mineral found in certain rock formations, mined from open pit mines. Most of the asbestos used in the United States comes from Canada. Three kinds of asbestos are most commonly found in the US: Chrysotile, "white asbestos"; Amosite, "brown asbestos" and Crodifolite, "blue asbestos".

Asbestos was used in more than 3000 different products, ranging from pipe insulation, floor and ceiling tiles, brake pads, plasters, adhesives, paint, packing materials for valves, roofing materials, etc. Asbestos fibers were wonderful to use because they were durable, strong, flexible, and most importantly resistant to wear.

Concerns with Asbestos:
In the early 1960's evidence began to emerge showing that certain diseases were rampant among asbestos workers. These workers were ones that worked in mills, manufacturing facilities, painters and shipyards. These people were heavily exposed to airborne fibers. They were at high risk of developing an asbestos-related disease.

The diseases most common are asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and digestive system cancers. Fibers may be inhaled or ingested. The fibers are small and can remain in the air for various hours. These fibers have no color or smell and therefore; are difficult to detect. Asbestosis is a chronic lung condition where the lungs become scarred, breathing becomes difficult and the disease may worsen even if the person stops working with asbestos. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer to the lining of the lung and/or abdominal cavities and is always fatal. None of the asbestos related diseases have early warning symptoms and are usually diagnosed years after the disease begins to develop.

Regulating Asbestos:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates Asbestos. They brought to law a Clear Air Act to produce regulations to regulate air pollutants hazardous to health. These regulations are called the Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Asbestos is one of the air pollutants that is being regulated by the act. Asbestos in schools is also regulated by the EPA, but specifically by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Under AHERA schools are required to inspect buildings for asbestos and develop a plan to manage asbestos. The department inspects Maryland's public and private schools.


Asbestos is regulated by states and by the federal government. The State of Maryland regulates how persons work with asbestos and also regulates those who train persons to work with asbestos. The EPA regulations cover four basic asbestos activities:
1) Removal, repair, or encapsulation of asbestos containing materials;
2) Approval of asbestos training;
3) Regulation of persons accredited to perform asbestos related activities;
4) Asbestos in schools.


May 27, 2010

Medical Malpractice Reform

medical malpractice 2.jpgThe medical malpractice system exists so that patients injured by the negligence of medical personnel can sue for their injuries. To date, it is the only opportunity for victims of medical malpractice to address their injuries in a legal and meaningful matter.

Medical malpractice lawsuits do not drive up healthcare costs. In fact, the present system saves thousands of additional patients from avoidable deaths and it provides fair compensation to those affected.

About 44,000 to 98,000 people die as a result of medical malpractice each year, according to the Institute of Medicine. These deaths can be avoided. Medical errors by health care personnel need to be prevented in order to lower this alarming number of deaths.

Tort reform may actually harm patients by focusing on costs over patient safety. In addition, the award caps that want to be implemented can also put a maximum price on a person's potential for injury compensation. This would pull some attorneys toward certain cases with higher damage caps and away from other malpractice lawsuits with less monetary value, ultimately harming many of those who truly need legal representation and financial help with continuing medical costs. This in turn does not provide a solution to the health care crisis in the United States. These limits to medical malpractice litigation instead, try to curb legal rights and costly verdicts, but do not address the prevention of medical errors.

Patients have a duty to keep better track of their own medical histories and review their medical records. Doctors also need to be questioned about anything unfamiliar or that seems unnecessary.

Victims of medical negligence deserve their day in court. They need financial compensation for their injuries and future healthcare costs and needs. If you or someone you know has been a victim of medical negligence, contact a medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and options.

April 29, 2010

Medical Errors Are Costly and On the Rise

Research has shown that medical errors may result most frequently from system errors. One out of 25 patients in hospitals are injured due to medical errors, and an estimated 48,000 to 98,000 patients die from these errors a year. Even if you consider the lower estimate of 48,000 errors a year, it is still higher than the annual mortality from motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), or even AIDS (16,516), thus making medical errors the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. These errors, besides causing death, have also cost the economy from $17 to $29 billion each year and cost more that $5 million a year in large teaching hospitals, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

For Patients at Risk, Medical errors may result in the following:

- A patient being given the wrong medicine
- A clinician misreading the results of a test
- An elderly person that shows up to an emergency room with ambiguous systems, such as: shortness of breath, abdominal pain and dizziness, whose heat attack is not diagnosed by the medical staff

How Errors Occur:
- Medication Errors:
These are preventable mistakes in the prescribing and delivering of medications to a patient, these errors include: prescribing two or more drugs whose interaction is known to produce side effects or prescribing a drug to which the patient is allergic to.
- Surgical Errors
- Diagnostic Inaccuracies:
This leads to ineffective treatment and/or unnecessary testing, which is costly and can be invasive to the patient.
- System Failures:
This is the way health care is delivered and the way that resources are provided to the delivery system.

Medical Mistakes are also made by distracted nurses. It is believed that if medical facilities had more nursing staff that could focus their attention on fewer tasks at a time that medical mistakes would decrease, patient safety increase and it would reduce the risk of medical malpractice. When nurses are interrupted, it increases the chance of a procedural failure by 12.1%, and the chances of a clinical error by 12.7%, as indicated by the Archives of Internal Medicine study published in Australia in 2008.

April 20, 2010

Hospital Acquired Infections on the Rise

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reports that there are over 2 million hospital infections acquired each year, resulting in almost 90,000 deaths annually. This number is much higher when dealing with nursing home infections.

It is because of this huge number of yearly deaths that Medical Malpractice lawsuits have increased in the United States. Experts believe that these potentially life threatening infections can be prevented if steps are taken by hospitals and their staff. The steps that need to be taken should include: improving the methods of handling catheters during insertion, leaving them in for shorter periods of time and improving hygiene. Also hospital staff should was their hands more frequently and make sure to keep areas more sterile and catheters clean.

The hospital acquired infections include Postoperative sepsis, catheter-associated urinary tract infections and other preventable infections. Hospital stays are prolonged because of these avoidable infections and patients are also more likely to die from these infections, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2009 National Healthcare Quality Report released earlier this year.

The biggest increase of hospital acquired infections occurred in sepsis infections. Sepsis is when a full body inflammation occurs as a reaction to an infection. Symptoms of sepsis include high heart rate, high respiratory rate, high and/or low body temperature and elevated white blood cell count. All of these symptoms can cause organ damage and in some cases organ failure, which lead to death in about 20 to 35% of cases.

Hospitals in the Washington Metropolitan Area, such as Washington Hospital Center (WHC), George Washington University Hospital (GWUH), Sibley Memorial Hospital (SMH) and Georgetown University Hospital (GUH), are making much needed changes to try and reduce these infections and deaths in order to avoid Medical Malpractice Lawsuits. These medical facilities are devoting more attention to patient safety in order to ensure that health care does not result in patient harm.

April 1, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration Ignored CT Scan Radiation Warnings

CT scan.jpgIn Gaithersburg, Maryland today there will be a two day public hearing to discuss allegations that the FDA ignored some Scientists warnings on the risks of radiation exposure from CT scans that have lead to unnecessary and unexpected health problems and dangers to some patients.

The public hearing will focus on reducing the risks of unnecessary radiation exposure. The concerns about radiation exposure risks came about late last year in Los Angeles, California, when over 200 patients were subjected to radiation overexposure at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. It was uncovered by the FDA that various cases at other area hospitals were discovered. These discoveries by the FDA lead to a new radiation exposure reduction initiative that was announced in February of this year.

This new initiative seeks to reduce the risk of radiation exposure from medical procedures by promoting the safer use of all medical devices that use radiation, and by providing support to patients in order to better inform them on the risks and side effects to radiation exposure. With this knowledge, patients will be able to make better decisions in regards to their medical procedures and be aware of their total radiation exposure.

The FDA issued a statement in December 2009 that better describes the side effects of radiation and the proper use of medical devices to health care professionals and radiologists. This guidance advised health care providers to review procedures and CT scan settings, and to thoroughly inspect the amount of dosage prescribed for each CT scan patient.