More disturbing, the jury heard testimony that a nurse on duty at the time the appendix removal surgery was being planned and performed warned the OB/GYN that the monitoring strips showed a problem with the baby. Further, the nurse felt so strongly that the baby was in danger that when the doctor refused to listen to her concerns, she went to to her charge nurse and then to the hospital's nursing supervisor seeking to have an emergency Cesarean section performed on Bonnie to save the baby. Instead of listening to the nurse, the OB/GYN and the general surgeon removed the appendix, only to find that it was normal, but Bonnie's abdomen was filled with 3.5 liters of blood, which is half the amount of blood an average woman has in her entire body.

Ultimately, a c-section was performed to deliver Brandon more than one and a half hours after the appendix surgery began. At birth, Brandon had no muscle tone and required extensive medical intervention to live, including a four month hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit. An expert medical witness testified to the jury that if Brnadon had been delivered even half an hour sooner, he would have been medically normal. The OB/GYN continues to assert that his care was appropriate and that Bonnie's complication was "incredibly rare" and is seeking a new trial and possibly an appeal.

(1) performing surgery on the wrong body part;
(2) performing surgery on the wrong patient;
(3) performing the wrong surgery on a patient;
(4) sending a newborn infant home with the wrong family;
(5) unintentionally leaving a foreign object in the body;
(6) medication error that results in serious injury or death;
(7) using wrong artificial donor for insemination;
(8) causing injury by giving patient the wrong blood type; and
(9) air-embolism injury.

Interestingly, the "no pay" rule adopted by the Delaware Healthcare Association applies only to hospitals, which means that patients may still see a bill from their doctor for these types of errors. It is unclear how many errors occur in Delaware's hospitals because Delaware (unlike many states, including Pennsylvania) does not require hospitals to report medical errors to the public. However, one study, performed by the Institute for Medicine in 1999, reported that nationwide, between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die in hospitals each year because of preventable medical errors.

The woman received a screening mamogram in June 2003 from a Fox Chase mobile mammography unit that was read as showing a dilated duct unchanged from a 2001 mammogram. The jury heard testimony that the woman's 2001 mammogram did not show a dilated duct, which meant that the 2003 mammogram should have been reported as showing a suspicious change that required further evaluation. The woman then had a 2004 mammogram at the Albert Einstein Medical Center and the physician who read that report noted several small nodular densities that were stable when compared to prior mammograms. Again, the jury heard evidence that the doctor mis-read the mammogram because the woman's prior mammograms had not reported nodular densities. The woman's lawyers argued that doctors again missed a chance to instruct the woman to obtain follow-up medical care that would have diagnosed the cancer. Ultimately, the woman was found to have Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer in the location where the 2003 mammogram showed a dilated duct.

Prior to trial, the Albert Einstein Medical Center and the doctor who read the 2004 mammogram settled with the woman for a confidential amount of money. Fox Chase and its physician had refused offers to settle along with Albert Einstein for a total of $2 Million (which was the maximum amount available under the doctors' insurance coverage), offering only $125,000. The woman's lawyer had warned Fox Chase that if a jury ultimately awarded more than $2 Million, the woman would be eligible to pursue bad faith claims for failing to settle.

This case demonstrates that any woman diagnosed with breast cancer even though she has been receiving regular screening mammograms should have the films and reports reviewed by a competent medical malpractice attorney who can have medical experts determine if suspicious findings were actually present on the studies, but not identified.

In the recently-published study, almost 87,000 patients who suffered from cardiac arrest were studied at 507 hospitals during 7 years. Typically, when a patient's heart stops, a team of medical professionals is called urgently to the patient's bedside to begin rendering care from a "crash cart" that contains equipment such as a defibrillator and various drugs. As a practical matter, patients who suffer from a cardiac arrest are usually very sick and even at the best of times the rate of survival is fairly low (among the studied patients, approximately 20% of those who suffered a cardiac arrest during the day shift survived to the point of hospital discharge), but something about the night shift seems to make the chances of survival even worse. In the study, only 15% of those patients who suffered a cardiac arrest during the 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. shift survived long enough to be discharged from the hospital.

This study would suggest that the level of patient care received a night is subpar - either because the night shift workers are too tired to react as efficiently as the day shift workers or because there is less staff during the night hours such that they can't check patients as often and react to problems as quickly or because the experience and skill level of night shift workers is lower than that of day shift workers. Whatever the explanation, it is reasonable to conclude that differences in care are not limited to cardiac arrest situations.

Following the 9:45 a.m. note, the patient's morphine pump was stopped and she was transferred to the intensive care unit, where she died two and a half days later. Attorneys for the woman's family argued that the nurses violated the standard of care by not calling for a doctor when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100. Although attorneys for the hospital disputed that the nurses' care was negligent, a nursing supervisor employed by the hospital testified that a doctor should have been called when the patient's blood pressure dropped below 100.

In addition to the allegations that the nurses were negligent for failing to call for a doctor, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that the patient was over-medicated with morphine. Evidence presented at trial showed that people with compromised livers, which this patient had because of a chronic alcoholism condition, process morphine 50% slower than patients with a healthy liver. Attorneys for the hospital essentially argued that the patient was caused by her alcoholism and related medical problems such as liver disease and high blood pressure.

A jury voted 10-2 to award the patient's family $1.2 million dollars, which was $900,000 more than the highest offer the hospital had made to settle the case prior to trial. The hospital has stated it will appeal the verdict.

duPont and Dr. Norwood are asking the Court to punish the Faustinos' attorney for filing the lawsuit, arguing that she knew it was frivolous because the statute of limitations had clearly expired before it was filed. In support of their argument, duPont and Dr. Norwood allege that the Faustinos knew immediately after Ira's death that he died from fluid in the lungs, which is a common complication of the surgery he had. Further, duPont and Dr. Norwood argue that the Faustinos were told that Ira died from "complications of surgery," which they assert demonstrates there was no overt act of fraudulent concealment as required by Pennsylvania law to extend the statute of limitations. The Faustinos, on the other hand, argue that duPont and Dr. Norwood's failure to advise them that an unconventional cooling method was used on Ira during surgery was an overt act of fraudulent concealment.

This case demonstrates that complex issues, both legal and medical, that can arise in medical malpractice cases. The assistance of an experienced attorney who is willing to explore all available legal theories is crucial to success in this complicated area of the law.

The transplant occurred on January 7, 2005 after the hospital obtained informed consent tfor the transplant. However, the obtaining of consent was based on the hospital's representations that the lungs to be transplanted were from an 18 year old in good health. Only four months after the transplant, the lungs were found to be filled with cancerous tumors. Subsequently, Mr. Grier died only a couple of months later.

Mr. Grier's Estate has filed suit alleging that the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania falsely represented that the lungs were from a young and healthy person. Recently, a motion was filed to allow the Estate to add additional defendants and new allegations, including lack of informed consent, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on new information discovered concerning the origin of the smoker's lungs. The Estate of Mr. Grier seeks to sue the hospital and doctor responsible for removing the bad lungs and the donor program that was responsible for suppling incorrect information concerning the bad organs.

Public news accounts of the incident report that the patient was cared for at a hospital prior to being transferred to the nursing and rehabilitation facility. At the nursing home in Delaware county, the physician's orders concerning wound care were never followed. The wound worsened and became infested with maggots. Eventually, the patient was transferred back to the hospital's emergency room, where a hospital staff member noticed blood coming from the bandaged wound. When the bandage was removed, it was immediately noted that there were over 50 live maggots in the wound. Upon arrival at the hospital, the patient was also described as very unkempt with soiled clothing.

Prosecutors claimed that the Cameron, who was the patient's sole nurse, failed to care for the wound over a four month period of time. Then, when being investigated, the nurse falsified the medical records to have them show that proper new dressings had been previously applied to the wound. Under the plea, the nurse will not contest the charges record tampering, criminal neglect and perjury.

Nursing home abuse is far too prevalent in Pennsylvania and all across the United States. Unfortunately, this story is one that I have heard many times. Nursing home patients are often neglected in a variety of manners. They are sometimes not given their proper medications, allowed to develop devastating skin ulcerations, not provided proper nutrition and not provided needed medical care. Such situations can result in disability and even death and require evaluation by a competent trial attorney.

It is reported that, before the surgery began on February 22, 2008, the patient observed the hospital staff make markings on his left foot, which was the foot for which surgery was intended. This is a practice that all patients should follow before elective surgery. However, when the patient woke up, much to his shock, he found his right foot was bandaged. No explanation for the medical error has been reported to my knowledge. The patient had no prior problems with his right foot, which was improperly operated on.

This type of surgical error concerning wrong site surgery should never occur. Unfortunately, there have been far too many reports of wrong site surgery. Recently, a hospital in Rhode Island reported three separate incidents involving brain surgery on the wrong side of the brain. Such mistakes should never be tolerated and any individual who had a wrong site surgery should immediately contact an experienced trial lawyer.

Unfortunately, this situation is far too common. I have personally handled several cases where individuals died (or suffered brain injuries) in waiting areas or while sitting in an emergency room triage area without getting proper and timely care for their emergency symptoms, such as chest pain (or pressure), arm or jaw pain, sweating, lightheadedness, pallor, and/or increased or irregular heart rate. Such improper care can be grounds for not only a medical malpractice lawsuit, but also for a claim under the federal law of EMTALA (Emergency Medical treatment and Actice Labor Act). Under federal EMTALA law, a hospital and doctor must follow the standard screening practices of the hospital to attempt to identify an emergency medical condition for all patients presenting to the hospital. When such a proper and timely screening does not occur, EMTALA law may be violated. Patients can base claims for their injuries on this statute in addition to the more common state law medical malpractice grounds. Hospitals and doctors can be subjected to governmental investigations and fines in addition to damages owed families for injuries caused by not properly screening or stabilizing patients.

In the California case, the hospital had been previously cited for by the Department of Health several times concernign other deaths at the hospital. Such patterns of deaths at hospitals are frequently not identified until discovered through litigation. Many medical malpractice cases can have other related claims, such as EMTALA claims, that should be brought as part of the litigation. Not only can such additional theories of liability strengthen the case, but they can sometimes create a better venue (location for the trial), permit additional types of discovery during the case and put additional pressure on defendants. Also, there can be an added benefit to future patients at the hospital if it is investigated by the federal government, fined or a corrective action program is put into place.

In the most recent lawsuit to be filed, a child had two experimental open-heart surgeries to prepare the child's heart to receive the stent. The family was eventually informed that the stent was not FDA-approved, but only two years after the last surgical procedure. The family claims that the hospital and surgical team was aware that the FDA never approved the stent and that the FDA had sent a warning letter to the hospital prohibiting the stent's use in patients. However, the lawsuit alleges that for two years the hospital fraudulently concealed and misrepresented this information to the family, whose child had heart surgery to prepare for the stent's use.

The duPont Hospital for Children has fired the heart surgeon and cardiologist involved in the experimental use of the heart stent, but the damage to patients and their families will last forever. As in these cases, claims of negligently performed procedures (medical malpractice), lack of informed consent and product liability often are intertwined in this type of complex litigation. Only knowledgeable, experienced and skilled attorneys are able to direct and litigate this type of difficult case to successfully uncover the wrong-doing of the doctors and hospitals and make a recovery for the patient and their family.

While the regulation of traveling carnival rides is poorly enforced and often subject to voluntary standards set by the amusement industry, fixed theme parks are worse off because they are not subject to any regulations at a national level. Rather, all laws regarding theme park safety are governed by the state in which the park is located.

To understand the dangers caused by this lack of regulation, one can look to the popular ride known as "The Sizzler." In the last decade, there have been at least 5 deaths from the Sizzler and dozens of injuries. In July, 2007, a 6 year old boy was thrown from a Sizzler in Kentucky and hit in the head by the moving equipment of the ride. This prompted the manufacturer of the ride to recommend to operators that seat belts be added, but because this was not a requirement, it is unknown haw many rides of the approximately 200 Sizzlers in use in the U.S. actually have seatbelts (which are now common on grocery carts throughout the country). The July incident was not the first incident of a child being thrown from the ride. In 2005, a 9 year old girl died in Texas after she slipped under the lap bar and was thrown to the machine's platform, where her head was crushed by a metal arm. The similarities between these 2 accidents and many others led a group of state ride inspection chiefs from approximately 25 states to call for the Sizzler manufacturer to take action to reduce "an unacceptable level of ejection risk," but the only action was the recommendation that operators voluntarily install seatbelts.

Deaths and injuries are, unfortuantely, not limited to traveling carnival rides. In 2007, 2 deaths resulted from 4 years drowning in wave pools at theme parks and one 13 year old girl had both feet severed from her legs when a cable broke on a Tower of Power ride at a Kentucky theme park. Although any product can be dangerous when it is defectively manufactured, maintained or used, thrill rides present a greater risk than most products because they often move at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. Parents and riders should take caution and follow all rider guidelines on height, weight and security measures, but if an injury should occur, take steps to protect your legal rights. For instance, someone at the scene should immediately take photographs of the ride and the position of the rider before he or she is removed from the machine (so long as doing so will not delay treatment to the victim or interfere with medical providers and emergency personnel). Also, it is wise to request that the ride not be taken apart before officials can arrive to inspect it.

Testimony showed that the man, who was married and the father of four, had worked for 20 years as a construction worker before his injury. At the time of the accident, he was working in a church and was standing 25 feet in the air on a lift putting nails into metal. He had 6 hours of surgery after the accident, but was still paralyzed on his left side and would never be able to work or drive a car again. The jury considered the case for 8 hours before reaching its verdict.

Evidence at trial showed that 129 injuries had been reported from the use of the gun since the 1970's and that 26 of these resulted in brain injuries. According to the man's attorneys, newer models of the gun are safer.

Testimony included details of the two notes written to the patient's daughter and how the information and concern about breathing was communicated to the hospital nursing staff. Later that evening, the patient was sedated and restrained, making him unable to communicate further with the nursing staff. There were admissions by the physicians that the failure to have given the breathing medication Albuterol would have been below the standard of care. The mucuc plug that formed in the breathing tube was determined to be the cause of death. Apparently, the jury interpreted all the failures as nursing staff responsibilities that were not properly fulfilled. Testimony was also presented describing how the elderly man slowly suffocated over a period of several hours, until he finally arrested and died.

Despite this verdict, defendants are planning to appeal the decision and it will likely be some time until the family sees any money. This case represents an unusual situation when an elderly individual is fully compensated for his pain and suffering resulting in his death. It is also an unusual case in that the doctors were all found not negligent, but the nursing staff and hospital were found responsible. One reason why the verdict was so high was the quality of the plaintiff, who was described as a World War II hero and three time cancer survivor, who cared for his sick wife, who was on dialysis, and did the housework and cared for his grandchildren. There were no offers to settle the case before trial.

The woman's injuries worsened over time. After the woman suffered from severe pain for a prolonged period, she was diagnosed with RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy), which has recently been called CPRS (complex regional pain syndrome) by the medical profession. In an attempt to treat her RSD, the woman had a surgery to her ankle and then had a stimulator implanted in the ankle to attempt to interrupt the nerves that send pain signals to the brain. Unfortunately, the woman said that the stimulator wasn't helping and that she continues to suffer from constant and severe pain. The injuries from the accident prevented the woman from working and had the same effect on her leg as if part of it had been amputated, except that an amputation would not have resulted the severe and constant pain the woman continues to experience.

The law suit filed by the woman alleged that the floor of the entrance to her office building was known to be slippery and wet in bad weather from the large number of people entering the building. The woman sued the company that provided facility management for the building, the company that provided janitorial services for the building, and the company that provided and placed floor mats in the building every other week. Settlement with the two of the three companies was reached during a mediation of the case (meeting with all of the parties to the lawsuit and an unbiased lawyer who discusses the case with the parties and their lawyers in an attempt to reach a compromise on the case), while the third defendant settled near the eve of trial.