Published on:

by

A 60 year old McKeesport (Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania man recently filed administrative action against two podiatrists from the Pittsburgh VA (Veteran’s Administration) Hospital for operating on the wrong foot to correct his bunion and hammer-toe deformity. Although the deformities were on the patient’s left foot, the surgeons improperly operated on his right foot. Because this case is against physicians from the VA Hospital, as well as the VA Hospital itself, the case was filed in Federal court (Western District of Pennsylvania). Papers detail the patient’s allegations of improper diagnosis and treatment, as well as the obvious medical error of operating on the wrong foot. There is also a lack of informed consent allegation concerning the surgery that was done on the incorrect foot.

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.

Published on:

by

A 33 year old man in California with complaints of chest pain and left arm pain died from a heart attack (myocardial infarction) after three hours of waiting in an Emergency Room. Although medical care standards required that anyone with chest pain complaints be screened within 10 minutes, the patient never received the standard screening test of an electrocardiogram (EKG or ECG). The patient was walking out of the Emergency Room when he collased on the pavement just outside the hospital. He died from his heart attack.

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.

Published on:

by

Medical malpractice allegations that duPont Hospital for Children (in Wilmington, Delaware) improperly performed experimental sugery for the placement of non-FDA approved cardiac stents have resulted in 17 lawsuits to date. The Delaware hospital, along with renowned heart surgeon William Norwood, M.D., performed numerous open heart surgeries on patients to prepare them to receice the experimental cardiac shunt. The hospital apparently never received, or even requested, an exception from the FDA for “compassionate use” of the heart shunts. Numerous children sufferred devastating injuries, and some died, as a result of the alleged improper conduct of the hospital and the surgical team. Attorneys in the various lawsuits have claimed that the specific heart surgeries performed, as well as the use of the shunts, were experimental and negligently performed. Additionally, there are allegations that proper informed consent for the experimental procedures was never obtained.

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.

Published on:

by

Traveling carnival rides are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commision (“CPSC”), but this federal agency has not required safety improvements from any ride manufacturers during the last eight years. The agency, which is responsible for overseeing the safety of 15,000 products in addition to the safety of amusement rides, has no employees devoted to ride safety. Frequently, CPSC employees don’t even arrive at a carnival where an injury has occurred until after the ride has been taken apart, making the task of determining what went wrong with the ride virtually impossible.

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.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A 51 year old construction worker using a Stanley Works nail gun, which was sold to him by Home Depot, suffered seizures and paralysis after a nail from the gun ended up embedded in his brain. The manufacturer said that the nail gun, known as a Model N79 or “contact trip gun,” met industry standards and is very popular with customers. The jury found the man 55% responsible for his injury because he had been using the gun to put nails into metal, rather than wood as was intended, but held the manufacturer 45% responsible for his injuries. The accident occurred when the a 3″ nail the gun fired bounced back at the man and entered his brain after going through his cheek. The jury ordered the manufacturer, Stanley Works, to pay $3.4 million to the man in damages to compensate for their responsibility in causing the injury.

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.

Published on:

by

The Estate of 77 year old man was awarded $1.7 million by a Philadelphia jury after he slowly suffocated on Ventilator with a mucus plug that went untreated. Simple proper suctioning by his nurses would have prevented his death. Temple University Hospital was found negligent through the failure of its nurses to properly care for the elderly man on a ventilator in the Intensive Care Unit, who was suffering from angioedema (a type of allergic reaction). The patient, who was conscious and communicated with his family and staff by writing notes, had twice given notes to his daughter telling her that he was having difficulty breathing. This information was passsed onto the nurses, who failed to provide breathing medication of Albuterol, which was ordered, and failed to provide needed suctioning of the patient. The verdict, which was unanimous, also found that the physicians caring for the patient were not negligent and attributed full responsibility to the Temple University Hospital.

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.

Published on:

by

A slip and fall case in the lobby of a woman’s office building resulted in a total settlement of $2.75 million. Litigation of the case revealed that the woman’s slip and fall was the sixth one to occur over the past four years and that the building landlord was well-aware of the problems of the slippery lobby floor. As a result of the fall, the woman suffered an actue ankle sprain that was later determined to actually consist of damaged ligaments and a questionable fracture of the ankle bone.

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.

Published on:

by

Not once, not twice, but three times in one year doctors at Rhode Island Hospital performed brain surgery on the wrong side of a patient’s head. The first patient apparently was uninjured from surgery performed to the incorrect side of the brain, but the second patient was not so fortunate. Just six months after the first instance, the same mistake occurred, this time resulting in the patient’s death several weeks after surgery. After the second incident, the State of Rhode Island required the hospital to have better oversight of its neurosurgeons and their intended surgeries. Notwithstanding these requirements on the hospital, the same mistake happened for a third time just three months later. In the most recent instance, the hospital again reports that the patient is doing well.

Each instance involved a different physician, with the most recent case arising from surgery begun by a resident physician (doctor in training). The hospital, which is a teaching hospital for Brown University, was fined $50,000 by the State of Rhode Island. The hospital has now reported that it is reviewing its policies and training programs and granting nurses greater authority to confirm that safety precautions are followed.

Unfortunately, surgery on an incorrect body part happens far too frequently in the United States. Prior to surgery, it is a good practice for patients and families to ensure that there is a mark on the specific body part being operated on. Many surgeons will make an “X” on a leg or the abdomen to indicate clearly to all in the operating room which body part is to be cut open. Patients and families can do the same thing and mark the correct arm or side with an “X” and remind the doctors and nurses of this fact. Hospitals need to adopt better procedures to ensure these types of accidents NEVER occur.

Published on:

by

A Philadelphia union glazer, who fell from a ladder at a contruction site injuring shoulder and hip in New Jersey, was awarded $6.5 Million by Philadelphia jury. The union worker, Frank Voce, who was 49 years of age, required surgery for his shoulder and developed hip problems preventing his future employment. The injured worker was awarded $5 million and his wife received $1.5 million for her consortium claim (loss of spousal relationship). The 12 member jury was unanimous on the verdict.

Plaintiffs argued, and the jury agreed, that the general contractor of the construction site violated the New Jersey Uniform Building Code, Construction Safety Code and OSHA regulations beccause they failed to maintain proper worksite safety. This included the general contractor’s failure to ensure that ladders were only placed on flat surfaces. The plaintiff was aware of the danger but felt compelled to work because of fear of losing his job. The plaintiff placed his 10-foot ladder on lumber laid over an excavation in an unleveled area with trash and debris on the ground. Because of a recent rain, the ground was muddy and some leveling plywood slipped causing the ladder to fall while the plaintiff was working on it.

General contractors have an obligation to ensure a safe worksite for all subcontractors and individuals on the site. Additionally, general contractors must follow state and federal regulations overseeing their worksites. Although employees are generally prohibited from directly suing their employers because of workmen compensation laws, sub-contractors and others present on a worksite may still have the ability to bring claims for their injuries depending on who is responsible for the worksite. If you suffer a serious injury at work, you should immediately consult an experienced trial attorney to protect your rights.

Published on:

by

A jury in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania awarded Lynn and James Flaherty a total of $3 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Lynn Flaherty was treated for severe headaches by her physician, who prescribed only pain medications. The physician never prescribed any antibiotics for the sinus infection that was actually causing the headaches. Because the infection went untreated, it progressed and went into Ms. Flaherty’s brain causing a brain abscess. The brain abscess required surgery and resulted in serious neurological problems, including interfering with Mrs. Flaherty’s ability to reason, as well as emotional and behavioral disorders. Additionally, Ms. Flaherty, who is only 61, can no longer work as a real estate agent.

The trial lasted eight days in Allegheny County and the $3 million award must serve to fully compensate Mr. and Mrs Flaherty for the permanent brain injury, which will last her lifetime. A Physician’s Assistant (P.A.) and two physicians were all found to be negligent. Part of the award was for Mr. Flaherty’s loss of consortium, which is his marital relationship. This is a very large verdict for Allegheny County and represents and excetpional result for this family.

This case is a typical one concerning complications that can arise from a delay in properly treating an infection. In this case a common and easily treatable infection, sinusitis, was allowed to go untreated and resulted in a devastating brain abscess. I have personally represented clients who have had improperly treated infections that then progress to a brain abscess, including one case that resulted in a $5.5 million settlement in Philadelphia. If you or someone you know has had serious complications from an infection, you should immediately consult an experienced attorney to have the potential case evaluated.

Contact Information
Philadelphia
1800 John F Kennedy Blvd #1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Toll Free: 855.770.0902Office: 267.809.8250Fax: 888.800.5731 Email:LA@AussprungLaw.com
New Jersey
1874 NJ-70 #4
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Office: 856.751.9702

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Leon Aussprung
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design