Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Matthew Perrone reports, “A consumer advocacy group is asking government regulators to recall a drug they approved last year for a little-understood pain ailment, saying the pill can lead to dangerously high blood pressure” (AP for FindLaw, 1/20). The drug in question is Savella, which has been on the market for nearly a year after it was cleared by the FDA.

As a products liability lawyer with experience regarding medical drugs gone wrong, I join the consumer advocacy group in urging a recall of potentially dangerous drugs. If nothing else, more testing or the drug is certainly necessary. Interestingly, European regulators rejected Savella last summer due to “lack of effectiveness and side effects.” Many are wondering if the FDA should have reached the same conclusion.

Fibromyalgia is a disease that is “characterized by a wide range of pain-related symptoms, including muscle soreness, headache, fatigue and depression.” Recent studies of the drug have shown approximately 20 percent of patients on Savella experienced hypertension or high blood pressure, compared to 7 percent of those patients taking the placebo. Moreover, only 9 percent of study patients taking Savella experienced reduced pain, compared to 7 percent of patients taking the placebo. Clearly, there are some unanswered questions regarding this drug, which should at least prompt the FDA to reevaluate.

At Hurley, McKenna & Mertz we seek to represent victims who have been devastated by medical negligence. Unfortunately, those who are victims of medical negligence often do not know where to turn. It is always a good idea to seek a consultation from a lawyer about your medical malpractice case. At Hurley, McKenna & Mertz, we are always willing and ready to review your case. The following story exemplifies the sadness and devastation that accompanies medical malpractice.

Walt Bogdanich reports for the New York Times, “As Scott Jerome-Parks lay dying, he clung to this wish: that his fatal radiation overdose — which left him deaf, struggling to see, unable to swallow, burned, with his teeth falling out, with ulcers in his mouth and throat, nauseated, in severe pain and finally unable to breathe — be studied and talked about publicly so that others might not have to live his nightmare” (1/24). At merely 43 years of age, he died only several weeks after he summoned his family for a final Christmas.

His story is one that is, unfortunately, not unfamiliar; “A New York City hospital treating him for tongue cancer failed to detect a computer error that directed a linear accelerator to blast his brain stem and neck with errant beams of radiation. Not once, but on three consecutive days.” Mr. Jerome Parks and others experienced the “wonders and brutality: of radiation technology, giving them an advanced diagnosis and prognosis for treatment, but also a mistake that lead to unspeakable pain. Shortly after the incident, state health officials warned hospitals to use extreme caution with linear accelerators.

While Mr. Jerome-Parks hoped that his misfortune would allow medical providers and safety regulators to avoid similar accidents in the future. However, the intricacies of his case, and of other similar incidents, have been “shielded from the public view by the government, doctors, and the hospital.”

Although radiation technology has, without a doubt, saved countless lives, such powerful treatment must be executed with precision. The New York Times found that radiation does allow “doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created new avenues for error.” Although Mr. Jermoe-Parks’s tale is devastating, it is a tale that must be told, and a tale that cannot be covered by for there are lessons that must be learned.

As a Chicago attorney dedicated to representing victims of medical negligence, I am disheartened by the following story. During a time when all consumers are hurting financially, it is fundamentally unfair for hospitals to be spending seemingly unlimited amounts of money on the newest technologies and pass on such costs to patients. Such spendthrift behavior is entirely inconsistent with the lobbying pleas of the healthcare industry in Washington asserting that, depending on how health care reform turns out, the industry “teeters on the brink of financial ruin” (Chicago Tribune, 12/22, Japsen).

Bruce Japsen reports for the Chicago Tribune, the “rhetoric [regarding financial stress] does not match the balance sheets of some of Chicago's largest hospital operators. Many are spending unprecedented amounts on new buildings and seeing some of their best improvements in cash since the dot-com boom of a decade ago. Critics say large hospital operators that are amassing cash are doing so at the expense of patients, charging higher prices when that money could be used to lower costs or subsidize hospitals in a hole.”

The hospitals maintain that they need to invest in the latest medical technology to attract top medical care providers and protect themselves from the uncertain economic conditions and future of healthcare. While hospitals are clearly not the only source of the healthcare problem as they are facing more unpaying and uninsured patients as a result of the economic downturn, they are also not entirely blameless. Unnecessary spending on the latest and newest technology when perfectly functionally but slightly older technology is available is part of the wasteful behavior that contributes to rising health care costs. American citizens cannot afford to pay for continuously rising costs of healthcare and therefore, a balance must be reached between providing necessary medical care, investing in long term machinery, and cutting waste of time and resources including taking a long and hard look at the insurance system.

Consumer complaints of a moldy smell as well as stomach pain and nausea lead to a recent voluntary recall of Tylenol Arthritis Caplets manufactured by Johnson and Johnson. The New Jersey based company is “now recalling all product lots of the Arthritis Pain Caplet 100 count bottles with the red EZ-Open Cap,” an expansion from the earlier, more limited recall of only five product lots (12/29, AP for FindLaw).

Thus far, reported side effects have been “temporary and non-serious.” Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson has determined that the moldy odor is a result of the “break down of a chemical used to treat wooden pallets that transport and store packaging materials.”

Although no serious conditions have resulted from this recall, as a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer, I am very pleased to see Johnson and Johnson’s swift and voluntary actions recalling a defective product.