Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

The American Academy of Pediatrics “wants teenagers banned from tanning salons to reduce their risk of skin cancer.” (Chicago AP, 2/28). This stance is part of a policy statement released in the Journal of Pediatrics to encourage bills regulating tanning by minors, a core group of consumers.

Although more than half the states regulated indoor tanning by minors, some states including Illinois and New York are considering bills that would ban tanning for anyone under the age of 18, regardless of parental consent. As a personal injury attorney in Chicago, I strongly encourage all consumers to avoid indoor tanning.

Parents must discuss the risks of indoor tanning with their children, and indoor tanning has been linked to malignant melanoma and should be avoided. Last year, about 8,700 people died of melanoma last year and over 68,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed.

A new analysis says “most medical devices recalled recently because of deaths or life-threatening problems were approved under rules that don't require human testing.” (L. Tanner, AP Medical 2/14). As a products liability attorney in Chicago, I am a strong advocate of thorough and adequate testing of all medical devices.

According to the study authors, devices including heart defibrillators and brain shunts were approved under inadequate testing procedures. Ultimately, thousands of deaths and serious medical problems resulted from recalled devices approved under the inadequate testing regime. This is simply unacceptable.

Thankfully, regulations for new devices call for more extensive testing, and the “government is considering changes to the medical device approval process.”

Continue reading "Study suggests Harmful medical devices get approved too easily" »

Barry Meier reports in the New York Times, that Georgia Representative and retired obstetrician, Phil Gingery, is “sponsoring a Congressional bill to sharply cut in medical malpractice awards was involved in a $500,000 settlement of a malpractice lawsuit…brought by a pregnant woman who charged that inappropriate care caused the loss of her fetus and other complications.” (NYT, 2/9/11). The case alleged that Dr. Gingery and two other obstetricians in his practice failed to timely diagnose the woman’s appendicitis, which lead to the loss of her fetus and other complications.

The legislation sponsored by Dr. Gingrey would, among other things, “limit damages for pain and suffering in malpractice cases to $250,000, restrict fees paid to lawyers representing patients and create alternative means to lawsuits for resolving medical disputes. The bill would also bar the awarding of punitive damages in cases brought against manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and other products that are approved, cleared or licensed for sale by the Food and Drug Administration.”

This legislation is an unfair cap on damages for plaintiffs who, in many cases have damages greatly in excess of the cap of $250,000. A plaintiff whose injuries are greater than the capped amount should not arbitrarily be told he or she cannot be fully compensated. Furthermore, a bar on punitive damages only increases the changes for negligence and moral hazard because manufacturers know they will not be punished for negligence, thus, there is little incentive to act with due care. As medical malpractice attorneys, we at Hurley, McKenna & Mertz find this result unacceptable.

Finally, the mere fact that many plaintiff’s lawyers are compensated in contingency fee arrangements is not a reason to cap medical malpractice damages. Contingency fee arrangements only give plaintiffs who could not otherwise afford legal representation access to the courts for just compensation. Contingency fee arrangements are delegated at a legal and fair percentage, and, as such, are not an unreasonable burden on plaintiff’s recoveries.

Continue reading "Malpractice Bill Raises Issues About a Lawsuit" »

GlaxoSmithKline says it “has updated the labeling of its diabetes pill Avandia to include safety restrictions ordered by federal health authorities because of the drug's links to heart attack.” (Washington AP, 2/7). The Avandia drug has been the subject of scrutiny lately due to its involvement in thousands of lawsuits, a Department of Justice investigation, and its ban from European markets.

The new U.S. label indicates the drug is only intended for patients who “cannot control their blood sugar with any of the other diabetes medications on the market.” Although warning labels are important, as a medical malpractice attorney, I am hopeful that the FDA will pull Avandia off the market if it is truly unsafe because in reality patients consume the drugs that are recommended by their physician not drugs with the “cleanest” warning labels.

For now, Avandia users should consult with their doctors immediately and seriously consider alternative medications.