The Australian judge found “that Merck Sharpe & Dohme failed in its duty of care by not warning Peterson's doctor about the drug's potential cardiovascular risk, and by its sales representatives emphasizing the drug's safety.”
In online documentation, the FDA noted that although more patients taking Belatacept had a higher two year survival rate than those taking other drugs, it also noticed higher rates of severe kidney rejection and neurological disease.
As the next step, the FDA wants its outside advisers to vote on the drug's safety and effectiveness, which is set to occur next week. As a medical malpractice lawyer in Chicago, I have seen many incidents of fatal side effects, and am hopeful the FDA will act quickly and decisively in determining the safety of Belatacept.
In a recent agreement with government regulators, “Amgen and Johnson & Johnson will do more to publicize the safety risks of their anemia drugs for cancer patients” (AP for FindLaw, 2/16). The plan developed in concert the Food and Drug Administration targets risk management and is the latest government action aimed at the drug makers. The plan applies to Amgen's Aranesp and Epogen and Johnson & Johnson's Procrit.
As part of the deal, “Amgen and J&J will be required to register each cancer doctor who prescribes their drugs and document that they have discussed the drugs' risks before prescribing them to patients. The three medicines within the plan are huge moneymakers for the respective companies because of their success and reputation regarding reducing the need for blood transfusions, however, recent studies have indicated the drugs can also cause tumor growth.
]]>In 2005, the Illinois Legislature enacted arbitrary caps on medical malpractice non-economic damages. Under this regulatory scheme, victims of medical malpractice could only sue doctors for $500,000 and hospitals for $1 Million. Perhaps to someone who has been fortunate not to experienced such devastation, this money sounds like a lot, but arbitrary damage caps are unfair especially to victims of catastrophic mistakes. Although proponents of the damage caps argue that “skyrocketing” verdicts are driving doctors out of Illinois and raising healthcare costs for patients. However, empirical data speaks to an alternative source of the problem: insurance companies.
Court records show that since the 2005 law, both medical malpractice claims and verdicts have remained stable. Even insurance company’s regulatory filings “show that since 2000, both frequency and severity of malpractice claims and payouts have been stable, or even decreasing.” However, during that same period of time, insurance companies have increased insurance premiums paid by doctors, thus increasing healthcare costs for patients, and allowing themselves to enjoy large profits. Therefore, the root of the health care cost problem is insurance companies, not high medical malpractice verdicts. Empirical data supports this conclusion.
Moreover, the proper and most effective way to lessen medical malpractice litigation is to improve patient safety, not to impose arbitrary damage caps on those who have already been injured by medical negligence. Not only is this not fair, it’s not a way to solve the problem, but is only a way to prevent victims from obtaining just compensation.
As a trial lawyer in Chicagoland, I fully support this report. Medical malpractice damage caps are arbitrary and fundamental unfair, fortunately the Illinois Supreme Court reached the same conclusion.
Amelia Saragosa visited the Cook County hospital’s emergency room with labor pains on January 21, 1990. Shortly thereafter, an amniotomy, which is an “intentional rupture of the fetal membranes,” was performed causing the umbilical cord to become trapped. The child, who was the plaintiff in this case, was deprived of blood flow and oxygen as a result, making an emergency Caesarean section a necessity. 41 minutes passed between the time when the need for an emergency C-section was apparent and the procedure was performed.
As trial lawyers, we have both experience and success with similar and equally as saddening medical malpractice cases. We have tried cases involving amniotomy, cord prolapse, brain injury, cerebral palsy, and other birth injuries.
Further research suggests that although Illinois Law requires nursing homes to notify police immediately after receiving any reports of sexual violence, no reports were filed in at least 9 cases, and in other cases, reports were filed months later. Perhaps surprisingly, almost all of the 86 cases involved residents attacking other residents, and very few involved employees or visitors. A potential culprit is the fact that several Illinois nursing homes are relied upon to house younger psychiatric patients with known violent tendencies.
Most nursing homes in the Chicago area with a recorded incident had substandard staffing levels, a key indicator of patient safety. The most discouraging discovery regarding nursing home sexual violence is that fact that of 86 known incidents, only one perpetrator was arrested. Furthermore, there is every indication that more incidents of sexual violence occurred that went unrecorded.
Hurley, McKenna, & Mertz has dealt with several nursing home cases, some of which have involved sexual violence, others have involved abuse and neglect. As a Chicago attorney, I am very concerned that we will not get a handle on this serious issue until nursing homes are staffed more satisfactorily and law enforcement takes these cases more seriously, as a single arrest for 86 known cases is appalling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is worsened by nursing shortages and lacksidasical regulation, but the temporary firms “have become havens for nurses who hopscotch from place to place to avoid the consequences of their misconduct. An investigation by the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica and the Los Angeles Times found dozens of instances in which staffing agencies skimped on background checks or ignored warnings from hospitals about sub-par nurses on their payrolls. Some hired nurses sight unseen, without even conducting an interview.”
Nurses with documented poor history who are rehired by another unsuspecting organization subject ill people to the perils of their recurring bad habits, including charting drug administration to patients, but stealing the pain killers for personal use.
As a Chicago attorney who has experience with similar medical negligence cases, I am saddened by this phenomenon. Although some places are more diligent than others about checking their nurse’s backgrounds prior to hiring them, those who don’t subject innocent patients to careless, irresponsible, and malicious behavior, which gives the entire industry a bad reputation.
]]>In 2007, a Cook County judge ruled against damage caps holding that they interfered with juries' power to award appropriate damage awards for medical errors. The Supreme Court has twice before thrown out medical malpractice caps.
As a medical malpractice attorney in Chicagoland, I hope the Supreme Court again throws out damage caps. The jury should be able to award case specific damages for pain and suffering as damage caps are highly unfair to those who are catastrophically injured.
]]>Although more research is certainly necessary, in one study, the new device increased the number of patients who survived at least two years four-fold compared to an older pump. The older pump is used now just to keep patients ticking while they await a transplant. However, as with many new medical technologies, there is a substantial cost issue as the device itself runs up an $80,000 bill with an additional $45,000 necessary for the implanting surgery and hospital stay.
Although the new device has potential to enhance many lives, as a Chicago lawyer with medical malpractice and products liability experience, I hope adequate safety testing is completed before the device is used consistently. One very promising study certainly is exciting, but other confirming studies are necessary before a new device is used widely.
]]>First and foremost, “the underlying presumption is without basis and grossly unfair,” because a loss in the courtroom does not equate to a frivolous lawsuit. If that was always the case, then the appeals process would be wasteful and unnecessary. Furthermore, “it’s no secret that medical personnel are not always forthcoming with information about their screw-ups, and filing lawsuits can be the only way injured parties can get to the bottom of what happened. A ‘loss’ says far more about the difficulty patients have getting straight answers in the first place than it does about any so-called ‘frivolous’ act.”
Second, the bill imposes an arbitration requirement, such that injured parties must first proceed through arbitration, a process that is notoriously unjust. Then, if the plaintiff wishes to go onto trial after arbitration, they are free to do so, if they are “willing to risk losing the case and having to pay a large hospital bill…[and] hourly legal bills…on top of the economic devastation they may be suffering due to an inability to work, and other related costs.” The vast majority of plaintiffs cannot afford this risk.
At the end of the day, this “loser pays” rule is patently unfair to the hundreds of thousands of people who are devastated by medical malpractice annually. Even a patient with a strong case would risk losing on a technicality and being economically destroyed by having to pay all the legal costs in addition to the damages they have already suffered – not to mention the additional challenges victims will face trying to find legal representation. As a medical negligence lawyer, I find the unjust outcomes that would surely result from a “loser pays” rule to be intolerable.