Header image

According to a study from Johns Hopkins, nearly 700 people per day die as a result of medical errors, reports The Washington Post. That is 251,000 deaths per year. Think about that for a minute …

That makes it the 3rd leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. More than all other accidents combined, more than strokes, Alzheimers, and diabetes. A fully loaded 747 jet holds about 400 passengers. That is the equivalent of 2 nearly fully loaded 747s crashing every day. Let me repeat that: That is the equivalent of 2 nearly fully loaded 747s crashing every day.

And yet, there is no orchestrated campaign to solve this issue. In fact, the medical industry does its best to hide these errors. Congressman, Senators, and State Legislators do their best to limit jury awards for victims of this epidemic. Our elected officials, rather than respond in outrage to this epidemic, work to “build a wall” around the offenders.

Our priorities in this country are backwards. We need to act as a nation to correct these errors. We need to push for full disclosure of these incidents, rather than give doctors and hospitals more power to hide their errors.

I’m very proud of what I and other trial lawyers do to police the medical industry. That is what we do when we bring medical malpractice actions–we are policing the industry. In many cases, we are the only line of defense in the battle against this epidemic.

815149F4-230D-4DD6-8EB4-8214F9829227.jpg

Medscape reports that medical malpractice rates in three bellwether medical specialities are essentially flat in 2015, meaning there is little increase or decrease in the rates.

Xray with clamp.jpeg

Rates for obstetricions/gynecologists, internists and general surgeons are essentially unchanged from 2014. Given that malpractice suits are on the decline, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, but in the past market forces have shown that actual malpractice lawsuit numbers and insurance rates have little correlation.

If you have questions regarding malpractice, please see .

On May 8, 2015, Govern Jay Nixon (D) signedinto law the latest attempt by Missouri’s Republican legislature to take away a medical negligence victim’s right to full and fair compensation. Yes, the legislature has once again capped medical malpractice damage awards, placing their judgement before that of an independent jury.

stethescope gavel.jpg

In 2005, the Missouri Legislature capped malpractice awards. In 2012, in Watts v. Cox Medical Centersthe Missouri Supreme Court said the caps, except with regard to death claims, violated the Missouri Constitution by infringing on the common law right to trial by jury. (Because wrongful death claims did not exist at the time the Missouri Constitution was adopted, the caps applicable to such cases were deemed valid.)

So … isn’t that the end of the discussion? Our Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, right? Well, apparently our state legislature doesn’t agree with that ruling. So, in Senate Bill 239, the Legislature effectively repealed part of the Missouri Constitution. It legislatively nullified the Missouri Constitution as it applies to doctors and hospitals. And then capped damage awards … again.

Those who uphold the right to trial by jury fought and obtained some concessions. First, the new cap is slightly higher–$400,000 for non-economic damages v. $350,000 under the 2005 law. (Non-economic damages are those other than for lost wages and medical bills.) Second, the new law institutes a 1.7% per year cost of living increase on the cap. Third, and most important, the law creates a second, higher cap for catastrophic injury and death cases.

The law defines “catastrophic injuries” as this involving Quadriplegia, paraplegia, loss of 2 or more limbs, brain injury, major organ system failure and blindness. The cap on non-economic damages for these types of injuries is $700,000. Is that a lot of money? Sure it is. Is that a lot of money if you have been rendered a quadriplegic because of medical negligence and you will never walk, or run or dance at your child’s wedding? Of course it isn’t. Is it a lot of money if an infant is injured and will spend the rest of their life in a nursing home? Obviously it isn’t. It is slightly less insulting than $400,000.
The same $700,000 cap applies to death cases.

Will this new law pass constitutional muster? I strongly doubt it. The Missouri Legislature has decided to selectively repeal a fundamental right granted by the Constitution, and only with regard to a very select group of defendants. Let me make this perfectly clear: These caps do not apply to any other type of injury case. Not auto accidents, not truck accidents. Not product liability claims, nothing. So if you are injured as a result of anyone’s negligence, other than a doctor or hospital, you are entitled to your full Constitutional rights. But not if you are injured by a doctor or a hospital.

In an upcoming post I’ll address what this means to those who might have malpractice cases currently pending.

A report titled Another Reason Why You Should Ban Smart Phones from the OR raise, at least for me, this question: What’s the first reason? Is there any reason why a surgeon, anesthesiologist, nurse or surgical tech should be using a smart phone in the OR? Granted, some hospitals may utilize tablets to record patient vitals, but what reason is there to be surfing the ‘net during a procedure?

iPad.jpg

And as for the anesthesiologist posting to Facebook during a procedure? Seems to me this doctor needs to have his license revoked.

In 1999 the Institute of Medicine published its landmark study “To Err is Human” which estimated that medical errors cause up to 98,000 deaths per year. Now, Pro Publica reports on a study in the current issue of the /Journal of Patient Safety that more than doubles that estimate.

Surgery.jpeg

According to the evidence-based study between 210,000 and 440,000 patients die each year as a result of medical errors. This would make medical mistakes the third-leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer (all cancers combined).

I’d like to say that I’m shocked by this finding, but I’m not. Unfortunately, doing what I do every day I see the mistakes constantly. You would think that I see the bad medicine and not the good, but that isn’t entirely true. In fact, what I see most often is very good, even heroic, medicine every day. The care that is given to try to correct the mistakes made, usually by others, is often incredible. But the mistakes that set the patient down that path are often clear and infinitely preventable.

Attempts to shield doctors and hospitals from the effects of their mistakes, such as attempts to limit the damages that can be awarded in medical negligence lawsuits, are misplaced. Instead, the focus should be on eliminating the mistakes, through the implementation of processes and procedures to eliminate the most frequent errors. And true oversight by state regulators on physician licenses and hospital accreditation is also needed.

It makes sense that the focus should be on eliminating the problems and helping the victims of medical mistakes, not on shielding the negligent.

The DaVinci robotic surgery system by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is a high tech, 3D “robot” remotely operated by a surgeon. The DaVinci system is the hottest new product, touted by Intuitive and the hospitals it sells the system to as the greatest thing since the invention of the scalpel. They promise more precision, faster recovery and other benefits. But is it all that? Reality is substantially at odds with the marketing hype.

Davinci.jpg

The DaVinci robot is, at its core, simply another way to perform laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery has been around for 20+ years and is utilized in many common surgical procedures: gallbladder, hysterectomy, prostatectomy, hernia and many others. Laparoscopic surgery is performed by a surgeon who places ports into the abdomen and insufflates the abdominal cavity with gas to allow for room to insert and manipulate surgical instruments through the ports. A camera and light are inserted through one port, so that the surgeon can see inside the patient on a video monitor. The surgeon directly manipulates the instruments through the portals. For more on laparoscopic surgery, see this article in Wikapdia.

The DaVinci system differs in that the surgeon’s direct contact with the instruments is severed. Traditional portals are placed, but then instruments and camera are inserted and these are attached to the DaVinci robot system. The surgeon, although still in the same OR room, sits at a remote console and operates the instruments via joystick-like controllers. An easy way to visualize it is to say it is like he is playing a video game. Except in this case, he doesn’t get to simply start over if a problem arises.

Intuitive has saturated the market with the DaVinci robot, by hyping the purported advantages of the system. They claim that the robotic system allows the surgeon an unprecedented 3D view inside the patient, as opposed to the 2D view of traditional laparoscopy. They assert that the system allows for the surgeon to make minutely accurate motions, because he or she can move their hands in the controls but have that translate to only millimeter movements inside the patient. It all sounds great. But the reality is not quite equal to the hype.

Reports have indicated problems with the robotic arms moving independently, causing internal injuries. Reports exist that the electric cautery instruments used in parts of certain procedures are sending electrical arcs out and causing burn injuries to adjacent organs or even causing remote injuries to organs far removed from the surgical location due to improper grounding. There have been reports of the system simply freezing during a procedure.

Even more frightening are the indications that hospitals are allowing surgeons to utilize the DaVinci with very little training and very little supervision. Any time a new surgical technique or tool is introduced, the surgeon and the hospital have a responsibility to make sure the surgeon has adequate training. Some sources indicate that a surgeon may require 100 or more surgeries before he is technically competent with the DaVinci. However, hospitals are not requiring anything like 100 supervised surgeries before turning the surgeon loose to fly solo on the DaVinci. In fact, some are requiring little more that a weekend training session.

Suffice it to say, that we anticipate significant malpractice claims arising out of the use of DaVinci robotic surgery systems. Product liability claims against Intuitive may be warranted in some cases. But even more likely are cases against the surgeons and the hospitals for malpractice, failure to advise the patients of the surgeon’s lack of experience, inadequate training of support staff and many other issues.

If you or a loved one has experienced injuries in connection with a DaVinci robotic surgical procedure, please contact our office for a consultation. Only an experienced medical malpractice attorney can tell you whether or not you have a case.

Johnson & Johnson hit with $8.3 million dollar verdict in the first case to go to trial over the defective Depuy ASR hip implants, reports Bloomberg.

The verdict was for more than the $5.3 million in compensatory damages requested by plaintiff, but did not include any punitive damages. Apparently the issue of punitive damages was hotly debated by jurors. The jury deliberated for five days.

DePuy Recall.jpeg

A New Jersey Jury has awarded a South Dakota woman $3.35 million dollars in the first vaginal mesh case to go to trial against Johnson & Johnson regarding the Ethicon mesh, reports Reuters.

I’m pleased to share 10 Red Flags in General Surgical Malpractice Cases, published in the September 2012 issue of Trial magazine. Trial is the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association of Justice, the national trial lawyer’s association.

I was honored to be asked to contribute to such a prestigious publication.

Just a quick addition to my two previous posts regarding the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision declaring that caps on medical malpractice damages are unconstitutional: see the Post Dispatch’s editorial here.