June 2010 Archives

In the first two installments of this series, I cited the lack of governmental regulation and the lack of the healthcare industry policing itself as two reasons medical malpractice will always exist.

A third reason it will continue lies with the educational system that trains physicians and other healthcare providers. While the competition and academic standards for admission to medical school are rigorous, once admitted a medical student has a better than 95% probability of completing medical school and a 99% probability of passing the National Board exam that automatically qualifies the graduate to be licensed in any all of the 50 states.

Unlike the legal profession, which requires a separate exam for each state and no reciprocity between states, the National Board of Medical Examiners has reciprocity in all states. Once they passed the National Board exam, and the state license is confirmed as a result, most physicians continue in some type of specialty or subspecialty residency training program, which then qualifies them to take the exam given by one of the national boards that administer those exams. Successful completion of the exam confers the title of "board certified" that most, but not all, physicians will attain. However, many hospitals--especially in rural or inner cities--do not and cannot require such certification, and are content to grant full privileges to a physician who has completed a residency program. These physicians are "board qualified" even if they never take or pass the certification exam.

Curiously, there is no data that correlates board certification with either medical malpractice claims or judgments/settlements. The National Practitioner Data Bank, which does statistically track settlements and types of cases, does not distinguish between board certification or other educational status of the physician. While it may be logical to presume that board certification should result in less medical malpractice, in the absence of any data there is no way to verify that assumption.

When attempts are made through the educational system to make changes that could affect the incidence of medical malpractice, the profession itself often objects to such change. The recent decision by the American Board of Medical Examiners to introduce a one-day oral exam, starting in 2004, designed to test students' ability to communicate with patients is an important skill that must be part of medical training. Although the Board estimates that only about 1.5% of all American-trained medical students would fail such a test, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced its opposition to such a test and vowed to block its implementation. In announcing the reason for this new test, the Board acknowleged that more than half of the complaints filed against physicians are based on communication problems. Yet the position taken by the AMA demonstrates that even well-intentioned efforts to encourage the teaching of communication skills as a prerequisite to obtaining a medical license, must first overcome the opposition of the profession to improve itself.

If you have been victimized by a medical malpractice incident, I might be able to help you. As an attorney who is also a licensed physician, I have successfully tried and settled hundreds of cases through the years. Call our offices at 800/541-9376. 

Yesterday I said that the government allowing the healthcare industry to regulate itself is a prime reason medical malpractice will always exist. The second reason is a corollary of the first: Organizations charged with regulatory responsibility have done little, if anything, to deal with the underlying reasons why medical malpractice occurs as well as failing in their basic regulatory functions.

The primary regulatory role for healthcare is at the state level with the administrative agencies that license physicians and hospitals. While these agencies have broad investigatory authority and the ultimate decision-making power to revoke or restrict the license of a physician or a hospital, in practice such revocations occur infrequently to physicians and almost never for a hospital. In California, most revocations of physicians' licenses are based on intentional or criminal acts related to sexual or drug abuse. The vast majority of negligence-based cases investigated by the medical board results in probation or occasional requirements for some specific educational program. By and large, the medical board relies on hospital staffs to supervise the practice of physicians. However, once a hospital grants staff privileges to a physician, these privileges often are viewed as a right of the physician, and it is far more difficult for a hospital or any healthcare organization to limit, restrict or revoke a physician's privileges as compared to not granting them in the first place.

In theory, both the medical board and hospitals are reluctant to interfere with the livelihood a physician, and ultimately hope that a negligent physician who injures or kills a patient will learn from their mistake.

Ironically, the same legal system that is castigated by a negligent physician when they are named as a defendant in a medical malpractice case, is often used by the same physician to provide protection from an investigation or action by the medical board or a hospital staff. Many hospitals are more concerned about their civil damages liability for taking action against a physician's privileges than they are from a liability claim by a patient who is injured or the family of a patient who is killed by such a negligent physician.

If you have a medical malpractice case, I want to help you. As an attorney who is also a licensed physician, I know what makes a good case and have the track record to prove it. Call me at 800/541-9376 for a consultation. You can also visit me online at www.fagellaw.com.

With all the talk about a national healthcare plan, one important fact is being overlooked. No matter what legislation is enacted, there will always be medical malpractice claims and the ensuing tort litigation. There are many reasons for this reality. Over the course of the next few blog entries, I will detail several reasons why medical malpractice will always exist.

First, healthcare in the U.S. is unlike any other industry that has the capacity to kill or injure people. Others such as the automobile or airline industries, are subject to governmental or independent regulation because of the potential for a specific design or manufacturing error to affect hundreds, and even thousands, of people from a single event. Healthcare, by contrast, usually affects one person at a time. Even though medical malpractice is estimated to cause more deaths than automobile accidents and many multiple more deaths than airplane crashes, there is no governmental or independent agency that even attempts to track the actual number of deaths due to medical malpractice.

Ironically, the only accurate data about the scope of medical malpractice in the United States come from the liability insurance industry, which tracks the number, type of case, and payments for medical malpractice claims from judgments or settlements. However, these data only provide information about those claims that proceed through the legal system, and it is widely believed that only a small fraction of actual negligence-caused injury or death cases are ever pursued through the legal system. Many Americans have an aversion to the legal system and are willing to accept a tragic healthcare outcome as "God's will."

In much of the world where basic medical care services are inadequate or non-existent, the concept of medical malpractice is unknown. Even in much of the industrialized world, such as Europe, Japan or Canada, where medical care services are at least scientifically similar to the United States, healthcare has developed as a basic service of the government, and is, thus, subject to government regulation and oversight. Also, the legal system outside the U.S. has never allowed a tort system to provide the same rights as those enjoyed by Americans. The U.S. is still the only country where lay juries are allowed to determine civil damages.

Given the scope of the medical malpractice problem, even based on estimates of resultant death or injury, it is an open question why the American public, through its legislative and legal system, has allowed healthcare to regulate, control and police itself on a totally voluntary basis. That is the main reason why medical malpractice will continue and very likely increase in the future. Howver, there are several other reasons for this situation, and over the next few days I will discuss other reasons I believe medical malpractice will always exist.

If you think you have a medical malpractice case, call my office. We'd be happy to evaluate your case for free. Call us at 800/541-9376 or visit us at www.medicalmalpracticedoctorlawyer.com.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that a local family was awarded $1.63 million last week by a Hamilton County (Ohio) jury that found two doctors negligent during a birth that left a child's right arm useless. The money was awarded to Dylan Nitzsche, now age 4, and his parents.

Jurors found two doctors to be negligent. The negligence included not properly monitoring the mother--who had gestational diabetes during a previous pregnancy--for gestational diabetes in this birth. Also, the doctors did not properly keep the mother informed that gestational diabetes can lead to large babies and difficult pregnancies.

Dylan weighed 10 pounds, 13 ounces when he was delivered vaginally, and his shoulder got hung in the birth canal that resulted in doctors injuring the child. The mother had requested a cesarian section early in labor. The judgment includes the child's past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of earnings.

When a baby is born with an injury, it is often the result of medical malpractice. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, who is a licensed doctor, has successfully tried and settled many birth injury cases in his nearly 30-year law practice. Call him at 800/541-8376 for a free case evaluation, or visit him online at www.birthinjurydoctorlawyer.com.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveals that attention is increasingly being paid to infection-control practices at outpatient surgical centers. This finding comes on the heels of the highly publicized 2008 endoscopy center catastrophe in Las Vegas, which may have exposed up to 40,000 people to the risk of hepatitis and HIV.

CDC researchers surveyed 68 ambulatory surgical centers in three states to see how well they complied with infection-control guidelines in five different areas, including hand hygiene, injection safety and environmental cleaning practices. They published their findings in the Journal of American Medicine. Among their findings: there was at least one lapse at 68% of the centers, and lapses in at least three areas at 18% of the facilities. At 28% of facilities, medications in single-dose vials were used for more than one patient. Of the 68 facilities, 39 eventually received state citations for infection control deficiencies and 20 for medication administration lapses.

More than 75% of all operations today are done on an outpatient basis. Additionally, the number of ambulatory surgical centers increased by an average of 8.3% a year between 1999 and 2005. It is believed that incidence of infections at these centers are underreported.

In response to the study, the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association says that many of the findings have already been addressed by a proactive educational effort and by new conditions for being certified by Medicare.

Many of these incidents in surgical centers is medical malpractice. If you are victimized by malpractice, you need representation by Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, an attorney who also is a licensed physician. Call him today at 800/541-8376 for a free consultation, or visit his website at www.fagellaw.com.

An innovative approach to resolving medical malpractice cases--which consists of part listening and part cajoling--could become a model for courts throughout the United States due to a pioneering judge who has spent time learning about medicine.

The Obama administration is spending $3 million to see if the methods developed by New York judge Douglas McKeon can work on a broader scale and help reform the medical liability system. Judge McKeon named his approach "judge-directed negotiations" as well as "humanness." Curiosity about medical matters led him to become a specialist in resolving cases that involve life-changing harm to patients.

The New York state court system is one of 20 recent recipients of federal grants to find answers to such problems as getting hospitals and doctors to acknowledge mistakes, rather than covering them up, and protecting clinicians who follow best practices and still have something go wrong. The goals are to prevent medical errors, reduce lawsuit costs and discourage costly defensive medicine. The New York grant was the only one awarded to a court system. The remainder went to hospitals, universities and state health departments.

Judge McKeon has sat in on medical school anatomy classes to gain clinical knowledge to help him evaluate cases. He kept his malpractice specialty as he worked his way up the judicial ladder. The judge continues to preside over all malpractice cases involving New York City hospitals in the Bronx and Manhattan. His "judge-directed negotiations" has saved hospitals up to $50 million a year, combined with their own programs that stress early disclosure of medical errors.

Medical mistakes--malpractice--is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. If you are victimized by medical malpractice, you need the counsel of an attorney who knows medicine. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel is a licensed attorney and physician. Call him at 800/541-9376 for a free case evaluation, or visit him online at www.medicalmalpracticedoctorlawyer.com.

A new study says there is no evidence that the common practice of giving patients oxygen to inhale during a heart attack is beneficial. Researchers with Cochrane Systematic Review say the possibility that giving oxygen may actually increase a patient's risk of dying cannot be ruled out.

Researchers included data from three trials in their studies. Patients were either given pure oxygen or air to inhale in the 24 hours following the onset of heart attack symptoms. Of the 387 patients involved in the studies, only 14 died. But, of these, almost three times as many has inhaled oxygen as opposed to air. However, researchers say there is not yet enough data to be certain, and acknowledged that the sampling is so small that the results might be due to chance. One of the researchers added that it is important that a large trial is conducted shortly to make certain that giving oxygen is not causing any harm.

Globally, more than 30 million people have heart attacks every year, according to the World Health Oranization.

Some heart attack patients are victimized by medical malpractice. Those patients need the services of an attorney who knows his way around a hospital. Dr. Bruce Fagel is a practicing attorney who is a licensed physician. If you are interested in his services, contact him at www.medicalmalpracticedoctorlawyer.com or 800/541-9376.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) and the Institute for safe Medication Practices (ISMP) issued an alert last week warning healthcare practitioners about dangerous medication errors that could be caused by a shortage of epinephrine pre-filled syringes. The alert was prepared as a caution to healthcare organizations and practitioners even though there had not been any reports of deaths or serious errors.

The National Alert for Serious Medication Errors warns healthcare practitioners about dangers posed by a drug shortage, and includes recommendations to prevent medication errors that could result from the shortage.

Medication errors often result in medical malpractice with serious repercussions. If you have been victimized by medical malpractice call The Law Offices of Bruce G. Fagel and Associates for a free consultation. Visit us at www.fagellaw.com or call us at 800/541-9376.

Today, I conclude the series on medical malpractice myths. Of course, there are many more than the 10 I have detailed, but these are the ones I hear and read about the most.

9. Experts give opinions not based on medical science

Many physicians believe that other physicians who testify for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases are giving opinions that are not supported by scientific medical evidence. On occasion this may be true. However, many medical malpractice cases involve multiple actions or inactions by different physicians and nurses, and overlapping issues of causation in relation to the ultimate injury or death. Unfortunately, most medical research is based on a single relationship between cause and effect and are rarely as encompassing as the fact patterns in many medical malpractice cases. Thus, medical experts who testify for plaintiffs are often unable to cite specific medical research to support their ultimate opinions, but may draw their own conclusions from the body of medical research that exists in literature. This can often result in other experts questioning the scientific basis of such opinions. Currently, several professional organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Neurological Surgeons, have conducted investigations into the testimony of physicians who have testified in medical malpractice cases, and have taken actions--including suspension of physicians who have testified as experts (usually for plaintiffs) in cases where the defendant physician has filed a complaint with the organization. Such actions have had some effect in decreasing the willingness of some physicians to testify as experts for plaintiffs.

10. The current tort law system is not fair to physicians

Almost every physician has an anecdotal story about some medical malpractice claim that was totally unjustified. Occasionally, there was a result they did not consider as being fair. However, the current tort law system, which allows a lay jury to determine if a physician or nurse is liable for an injury or death of a patient, produces the correct result in the vast majority of cases. Many physicians complain that although the end result of a case, which they may consider as unjustified, will be an exoneration of their actions, that what they must go through to achieve that result, is somehow unfair. There is no question that any medical malpractice claim against a physician or a nurse can be viewed by them as an assault on their reputation as a healthcare provider, and, unfortunately, far too many physicians and nurses take the mere filing of a claim as an attack on their basic character. Since most medical malpractice cases can take years to work through the current system, and often involve both worry and anxiety by both the physician or nurse and their family, it is understandable that there has been a clamor among many healthcare professionals that something must be done to "fix the system." Often this has been focused on efforts to replace the current system with special courts or panels of "professionals" to handle such cases. However, none of the proposed solutions to the medical malpractice "crisis" offer anything that would ultimately be fair to both doctor and patient.

That completes the 10 myths about medical malpractice. What is real is that medical malpractice does occur, and when it does you need a skilled attorney who knows medicine. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel is a both an attorney and doctor. For a free consultation, call him at 800/541-9376.

This week I've been blogging about medical malpractice myths. Today's entry focuses on misconceptions about jurors.

7. Juries award damages based on sympathy for the patient or family

Many physicians assume that in a catastrophic injury case, the plaintiff attorney will wheel the injured plaintiff into court and the sympathy created by the jury viewing such a sight will somehow overwhelm their ability to consider the medical evidence. This may happen on occasion. When it does, the trial judge will usually correct the result, and in the vast majority of cases, jurors will force themselves to ignore the injuries of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case and essentially bend over backwards to make sure they are fair. Any juror who states that the injury of the plaintiff is such that they could not put sympathy out of their mind, is automatically removed from the jury. Since most potential jurors would rather not spend several weeks of their life on jury duty, it is rare that any jury will have more than a few jurors whose sympathy for the plaintiff's condition would affect their decision in the case.

8. Lay jurors don't understand medical science

This is generally true. But the assumption that juries must understand medical science in order to determine the liability of a physician or nurse for a patient's injury or death is not correct. The law is not based on medical science, but instead focuses on whether or not the actions of a doctor or nurse are reasonable under the circumstances. Where medical science comes into play is on the issue of causation, which involves the question of whether the actions or inactions of the doctor or nurse was a substantial factor in causing the injury or death. Most physicians tend to look at medical causation, which focuses on scientific probability, and do not understand that the legal probability required for medical malpractice cases is not the same as medical or scientific probability. In most medical malpractice cases, unless the defendant can show that the injury or death was not, in any way, related to the negligent action or inaction of the defendant physician or nurse, the jury will determine for themselves if there is a reasonable relationship between the action or inaction of the physician or nurse and the injury or death of the patient.

If you think you have been victimized by medical malpractice, you need an attorney who knows what should and shouldn't happen in a hospital. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, a practicing attorney who is also a licensed physician, is who you need. Call him today at 800/541-9376 for a free consultation.

In this week-long series on medical malpractice myths, I have cited four thus far: doctors are only interested in their patients, lawyers are only interested in money, limiting damages will reduce the number of medical malpractice claims, and apologizing to patients for negligent injuries will reduce the number of medical malpractice claims. Today's myths deal with jury verdicts.

5. Outrageous jury verdicts increase the costs of medical malpractice insurance

Large jury verdicts in any civil case, especially medical malpractice cases, make great newspaper articles. Very large verdicts attract additional coverage, including television. However, what is not reported is the fact that most large jury verdicts are reduced at either the trial level or by the appellate court, or both. Large jury verdicts in medical malpractice cases create a perception among both the public and medical community that lay juries are out of control. Large verdicts are often cited by politicians and others who want to reform the civil tort system  to reduce the effect of large jury verdicts on the cost of medical malpractice insurance for physicians. The truth is the public reporting of very large verdicts is often misleading since the public press usually does not understand the difference between present cash value and total future dollars. Even terms such as settlements, judgments and awards are misunderstood. In reality, both the number and average amount of judgments in medical malpractice cases have decreased during the last 10 years, even in states where there is no artificial limit on recovery. The large verdicts, which are rare exceptions, will always be attractive to the media.

6. Jury verdicts are directly related to the severity of the negligence

Many physicians are surprised to learn that civil tort claims are based on the severity of the damages or injuries, and not the severity of negligence. The vast majority of very large damage cases--usually involving permanent injuries with daily nursing care--do not involve any element of malice or punitive damages, but rather are the result of errors in communication or other "minor system" errors in hospital settings. In such cases, there are usually multiple doctors and nurses who are less than attentive in their care, but a long way from any intentional conduct. The legal system requires a plaintiff to first prove liability, which means proving a deviation of the standard of care, and causation. Once the plaintiff establishes liability, then the damages are separately determined. Often, very small or simple errors can have truly catastrophic outcomes.

The Law Offices of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel and Associates specialize in catastrophic outcomes caused by medical malpractice. Visit us online at www.fagellaw.com or call us at 800/541-9376.

Yesterday I listed doctors solely being interested in their patients and lawyers solely being interested in money as two medical malpractice myths. Today I discuss two more myths that is accepted as truth.

3. Limiting damages will reduce the number of medical malpractice claims

This is probably the single greatest myth that exists today. Unfortunately both those who believe that limiting the amount of damages recoverable in a medical malpractice claim will reduce the number of claims and those who just as adamantly believe that there is no such relationship, use data that is not easily comparable. Sometimes each side will look at the same data and come to different conclusions, so the debate will likely continue for some time. The insurance and medical industries claim that in those states where limitations have been placed on the recovery of damages in medical malpractice states, claims have dropped and, thus, insurance premiums have dropped accordingly. These groups also claim that physicians are leaving the practice of medicine in those states that have not yet passed such limitations, which are referred to by the American Medical Association as states being in tort "crisis" in terms of both availability and cost of medical malpractice insurance.

4. Apologizing to patients for negligent injuries will reduce the number of medical malpractice claims

This is a relatively new and popular myth being propagated by psychologists and risk managers all over our nation. In fact, just last week we ran a blog item about how effective apologies and remorse can be. I disagree. New efforts are being conducted at several major medical institutions in the United States, including Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the University of Michigan Medical Center, which reports a 50% drop in claims and lawsuits from 260 in 2001 to 140 in 2004, and a similar 50% drop in legal expense per case to about $35,000. More than a half dozen states have passed laws that make any physician's apology inadmissible in civil court. Since it is well known that many cases are filed by patients or their families over situations that involve relatively minor injuries or claims where there has been little or no communication with any physician about the cause or reason for a patient's problem or complication, improved communication, including an actual apology, will likely reduce the filing of such claims. However, in cases involving more serious injuries or death, it is not likely that an apology is going to actually avoid a lawsuit. Since less than 10% of all medical errors in hospitals that result in some injury are ever filed in court, there are still many cases that could be filed as medical malpractice claims regardless of any apology by the doctor or offending party.

When sorry is not enough, and you want to seek damages in instances of medical malpractice, call The Law Offices of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel and Associates at 800/541-9376, or visit their website at www.fagellaw.com.

Medical malpractice is one of the most written about and debated subjects when it comes to the delivery of healthcare. With so much written and spoken about it, naturally many myths are going to be perpetuated. Some come from organized physician groups, some from insurance companies, and some from your elected officials. This week I will discuss and attempt to debunk 10 of the most prevalent and misguided myths about medical malpractice. Each day there will be two items.

1. Doctors are only interested in their patients

Until recently, this myth has formed the basis of the defense of many medical malpractice cases by assuming that any lay jury would view any doctor or nurse as a caring, concerned person who could not possibly mean to harm or injure any patient. However, the increase in for-profit hospitals and the increase in cost of health insurance--with several well-publicized incidents involving both physicians and hospitals being found guilty of overcharging--have made the public far more skeptical of the motives of many physicians. While the vast majority of physicians are interested in their patients, it is usually physicians who have little long-term contact with patients who are most at-risk to be the subject of a medical malpractice claim.

2. Lawyers are only interested in money

Most physicians and much of the public believe this to be true, but ultimately most attorneys will admit that the law is a business, just as medicine and healthcare are businesses. One aspect of the business of law that upsets many physicians is the contingency fee system that allows a plaintiff to file a lawsuit against a physician or hospital and not pay any money for the attorney's services until there is a recovery from the defendant physician or hospital. This implies that patients can easily sue their physicians, while physicians who are sued must then pay their defense attorney an hourly rate to defend them. However, the high cost of medical malpractice cases, which are usually borne by the plaintiff's attorney, requires the attorney who wants to pursue a case to be fairly certain of recovery before investing their own money. While defense attorneys are usually paid an hourly rate, it is the insurance company and not the individual physician who pays the attorney, who then has an incentive to fully evaluate the case rather than resolve the matter quickly.

A medical malpractice case is not an easy thing to navigate. Therefore, you need the services of a plaintiff attorney with a track record of success. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, a licensed physician, is that attorney. Call him at 800/541-9376 today for a free consultation, or visit him online at www.fagellaw.com.

According to a study from UC San Diego, fatal medication errors peak in the United States in July--particularly in teaching hospitals--which coincides with the yearly influx of new medical residents who are given increased responsibility for patient care.

Researchers examined approximately 245,000 U.S. death certificates, focusing on fatal medication errors as the recorded primary cause of death, issued between 1979 and 2006. They compared the observed number of deaths in July with the number of expected events in a given month for a given year. They also looked at whether there were any differences between deaths in and out of hospitals in July, as well as between counties with and without teaching hospitals. The authors found that fatal medication errors spiked in July and in no other month. This July peak was visible only in counties with teaching hospitals, and the number of July deaths from medication errors was 10% above the expected level.

The authors said this study demonstrates evidence for reevaluating responsibilities assigned to new residents, increasing supervision of new residents, and increasing education concerned with medication safety.

If you or someone you know has been victimized by a medication error or a wrongful death in a hospital, call The Law Offices of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel and Associates at 800/541-9376. You can also contact the office at www.fagellaw.com.

Last week the Syracuse Post-Standard reported that a home-care nurse was awarded nearly $1.7 million in damages by a Syracuse jury. The award compensates her for permanent nerve damage caused when she was given an injection following the delivery of her baby three years ago. After a five-day trial, a jury awarded Tina Holstein $140,000 for past pain and suffering and $1.55 million for future pain and suffering.

According to her attorney, Holstein was in Community General Hospital in October 2007 for the delivery of her third child. There were problems with the delivery and Holstein ended up being given an intramuscular injection several hours later in the recovery room to try to stop her vomiting. A nurse improperly administered the injection too low, damaging Holstein's sciatic nerve. She now has lower back problems, difficulty sitting and standing for any length of time, and limitations on her physical activities as a result of the nerve damage.

The hospital's attorney said they disagree with the verdict and is reviewing the case for a possible appeal.

If you or a loved one has been victimized by medical malpractice, you should seek the services of an attorney who knows healthcare. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, an attorney who is also a licensed physician, has a track record of unparalleled success in handling medical malpractice cases. Visit him at www.birthinjurydoctorlawyer.com or call him at 800/541-9376.

The June 1 online issue of BMC Medicine includes a public opinion survey that reveals widespread concern among America's patients about the long hours worked by resident physicians under current policies.

"Scientific evidence continues to show that physicians working extended hours are putting themselves as well as their patients at risk," says John Brockman, national president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), the nation's oldest and largest independent association for physicians in training. "Now we are hearing from patients themselves. They understand the risks and do not want to be treated by a physician who has been on the clock for more than 24 hours. It's time to demand a working environment that ensures patient and physician safety without compromising medical education."

Through a national survey of 1,200 members of the public selected via random telephone calls, the Department of Health and Evidence Policy at Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 81% believe that reducing resident physician work hours would be effective in reducing medical errors.

Current regulations, implemented in 2003, curtailed 100-120 hour workweeks. However, workweeks in excess of the current 80-hour limit are still believed to be widespread.

Overworked residents and physicians often lead to errors--ones that could and should have been prevented--in hospitals. If you are victimized by medical malpractice, you need the services of an attorney who knows what should and what shouldn't take place in a hospital. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, a licensed physician who worked for 10 years in hospital ERs, is the attorney you need. Call him at 800/541-9376 for a free consultation.

Jennifer Robbennolt, a University of Illinois professor of law and psychology, says that apologies can potentially help resolve legal disputes, including cases of medical malpractice. She adds that apologies give hurt parties a sense of justice and satisfaction that promotes settlements and eliminates demands for damages.

"Conventional wisdom has been to avoid apologies because they amount to an admission of guilt that can be damaging to defendants in court," she said. "But the studies suggest apologies can actually play a positive role in settling legal cases."

While plaintiffs respond favorably to apologies, another study by Robbennolt shows that lawyers react more in line with traditional thinking: apologies are an admission of guilt that can be used to leverage bigger settlements. She says lawyers may view apologies differently because of their third-party view of the dispute.

When apologies are not enough in instances of medical malpractice, you need the services of an attorney who has a track record of success in such cases. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel is both a practicing attorney and licensed physician. Call him at 800/541-9376  for a free consultation. You can also visit him online at www.fagellaw.com.  

The Myrtle Beach Sun News reported that an Horry County (South Carolina) jury found that Grand Strand Regional Medical Center and a doctor were negligent in the care of a patient who died in 2002. The jury awarded a $3 million verdict to the patient's husband and ruled that the hospital had the bulk of the responsibility.

The patient's husband, Sean Fay, sued the hospital and the doctor after his wife, Kelly fay died in 2002. Kelly went to the hospital's emergency room with stomach and lower back pain in January 2002. She was diagnosed with a kidney stone, and sent home after about four hours with a prescription for pain medication. Kelly had a seizure and went into septic shock, and died about 48 hours after leaving the hospital.

Sean Fay's lawyers said the hospital was negligent in its treatment of his wife and did not follow nationally recognized standards of care or the hospital's own guidelines. The hospital doesn't agree with the ruling and is considering an appeal.

If you or someone you love has been injured due to medical negligence, you should seek the services of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, a practicing attorney who is also a licensed physician. For a free case evaluation, call 800/541-9376 or visit us online at www.medicalmalpracticedoctorlawyer.com.

Mannitol, a sugar-alcohol compound, improved the therapeutic effectiveness of human umbilical cord blood cells injected into neonatal rat models of cerebral palsy. This finding is part of a new international study led by the University of South Florida. The mannitol opened the blood-brain barrier by temporarily shrinking the tight endothelial cells that comprise the barrier.

Intravenously delivered human umbilical cord blood (HUCB) may offer therapeutic benefits to those suffering from cerebral palsy if the blood cells can get past the blood-brain barrier to the site of the injury, the research team suggests.

According to the study's lead author, the combination of mannitol and HUCB treatment increased central nervous system levels of at least three neurotrophic factors. He noted that the lab animals were administered a variety of post-treatment movement tests and that those receiving the combination treatment instead of HUCB alone or mannitol alone demonstrated the most motor improvement.

There is supportive treatment, but no cure for cerebral palsy, a group of neurological disorders caused by brain damage before birth or during infancy. Sometimes it is the direct result of medical malpractice. If you have a child who has cerebral palsy and you suspect it was caused by malpractice, you need to contact The Law Offices of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel and Associates. Call 800/541-9376 or visit his cerebral palsy website at www.brucefagellaw.com.

Last week The New York Times reported that thousands of heart test results that were never sent to doctors at Harlem Hospital Center since 2007 had shown signs of abnormal heart function. Hospital officials made the admission a day after acknowledging that results of 4,000 echocardiograms had never been seen by doctors because of a practice of allowing technicians to read them first. Harlem Hospital primarily serves black and Hispanic patients--often poor--who tend to be at higher-than-average risk for heart diseases.

At first officials said that no harm had been caused because the technicians were so good at reading the tests. One day later, officials said their review undercut that belief. A team of cardiologists have been working continuously reviewing tests. They have looked at 1,650 tests so far, finding signs of heart disease in some of them. Echocardiograms are usually prescribed because a patient is showing symptoms such as shortness of breath, swollen legs, fatigue or chest pain.

Dr. Douglas Zipe, a past president of the American College of Cardiology, said having 4,000 tests done and unread is unheard of, and is "unconscionable and unacceptable and malpractice as far as I'm concerned...I would bet there are deaths directly attributable to the failure to read these echocardiograms."

If you are victimized by medical malpractice, call The Law Offices of Dr. Bruce G. Fagel and Associates. Dr. Fagel is a practicing attorney and licensed doctor. Call him at 800/541-9376 or visit www.fagellaw.com.

According to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers, less than 2% of cesarean births in British Columbia were the result of maternal request. The study says there is a misconception that the overall increase in C-section deliveries is due to maternal request.

The UBC study examined all deliveries in British Columbia between 2004 and 2007, and found an average of 21.2 per 100 deliveries were first-time C-sections and 14.2 per 100 deliveries were assisted vaginal deliveries involving the use of forceps and/or vacuum devices. Dystocia--an abnormal or difficult childbirth--was accountable for 30% of the C-sections, with non-reassuring fetal heart rate accountable for 19.1%.

Reserachers say the study doesn't attempt to determine the ideal rate of cesarean or assisted vaginal delivery, but examines percentage differentials in different parts of Canada. The nation's cesarean delivery rate has increased dramatically over the past two decades, reaching an all-time high of 26.3% of in-hospital deliveries in 2005-6. Until recently, British Columbia had the highest C-section rate in Canada.

Sometimes, C-sections are the result of a delivery gone awry, which could be the result of medical malpractice. If you have been victimized by medical malpractice, you need the services of an attorney who understands medicine. Dr. Bruce G. Fagel, an attorney who is a licensed physician, is who you need. Call him today at 800/541-9376, or visit online at www.birthinjurydoctorlawyer.com.

The May 27 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a study in which pediatric researchers reported that a recently introduced surgical procedure--called the Single Ventricle Reconstruction (SVR) Trial--offers infants with severely underdeveloped hearts a better chance of survival their first year of life, as compared to standard surgery.

Heart surgeons from 15 centers in the federally sponsored Pediatric Heart Network studied the outcomes in more than 500 newborns who received a complex series of surgeries for hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). Occurring one in about 100 live births, congenital heart disease is the most common birth defect, including HLHS. In HLHS, affecting one in 5,000 live births, the left ventricle, one of the heart's two pumping chambers, is small and unable to function. Without treatment, HLHS is fatal in the first few days of life.

In the 1980s, surgeons developed procedures for HLHS that have allowed increasingly more children born with a single functioning ventricle to survive. The SVR trial compares two techniques used in the initial, riskiest stage of surgery, called the Norwood procedure. In this procedure, surgeons implant a shunt to reroute blood from the malformed heart to the pulmonary artery, which supplies the lungs. The traditional surgical approach is to use a modified Blalock-Taussig (MBT) shunt, which carries blood from an artery branching off the aorta to the pulmonary artery. The newer technique, sometimes known as the Sano procedure or the right ventricle-pulmonary artery (RVPA) shunt, links the right ventricle to the pulmonary artery. If either technique fails, the only alternative is a heart transplant.

In the current trial, researchers randomized infants who required the Norwood procedure to two groups, 275 for the MBT shunt and 274 for the RVPA shunt. Twelve months after the surgery, 74% of infants with the RVPA shunt survived and didn't require a heart transplant, compared to 64% of infants with the MBT shunt. The RVPA group did, however, undergo a higher rate of complications requiring unintended interventions, such as needing stents or balloons to keep the stunt open.

Sometimes babies are born with problems due to a health professional's negligence. In those instances you should consult with attorney Dr. Bruce Fagel, a licensed physician. Call him at 800/541-9376 for a free evaluation or visit him online at www.fagellaw.com.