Posted on February 24, 2010 in Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Hospital - Stent Malpractice

There has been a lot of publicity lately about 369 people who have received letters from St. Joseph Medical Center stating that cardiac stents placed by Dr. Mark Midei may not have been necessary. I have been told that St. Joseph has a group of five cardiology experts reviewing Dr. Midei’s cardiac stent procedures during a certain time frame, and if all five doctors agree that the study was misread and the stent was unnecessary the patient gets a letter from St. Joseph. But what about the people who had stents placed by Dr. Midei who did not receive such a letter? Could they have cases? The answer is yes.

St. Joseph’s experts are only looking at a certain time frame and it takes five doctors to agree on the misread. Therefore, if you are outside of the time frame that the St. Joseph doctors are looking at, or if only four out of the five doctors agree that you did not need the stent, you will not get a letter. Already, I have three clients who did not receive letters whose studies were misread and who, therefore, did not need stents.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 23, 2010 in Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Hospital - Stent Malpractice

So far, I have carefully selected about a three medical malpractice cases against Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center. In each of these cases, the client contacted me either after getting a letter from St. Joseph Medical Center stating that he or she received an unnecessary stent or after reading articles in the newspaper about Dr. Midei and St. Joseph.

To date, there have been seven articles about this fiasco in the Baltimore Sun, consisting of the following:

1/15/10 Patients learn they might have unneeded stents.

1/22/10 Heart-stent popularity is costly in many ways.

1/23/10 Suit alleges heart implant unnecessary.

1/28/10 Lawyers see profits in stent cases.

1/29/10 Lawyers look for clients in cases of possibly unneeded stents.

2/20/10 Senators launch fraud inquiry of Md. hospital.

2/21/10 St. Joseph acts to put stent crisis behind it.

Rumor has it that St. Joseph Medical Center has a group of five leading cardiology experts reviewing all of Dr. Midei’s cardiac catheterization and stent procedures during a certain time frame, and if all five doctors agree that the study was misread and the stent was unnecessary the patient gets a letter from St. Joseph. The problem with that methodology is that it only looks at a certain time frame and it takes five doctors to agree on the misread.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 21, 2010 in Medical Malpractice Law in Maryland

A bill currently is being considered by the Maryland legislature would expand a law that protect a doctors from his apology being used against him in court in a medical malpractice case. Currently, Maryland law states that an apology or statement of regret by a doctor is inadmissible in a medical malpractice trial. That statute, which is found in Section 10-920 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, encourages doctors to apologize for an error. In my opinion, it is a good law that encourages a doctor to be honest with a patient.

But a new bill has been proposed to expand the current law so that other things the doctor says along with the apology or statement of regret also would be inadmissible. This does not make sense. We shouldn’t have to exclude statements from evidence to encourage our doctors to be honest with us. Moreover, the effect of this proposed law would be to prohibit from evidence what could be the only evidence of what happened. For example, suppose a patient becomes paralyzed during back surgery and the operative report and all of the other records surrounding the procedure are silent as to what happened (this is exactly what happened in a recent case of mine). Then, suppose the doctor comes into the patient’s room after the surgery and says “I’m really sorry that you are paralyzed (currently this would be inadmissible) and I feel really bad about what happened (also currently inadmissible), but during the surgery I dropped an instrument on then spinal cord by accident because I was really tired from being out the night before with my medical school buddies at a reunion; I just wanted you to know what happened.” The proposed law would make that last part of the doctor’s confession inadmissible. That is absurd.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 14, 2010 in Child Custody

As I have said before and I will say again, child custody relocation cases are extremely difficult, especially from the perspective of the bench when the ‘primary caregiver’ is the parent relocating. In this case, the Mother moved to another State for a new job earning approximately, what will net to be about, $20,000.00 more a year. She does not have family there (actually moved further from all of her family), she has not attempted to facilitate any access for the Father, and she disobeyed an existing order of court. On the other hand, all of Father’s family lives in Maryland, he owns a home in Maryland, Mother has a sister in Maryland, and Mother did not even attempt to find another position in the state of Maryland (and did I mention she voluntarily left her employment in Maryland, she was not unemployed).

In Maryland, in an establishment case, which this case is with the relocation twist, the Court must determine what is in the best interest of the minor child. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the fitness of the parents, the desires and agreements of the parents, the potential to maintain family relationships, the child’s preference if he or she is at a sufficient age, opportunities affecting the child, the age and health of the child, and the residence of the parents and opportunity for visitation. Montgomery County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406 (1997). Relocation cases tap into additional factors, such as (1) the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parents, siblings and other significant persons in the child’s life, (2) the age, developmental stage, needs of child, and most likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, mental, and educational development, (3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements; (4) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the custodial party seeking relocation and the child, including, but not limited to financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity; (5) the reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation; and (6) any other factors affecting the best interest of the child. In this particular case, among other things, what I thought was of utmost importance to point out to the Court was an additional factor, that the Mother has established a pattern of conduct attempting to thwart the relationship between the child and his Father and if she could not follow an existing Order of Court, why would she follow another Order if the Court grants her custody. In addition, when weighing stability (in my opinion we had a lot of stability factors on our side), there is a lot to be said for the stability of the child remaining in the environment and community in which they live. In the interest of the limited time we had for our closing arguments, I asked the Court to re-read Dominques v. Johnson and Braun v. Headley, in my opinion two of the leading cases on relocation, and to consider Shunk v. Walker and the impact that decision had on 9-105 of the Family Law Article . We are a little over a month out and still no decision, stay tuned for Part Three.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 12, 2010 in Child Custody

I recently tried what started off as a fairly typical Maryland custody case that turned into a relocation case four months before the scheduled trial date. The decision still has not been rendered by the Court, but nevertheless thought the situation is one in which many folks find themselves and could relate. The basic sets of facts are as follows: parties meet, relationship of some sort ensued (depends on which party you ask) and a child was born. Parties lived together off and on (again, depending on which party you ask) and ultimately began living in their own residences separate from one another. Eventually, the child would generally spend most weekends and extended blocks of time with one parent and weekdays with the other. Although the weekday parent typically controlled when and how frequently the other parent would see the child. Eventually, the weekday parent filed for custody and child support and other parent filed a Counter-Complaint for Custody. The case moved through the litigation process as most cases do, but four months prior to the trial, the weekday parent gives notice through counsel that she will be relocating to another state, approximately 8.5 hours away. As a side note there was a Consent Protective Order in place (I did not represent my client at the time), whereby a child access schedule was put into place where the parties had joint custody and the Father had access three overnights the first week of the month, two overnights the second weekend of the month, and two overnights the third weekend of the month. The Mother had the remainder of the time.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 11, 2010 in Hospital Malpractice

A Connecticut medical malpractice case has been settled for $5.25 million in favor of a woman whose left leg had to be amputated as a result of complications from spinal surgery performed at a local hospital. The lawsuit alleged that a doctor performed an elective “anterior transabdominal approach to the lumbosacral spine,” and then her doctor and the hospital staff failed to properly take care of her in the intensive care unit, causing the loss of the leg. While in the ICU, the woman suffered intra-abdominal hemorrhaging, post-operative bleeding, abdominal wounds, and other severe complications that the hospital staff did not appropriately diagnose or treat, resulting in a gangrenous lower leg that resulted in an above-the-knee amputation. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving failed back surgery. Usually, they are caused by improper technique during the surgery, but sometimes it is the post-operative monitoring that is deficient. During the post-operative period, the surgeon and the nurses at the hospital must be alert for changes in the patient’s condition that require further testing and procedures. Usually, simply monitoring the patient’s oxygenation rate, pulse, breathing, responsiveness and blood work is sufficient. These functions usually tell how well a patient is doing. Any abnormalities must be promptly investigated. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 10, 2010 in Hospital Malpractice

The New York Times has just published a very interesting article on Long-term acute care hospitals and the medical malpractice / substandard care that goes on in many of them. According to the Times, these hospitals, have been springing up across the country since the 1980s, and specialize in the long-term care of seriously ill patients. Most of these hospitals are for-profit, which means that there is a strong incentive to provide minimal care. Once long term acute care hospital chain drew increased scrutiny, Select Medical Corporation, which reportedly had a rate about four times that of regular hospitals for serious violations of Medicare rules. According to the Times, Medicare inspection reports of many of these hospitals showed preventable patient injuries and deaths and inadequate staff numbers with high turnover. A copy of the article can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving care of the chronically ill. These patients are at risk for severe bed sores, major infections, falls and death. These people usually are almost totally dependent on others for their care. That makes it even more outrageous when they are not properly care for due to the profit motive.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 09, 2010 in Hospital Malpractice

A Florida jury has awarded the family of a 9-year-old boy $11.1 million in a medical malpractice case arising out of negligent medical care at a local hospital. The family claimed that the child was not properly treated in the emergency room. The child, then 3 months old, had been sick for days with vomiting and diarrhea, so he was taken to the hospital. After a few hours, he was discharged, however, the hospital had failed to check the child for dehydration. By the next morning he could barely breathe, and had to be rushed back to the hospital. By that time, he suffered from an irreversible brain injury.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving sick children. I also have handled several dehydration cases. When people get sick, especially when they vomit or have diarrhea, they can become dehydrated quickly, which creates a serious imbalance in their fluid and electrolyte levels. When these levels become out of sync, they can cause severe sickness, organ damage and even death. In these cases, it is critical for the doctor or hospital to perform a a complete blood count and a simple metabolic panel. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 09, 2010 in Assault

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney/Lawyer I have blogged many times on the issue of choosing the right lawyer for a given case. In criminal matters, it is particularly important to research the background of an attorney before hiring him or her to represent you given the high stakes that are generally involved in criminal cases. Unfortunately, many if not most people do not do any research into the background or experience level of an attorney before hiring him and this can often lead to catastrophic results for the client.

As I have noted in the past, it is important in most cases to ensure that the attorney is both experienced in criminal matters and that the attorney appears regularly in the jurisdiction in which the person is charged. This information is easy to acquire simply by reviewing the attorney’s case load on Maryland Judiciary Case Search. http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis. Most mistakes that criminal defendants’ make when selecting an attorney involve the first parameter – that is, not ensuring that the attorney is experienced in criminal matters- but the second parameter – experience in the jurisdiction in which a person is charged – can be equally important. I resolved a case last week that illustrates the importance of this second and oft overlooked component of an attorney’s qualification to handle a particular case. The facts in a moment but first some more general discussion about attorney qualifications.

Sometimes an attorney’s experience level can appear impressive at first blush but upon closer inspection, be lacking. For instance, I took a case late last year on appeal for an individual who was told by her attorney that he was “highly qualified” to handle her case as he had been “practicing criminal law for over 20 years” and that “most of the criminal cases (he) handled” were in the jurisdiction in which the person was charged. Well it turns out that the attorney had in fact been practicing criminal law, along with several other areas, for over 20 years and had handled approximately 200 criminal cases throughout that period. This record may seem impressive at first glance but a closer inspection will reveal that it is woefully inadequate.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 08, 2010 in Defenses

In the 2008 case of Allen v. Marriott, the Court of Special Appeals came down with a frigid decision for plaintiffs who are injured when falling on black ice. The Court of Appeals denied cert. which means the case is the current law in Maryland.

The facts of Allen v. Marriott are as follows:

David Allen and his wife were guests of a Marriott hotel from Feb. 3 -5. On the morning of Feb. 5, the parties checked out of the hotel. Mrs. Allen went to the hotel’s parking lot to retrieve their car, while Mr. Allen was checking out. She drove the car close to the front entrance of the hotel. Mr. Allen walked out of the main entrance, and then proceeded to walk along the (salted) sidewalk toward their vehicle. As Mr. Allen stepped off of the curb, pulling a wheelie suitcase, he slipped and fell on what turned out to be unseen “black ice.”

The issue the presented to the Court was whether a reasonable person under an objective standard, knowing what the Plaintiff knew, would have been aware of the risk and therefore assumed the risk.

Continue Reading ››