Saint Joseph London Stent Case WHAS News Video

Lawsuit against Saint Joseph London, Catholic Health Initiative, and several London, Kentucky doctors alleging unnecessary heart surgeries like caths & stents.

Saint Joseph London Stent Case News Video

Poppe Law Firm brings important Patient Safety Case against Catholic Health Initiative, Saint Joseph London and several London, Kentucky doctors. Watch it Now

Sentinel Echo Writes About Saint Joseph London Stenting Lawsuit

The Sentinel Echo has published a story about the recent lawsuit we filed against Catholic Health Initative, Saint Joseph and various London doctors.

Unnecessary Stenting Lawsuit Filed In Kentucky

Kentucky lawyers file unnecessary stenting lawsuit against Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, Saint Joseph London, Chatterjee, Patil, and Chalhoub.

Judge Holds Louisville Doctor In Contempt for Lying Under Oath

Oddly enough, I just happened to have been in court several times when hearings were being conducted in a Louisville medical malpractice case involving a Louisville eye surgeon.  As a local attorney, I took great interest in the case, especially when the subject of the doctor's alleged perjury arose.  Apparently, when the doctor learned he might be sued by a former patient, he decided he would send the former patient clippings from the newspaper where doctors successfully sued lawyers for unsuccessfully suing the doctor.  When asked about it in his depositon, the doctor lied (a bunch of times) and said he did not send the clippings to his patient.  Judge Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky Attorney General, didn't take to well to the doctor's lies.  Judge Cowan fined the doctor several thousand dollars and ruled the jury can be informed that the doctor lied under oath.  Read the full story here:

hp

Want Tort Reform Now? Here Is A Form That Will Give It To You!

If you are one of those politicians or pundits constantly railing about the need for tort reform to protect doctors and hospitals, there is no need to wait for the government to pass tort reform.  Here is a form that will allow you to accomplish the same thing for you and your family RIGHT NOW.

That's right, by signing this simple form, you can waive your and your family's rights to pursue a claim for malpractice against your healthcare provider in court and limit your recovery, regardless of how serious your injuries are. 

So, if you are truly for tort reform, go ahead and sign it.  I dare you.

hp

ps.  Here is is again, just so you know I'm serious.

Don't Want To Get Sick? Don't Go Here....(hint, it's the last place you'd guess)

A couple of years ago two Louisville medical malpractice lawyers sued Jewish Hospital alleging it was unsanitary and led to people getting MRSA. A recent study now shows that hospital acquired infections are costing people big money.

Ohio Doctors Get Immunity From Malpractice Suits

Kentucky malpractice attorneys are fortunate not to have to deal with laws similar to those in Ohio that now give doctors immunity from malpractice if they have a medical student in the room with them.

Foxes in the Hen House...Whose Really Wrtiting Those Medical Journal Articles?

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

The Kentucky Justice Association included on September 11^th in their weekly clips, information concerning a study by editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association. The study was about occurrences of ghostwriting in medical journals and the New York Times reported the findings on September 10^th of this year.

 

According to the commentary, editors found that among authors of 630 articles, 7.8 percent acknowledged contributions to their articles by people whose names were not recognized. The study also reported ghostwriting rates of 7.9 percent in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 7.6 percent in The Lancet, 7.6 percent in the Public Library of Science Medicine (PLoS), 4.9 percent in The Annals of Internal Medicine, and 2 percent in Nature Medicine.

 

These findings raise a multitude of reasons for alarm including violations of academic and medical ethics, but according to researchers the main concern is that the writing of industry-sponsored authors could introduce biases. These prejudices have the ability to affect treatment decisions by doctors which ultimately could influence patient care. It seems more and more drugs come onto the market each and every day all with their own risks and benefits, but when a doctor prescribes any of these pharmaceuticals, patients believe they are doing so in their best interest.

 

hans

 

The problem with sponsored ghostwriting comes when the literature about a new product is skewed in any direction causing a medication to be trusted when perhaps it should not be. The New York Times has continued to follow the story and on September 17^th released more findings and reported that many editors of the nation’s leading medical journals are pushing for a zero tolerance policy towards ghostwriting and are even getting help from Congress.

 

It is difficult for patients to know everything about every pharmaceutical company, their practices and their products and they should not be expected to. It is the doctor’s job to ensure every medication they prescribe has been tested and researched to the highest degree. However, in lieu of the current ghostwriting developments and with the access to information allowed in today’s society, patients can no longer claim complete ignorance and need to do their homework too when deciding whether a new drug is right for them.

Lawyers Aren't The Problem With HealthCare Costs- Lexington Herald Editorial Reveals Who Is.....

Sunday's Lexington Herald Leader contained an editorial commenting on a New York Times article dealing with the increasing costs of health care. Here it is:

Tort reform doesn't cut health costs

Louisville MD Suspended for touching....

A Louisville doctor practicing in the south-end has given up his license after several patients accuse him of fondling, inappropriate sexual comments and, in one case, sex in an exam room.

Part II: The REAL TRUTH About Medical Malpractice Verdicts in Kentucky

Seems my recent post about medical malpractice verdicts in Kentucky got at least one reader stirred up enough to post a comment telling me I was wrong.  Well.... I'm not. 

Kentucky doctors are not leaving the state because of medical malpractice suits (net loss of 19 doctors between 2000 and 2002).  And medical malpractice premiums are not a large part of physician's overhead (less that 4% of revenue goes to insurance--physician salaries are 63% of overhead). 

But those who want to limit injured patient's rights have never let the facts stand in their way.  The phrase "sometimes wrong, but never in doubt comes to mind." 

If your really want to know the truth about medical malpractice in Kentucky, read this report authored by an independent non-profit organization founded by Ralph Nader, Public Justice.  Here is the report: www.citizen.org/documents/KY_MedMal_Report.pdf

hans

The REAL TRUTH About Medical Malpractice Verdicts in Kentucky

I am so tired of uninformed people telling me that we need tort reform in Kentucky to keep good doctors in the state. Too many people wrongly believe that juries are shoveling money at injured patients like the government bailing out the auto makers. 


Think I'm making this up?  Well, here are the actual statistics in kentucky on medical malpractice cases from the Kentucky Trial Court Review 2008.

In 2008, fifty-six medical malpractice cases were tried.  The patient prevailed 11 times.  That means the healthcare provider won 45 times.  You don't need to be a statistics major to do the math.  If you were a patient in a med mal lawsuit in Kentucky in 2008, you had about a 19.6%  you would win at trial.  Heck, you'd be better of taking the $100,000 - $200,000 it takes to get a medical malpractice case to trial over to the boat and play blackjack.  At least in blackjack the House only has an 8% advantage over the player.  Or better yet, bet it all on black in roulette, you have a 47% chance of winning.


   Some of you may be asking, "Is gambling really a proper analogy for going to trial in a medical malpractice case?"  Sure it is, in the few cases that the plaintiffs won, the juries awarded a total of $26,785,227 (this is in the entire state of Kentucky)  divide that number by the number of trials, (56) and the average verdict was $478,307.  So, if I told you I was going to give you $100,000 in cash (the amount of money it would take to get a medical malpractice case to trial) and gave you the option of going to trial were you have a 19.6% chance of winning an average of $478,000, or taking it to Caesar's and betting it all on black were you have a 47% chance of winning, where would the smart money play?

Please don't tell me our system of justice is a "lawsuit lottery."  There is no place for that kind ignorance when dealing with catastrophically injured patients.  Limiting the amount of money severely injured patients can recover does nothing to "fix" the system.  The system is broken alright, its just broken in favor of the healthcare providers.  And that's the REAL TRUTH.

Hans

State Legislator Tries to Make It More Difficult to Sue ER Doctors

Fortunately this isn't a story about a Kentucky lawmaker (but it very well could be considering who our senate leader is and the fact he has made tort reform one of his primary objectives).
An senior Arizona state senator is introducing a bill to make a emergency room patient prove medical negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard.
While this may not seem significant, it is.  In Arizona, like Kentucky, requires a patient prove a doctor committed malpractice.  The standard is "more likely than not."  Even with this standard, physicians win negligence suits 80-90% of the time.  The "clear and convincing" standard is significantly higher.  The standard is usually reserved for situations that go beyond mere negligence, were the plaintiff must prove the at fault party did something more than simply "make a mistake." 
If a jury were to have to find negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard, I hate to see how many victims of medical malpractice would go without justice.  I dare say a lot.
hans
p.s. want to know the difference between malpractice and negligence, check out our FAQ section

A Texas appellate court has ordered a new trial in a Vioxx case that originally rendered a $7.75 million judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The three-judge panel of the Texas 4th Court of Appeals, earlier this year, overturned the initial verdict after finding that there was insufficient evidence Vioxx was to blame for the death of Leonel Garza. The new trial could be held as early as next summer, an attorney for the plaintiffs said.

hans

Louisville Hosptial Baptist East Cited By Medicare In Suicide Death

Medicare has threatened to stop federal funding to Baptist Hospital East following a patient's suicide last month.    State inspectors concluded that Baptist Hospital "failed to assure this patient's safety."  The patient has only been identified as a Jeffersontown (a suburb of Louisville) man whose son had passed away and going through a divorce.
The citation stems from the hospital's knowledge that the patient had expressed  a desire to drink himself to death and was depressed over his circumstances.  Even though two chaplains talked with the patient and concluded he was in a "critical and severe situation, the hosptial failed to place him in a psychiatric unit or under suicide watch.  The state determined that the hospital's failure to include steps in its written care plan to address his psychiatric concerns was a violation of its duty to its patients and such conditions "pose an immediate and serious threat" to patients.

Baptist will probably not lose any funding; however, this may not be the end of the issue for Baptist. 

These violations could lead to civil liability if the family chooses to file a lawsuit.  Hospitals owe a duty to their patients to proivde appropriate treatment, including protecting a suicidal patient from him or herself.  If a hospital violates its own policies and procedures- or fails to act like a reasonable hospital would in the same situation- and an injury or death results, the hospital is responsible for the harm.  Because the patient was only 56 years old, he was probably still working.  This means the man's estate can recover the reasonable value of what he would have earned over his lifetime (known as wrongful death) as well as a claim for pain and suffering (known as personal injury).  It is unclear from the article whether the man had any children under 18, but if he did then they would have a claim for the loss of love and affection of their father.  A child's consortium claim is measured from the date of injury through the 18th birthday.  The child's claim can be brought any time before his or her 19th birthday.  The wife also has a claim for loss of love and affection; however, it would likely be of very limited value for two reasons.  First, because they were already going through a divorce, it would be difficult to argue that there was any loss of love and affection.  Second, a spousal loss of consortium claim in Kentucky is limited to the time of injury until the time of death.  Here, that period of time would be only seconds or minutes.  Kentucky courts have held that a spousal consortium claim could not be brough in a case where the time between injury and death was only an hour.  Unless and until the law in Kentucky recognizes a spouse's right to claim a loss for the loss of love and affection after the death, we are severly limited in the claims we can make.  That being said, this exact issue is going to be addressed by the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2009.

hans

Survey Finds Link Between Arrogant Doctors and ....

According to a recent article in the New York Times, studies have now linked physician behavior and attitudes to poor patient outcome.  For example, "A survey of health care workers at 102 nonprofit hospitals from 2004 to 2007 found that 67 percent of respondents said they thought there was a link between disruptive behavior and medical mistakes, and 18 percent said they knew of a mistake that occurred because of an obnoxious doctor. (The author was Dr. Alan Rosenstein, medical director for the West Coast region of VHA Inc., an alliance of nonprofit hospitals.) Another survey by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit organization, found that 40 percent of hospital staff members reported having been so intimidated by a doctor that they did not share their concerns about orders for medication that appeared to be incorrect. As a result, 7 percent said they contributed to a medication error."

The article begins by recounting how a nurse knew her patient, a child with a shunt in his brain to drain fluid, was in trouble.  She paged the on-call doctor who told her not to worry.  She paged a second time and he told her that she wasn't a doctor and didn't know what to look for.  The doctor ignored her third page.  The nurse then called the child's treating physician at home who ordered the child rushed to emergency surgery.

These situations are not unfamiliar to attorneys that handle medical negligence cases.  One particular area of concern is in obstetrical care.  Generally, a labor and deliver nurse will be with the expecting mother.  The labor and deliver nurse montiors the mother and child's vital signs.  The most important vital signs are shown on the fetal monitoring strip.  Sometimes the fetus can begin having problems in the uterus.  One example is when the cord gets wrapped around the baby's neck.  As a result, labor and deliver nurses must monitor the fetal strips for bradycardia and tachycardia. 

When the labor and deliver nurse recognizes a problem with the baby, she must alert the obstetrician to the problem. Sometimes, the OB ignores the nurse, thinking the nurse is overreacting.  This arrogance can lead to tragic consequences including death or injury (brain damage or cerebral palsy) to the child or mother. 

We hope this study will empower nurse and other healthcare providers to be strong advocates for their patients and encourage doctors act as part of a the medical team and not mini-dictators.  The stakes are too high not to.

hans

Medicare To Stop Paying for Medical Mistakes

According to an article today in the Washington Post, Medicare announced a policy change this year that could have some serious implications in the area of medical malpractice and nursing home negligence  In short, Medicare will no longer pay for treatment of conditions that were caused by a healthcare provider, or could have been prevented.  The rule identifies eight conditions _ including three serious types of preventable incidents sometimes called "never events" _ that Medicare no longer will pay for.  Those conditions are: objects left in a patient during surgery; blood incompatibility; air embolism; falls; mediastinitis, which is an infection after heart surgery; urinary tract infections from using catheters; pressure ulcers, or bed sores; and vascular infections from using catheters.

Lisa A. McGiffert, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union, said: "Medicare is using its clout to improve care and keep patients safe. It's forcing hospitals to face this problem in a way they never have before."

While I can certainly understand the reasons behind this policy change, it does cause me some concern.  If Medicare is no longer going to pay for the costs of treating a medical mistake, who will shoulder this burden?  Will it be passed on to the victim.

Pressure sores, while entirely preventable, are a common occurence in poorly run nursing homes and require extensive treatment.  If the nursing home or hospital is not paid by Medicare to treat the wound, will they do it?

Hans Poppe

Louisville, Kentucky

update:  I was so concerned about the implications of the new "no pay" rule and whether consumers would be required to foot the bill for the medical mistakes of a hospital, I decided to do some more research.  At least according to Jeff Nelligan, the director of Media Affairs for Medicare, as reported to Fox News, "The hospital cannot bill the beneficiary for any charges associated with the hospital-acquired complication," the final rules say.

This being said I'm certain private insurers will follow suit and they may not have the foresight to include such a restriction in their provider contracts. 

Why Kanye' Might Not Be Able To Find a Lawyer for his Mother's Medical Malpractice Case

According to reports, Kanye West's mother, Dr. Donda West, may have died as the result of complications from cosmetic surgery.  The surgery was performed by Dr. Jan Adams. 
Before anyone rushes to the conclusion that the West Estate is entitled to a super large medical malpractice award, let me point out that California has caps on non-economic damages.
Since the mid-70s, California has limited a medical negligence victim's recovery for non-economic damages to $250,000.  These are damages for things such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other non-pecuniary injury.  The cap applies whether the case is for injury or death, and it allows only one $250,000 recovery in a wrongful death case. 
According to the Rand Study, "Researchers found that cases involving patients who died were much more likely to have awards reduced than non-fatal injury cases, and the median change in total award size when the verdict was capped were larger among cases involving death than for injury cases (49 percent versus 28 percent)."
Many consumer advocate groups and California Consumer Attorneys point out that caps don't work and, instead, they hurt the most severely injured victims.
The Center for Justice & Democracy points out that the purposes of caps (lowering doctor's insurance premiums and discouraging frivolous lawsuits) has not been seen in California's system: "Thirteen years after the state’s severe $250,000 cap on damages was enacted (MICRA, passed in 1975), “doctors’ premiums had increased by 450 percent and reached an all-time high in California.” But in 1988 California voters passed a stringent insurance regulatory law, Proposition 103, which “reduced California doctors’ premiums by 20 per within three years,” and stabilized rates. In the thirteen years after MICRA, but before the insurance reforms of Prop. 103, California medical malpractice premiums rose faster than the national average.  In the twelve years after Prop. 103 (1988-2000), malpractice premiums dropped 8 percent in California, while nationally they were up 25 percent. Moreover, the law has led to public hearings on recent rate requests by medical malpractice insurers in California, which resulted in rate hikes being lowered three times.  The “liability insurance crisis” of the mid-1980s was ultimately found to be caused not by legal system excesses but by the economic cycle of the insurance industry.  Just as the liability insurance crisis was found to be driven by this cycle and not a tort law cost explosion as many insurance companies and others had claimed, the “tort reform” remedy pushed by these advocates failed.  It has failed again.   Only effective insurance reforms will stop these cyclical insurance crises."

As recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, severely injured victims of malpractice are unable to find lawyers because of caps.  "As Malpractice Caps Spread, Lawyers  Turn Away Some Cases."

While I doubt that Kanye will have any trouble finding a lawyer, others in California and other states that have unfair caps on damages may not be so lucky.

Addendum:  Be sure to watch WHAS 11 News at 11:00 p.m., Tuesday November 27th for my interview on the subject of medical malpractice and plastic surgery.

Hans Poppe

WHAS Interviews Hans About Medical Malpractice and Plastic Surgery

Be sure to watch WHAS 11 News at 11:00 p.m., on Tuesday, November 27th when Kirby Adams interviews Hans about medical malpractice and plastic surgery.  We'll post a link following the interview.

Watch the WHAS 11 News Interview with Hans about Medical Malpractice and Plastic Sugery

See the WHAS 11 News interview with me about one of my plastic surgery medical malpractice cases by clicking here.

Senator McCain Speaks Out Against Victims of Medical Negligence

Well, it seems that Senator McCain doesn't want to see negligent doctors and hospitals held responsible when they injure or kill people.  Speaking at the Surf and Golf Club in Myrtle Beach, McCain told a crowd of about 70 people that he was in favor of tort reform and would make it his second highest priority.  McCain went on to say that the victims of medical malpractice should be forced to pay the entire costs of litigation if they lose at trial. 
What the senator fails to realize is that their simply is not a litigation crisis, especially when it comes to medical malpractice.  A medical negligence case will cost the victim's attorney anywhere between $50,000 to 200,000 to get to trial.  Lawyers can't afford to file frivolous lawsuits against doctors because they are too expensive.  Plain and simple. 
Loser pays isn't fair to the victims.  It's hard enought to find an attorney to handle a medical negligence case, but implementing a "loser pays" system would make it nearly impossible.  I have seen several cases proceed to trial where there was negligence, but the doctor still won the case.  It happens a lot.  Juries are very critical of medical malpractice cases and, as a result, they often find in favor of the doctors--regardless of whether their truly was malpractice.
What's even more troubling is that McCain doesn't explain how his system would lower insurance rates for doctors.  Without some type of accountability from medical malpractice insurance companies, they will never lower rates.  This has been the case in most states that have instituted tort reform  Insurance premiums have remained high, even though the number of cases filed has dropped.  In fact, the largest medical malpractice insurers have profits double that of the average Fortune 500 Company
If McCain really wants to lower the insurance rates for doctors, they should start regulating insurance companies that provide the coverage.  Currently, they can charge whatever they want--and they do.  They simply blame it on frivolous lawsuits and lawyers.  Evidently McCain has been drinking the insurance lobby's Kool-Aid for too long.  Instead, he should read the May 11 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine's study finding that almost every medical malpractice lawsuit has merit and that caps will not reduce doctor's premiums
McCain should also go back and read the Congressional Budget Office's Report which found that medical malpractice litigation accounted for less than 2% of total health care costs.  Shame on you Senator McCain.  To read more about medical malpractice myths, click here.
Hans Poppe

Surgeon Faces Medical Malpractice Hearing for Photographing Patient's ...What???

A Phoenix Arizona surgeon is in hot water for photographing a male patient's genitals during a surgery.  The strip club owner had "hot rod" tatoo on his penis.  While inserting the catheter, the surgeon decided to snap a photo to share with his pals.  Ultimately, the picture snapping doc was outed to a local newspaper.  You can read about it here .
Hans Poppe

The new "hello" at your doctor's office: Sign Here Not to Sue Me

More and more, healthcare providers are attempting to take away a patient's right to seek compensation if the doctor makes a mistake that causes the patient injury.  Most of us regular people have to take responsibility for our actions.  If you cause a wreck, someone is likely to make a claim against your insurance.  But for some reason, doctor's (read "really their insurance companies") don't want to be responsible for their mistakes when the injure or kill someone becuase of malpractice and they are forcing their patients to sign documents agreeing to waive their right to file a lawsuit in the future or they won't provide medical treatment.  Don't do it!!
Here is a very interesting article on it from a Florida newspaper.
Hans

Doctor That Fought To Limit Damages In Medical Negligence Cases Now Sees The Harm It Can Cause

"When I helped spearhead the tort reform movement in Nevada, I didn't foresee the unintended consequences of innocent, truly injured individuals not receiving their rightful awards due to jurors' misguided emotions. Had I been aware of that possibility, what would I have done?" 

Not words you would expect to hear from a doctor, but they are.  Arnold Wax, M.D., a Nevada oncologist recently wrote an article that appeared in the online publication The Medical Economist.  In it, he recounts how he began treating a woman with a skin lesion in 2002.  The lesion was removed and sent to a pathologist for review.  The pathologist diagnosed a non-cancerous condition.  In 2004 the lesion returned.  It was again removed and send to a pathologist, only this time it was read as being cancerous.
Dr. Wax was shocked.  The pathologist that read the slide in 2002 admitted he misread the slide.  Dr. Wax was asked to be an expert witness (doctor's very rarely ever agree to be an expert for their patient).  in the lawsuit for a woman he describes as a delightful widowed grandmother taking care of her grandchildren. 
Here is what he said: "The trial lasted six days. I was on the witness stand for two hours for direct and cross examination. I described the statistical decrease in Mary's five-year survival, as well as all treatment variations between the different stages of melanoma. I also stated that I thought the pathologist's admission of his mistake was "honorable." As I'd expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to my surprise, Mary wasn't awarded any damages. One of her attorneys later told me that the jury wanted to pin an award on the pathologist's professional corporation, but it hadn't been named in the suit. The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state's tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.The trial judge was incensed by the verdict, because the jury didn't follow the legal standard that should have been applied in the case. I was later informed that the defense attorneys planned to go after Mary for court costs, something that the judge vowed he'd never let happen."
Dr. Wax concludes his article with the realization that he did not fully consider the impact the caps on damages he had fought for would have on patients who suffered legitimate injuries. 
This is exactly what plaintiff's attorneys have been saying for years....
Hans