Oregon Injury Lawyer Blog

The death of a patient who was also reportedly a close friend and employee of the accused doctor has left “a Northeast Portland physician (facing) administrative charges” and the possible loss of her medical license, according to a recent article published by The Oregonian.

The newspaper reports that the doctor has been charged with “gross or repeated negligence” connected to a December 2010 procedure in which her misadministration of a local anesthetic caused the patient to suffer a seizure and lose consciousness. The patient died four days later. The doctor, who now stands accused of Oregon medical malpractice, told the investigating board that “the surgery was to remove a lesion, (but) she told her patient’s son it was an attempted ‘tummy tuck’ to remove unwanted fat.”

The report by the medical board cited a number of significant issues, including inadequate evaluation by the doctor prior to surgery, the presence of insufficient back-up resources in case something went wrong and failure “to recognize symptoms of the drug overdose” once they became apparent.

Stories like this remind us of the important role that medical boards, courts and Portland medical malpractice attorneys play at the confluence of our medical and legal systems, acting to help families ensure that justice is served in the wake of preventable tragedy. No one wants to believe that tragedy will strike them – particularly when seeing a trusted physician for what ought to be a relatively routine procedure. But when doctors act negligently, accountability is essential.

The Oregonian: Oregon Medical Board sheds light on cosmetic surgery by Northeast Portland doctor that led to woman’s death

It is one of the things we all most fear – and over which we have the least control – when entering the hospital: preventable errors. Recently, Portland’s main newspaper has been reporting on an equally disturbing problem related to preventable errors and Oregon medical malpractice: the fact that because some of the reporting hospitals do regarding their mistakes seems to be coming up short. As a result, there is not as much data available to doctors and medical administrators as there should be. That, in turn, may mean that some hospital errors are going unaddressed because word of them is not making its way through the state health system.

The issue was brought to light by a recent article in The Oregonian. The paper noted that “at least 34 patients died as a result of preventable mistakes in Oregon hospitals last year.” The real issue, however, is that fully one-third of Oregon’s hospitals “chose not to report a single error in 2010.” As the paper notes, “this strains credulity.”

Hospital reporting is an issue I’ve addressed before – and one that should command a lot more public attention than it does. It is, of course, natural that few people like to acknowledge error, but when reporting data could lead to better procedures and, eventually, a drop in Oregon hospital deaths we have entered a realm where pride has no place.

As the head of Oregon’s Patient Safety Commission told The Oregonian: “The truth is, the culture of patient safety is not where it needs to be.” That is a sad analysis to hear from a government official charged with ensuring that professionals do something that, frankly, they should not need to be told to do.

That is why, regrettably, our legal system also has a role in medical practice. A Portland medical malpractice lawyer can help families coping with the tragedy of a preventable Oregon medical error. Justice, in such situations, can be hard to fight for. So it is important to know that you have experienced, compassionate legal help when you need it most.

The Oregonian: Oregon hospitals reported 136 preventable errors last year, 34 resulting in death

The Oregonian: Avoiding errors by reporting them

Resource:
Oregon Patient Safety Commission

A recent column in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call highlights a potentially serious attack on patients rights here in Oregon and elsewhere, one that has received relatively little notice in the months since the new Congress convened.

The focus of the piece is HR 5. Formally titled the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare Act (i.e. the “HEALTH Act”), it is billed as a centerpiece of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the health care reform act passed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats last year. According to the federal government’s legislative bill-tracking service, Thomas.gov, the bill is co-sponsored by about half of all the Republicans in the House. Among Oregon’s congressional delegation only Rep. Greg Walden, whose district covers much of rural eastern and central Oregon, is a co-sponsor.

The official summary says that the bill “sets conditions for lawsuits arising from health care liability claims.” In particular, it establishes a three-year statute of limitations for most health-care related injuries. In addition, the bill “limits noneconomic damages to $250,000 (and) makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.” It also forbids the awarding of punitive damages “in the case of products approved, cleared or licensed” by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In practical terms what does all of that mean for personal injury and medical malpractice victims here in Oregon? The most important effect of the bill would be to sweep away state law where medical malpractice and patients rights are concerned. As the Roll Call column notes, these matters have traditionally been left to the states (making it somewhat ironic that among HR 5’s sponsors are many of Congress’ most vocal defenders of states’ rights). It would, in effect, replace decades of carefully considered state law on Oregon product liability, medical malpractice and patients’ rights with a national, one-size-fits-all, approach.

From a Portland personal injury lawyer’s perspective, this legislation deserves closer public scrutiny. The effect on victims seeking justice for a medical malpractice claim or severe brain injury here in Oregon could be devastating – shifting the scales of justice decisively in favor of large companies or irresponsible players within the health care system. It is particularly worrisome that the legislation would, in effect, provide blanket immunity from lawsuits to any product or drug approved by the FDA regardless of the circumstances of the product’s failure or the nature of the damage it caused. Clients should know, however, that Oregon’s medical malpractice, traumatic brain injury and personal injury attorneys will be here to defend them, regardless of what happens in Washington DC.

Roll Call: Vance: Medical Malpractice Is Issue for the States

Thomas.gov: Official summary of HR 5

The US Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that raises important issues about personal privacy, patients relationships with their doctors and what some see as corporate America’s right to see people’s personal data because doing so may aid their marketing efforts.

According to the Burlington Free Press, the case turns on “a Vermont law that restricts the use of doctors’ prescription records for marketing purposes.” Pharmaceutical companies have challenged the law, arguing that they need to know which doctors are prescribing generic as opposed to brand-name drugs so that they can target their marketing to doctors who, they feel, should opt for generic medicines less often. The Free Press reports that 35 states, the District of Columbia, the US Justice Department and “organizations representing more than 100,000 physicians” back the law, while “numerous business and research groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce” oppose it. The measure went into effect last year. A Federal District judge upheld it, but was reversed by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

From a patients’ perspective challenges to this law raise several potentially disturbing issues. As patients we presume our conversations with out doctors are private. It is unclear from the court arguments whether personally identifiable information is being shared with drug companies. Also, should patients have some right to know whether their doctor’s prescribing decisions were effected by a marketing hard-sell from drug manufacturers? Considering the number of scandals in recent years surrounding medical marketing these are very legitimate questions for patients to ask.

Unfortunately, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of asking their doctor these sort of pointed questions. Answers that would have been useful when a person is sick may emerge only later as part of a medical malpractice or wrongful death case.

Washington and Oregon personal injury attorneys are here to help level the playing field between average citizens and companies who put their marketing plans ahead of the public good. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the Vermont case later this year, and it will bear close scrutiny at that time. When corporations are out mainly for themselves we need to rely on our courts to protect ordinary citizens rights to both privacy and crucial health-related information.

The Burlington Free Press: Supreme Court questions Vermont’s limits on use of prescription data

Following up a story I wrote about in February, The Oregonian reports that federal regulators have cleared Portland Adventist Medical Center of wrongdoing in a high-profile case in which a man died of a heart attack in the hospital’s parking lot.

As regular readers will recall, 61-year-old Birgilio Marin-Fuentes suffered a heart attack as he drove into Adventist’s parking facility on February 10. He crashed his car into a wall, but lay in the vehicle unnoticed for more than 20 minutes despite the presence of surveillance cameras in the facility and the fact that the emergency room door was only a short distance away.

Police eventually arrived to help the stricken man. There is some dispute over how the hospital acted at this point. Some accounts say a police officer who ran to the emergency room was rebuffed by desk staff there and told the emergency needed to be telephoned in before hospital staff could respond – despite the emergency being on their own property. Hospital spokespersons have rejected that version of events. Martin-Fuentes died shortly after being moved inside the hospital building.

A federal investigation has now cleared the hospital of wrongdoing, but it is important to understand that this relatively narrow decision does not necessarily close the case in legal terms. According to The Oregonian, the federal review, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, found that no federal laws were violated. That review, however, was relatively narrow. Specifically, it addressed the 1986 law that “requires all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments to treat any critically ill patients on their premises, including parking lots,” the newspaper notes.

In this potential case of Oregon medical malpractice, however, the hospital’s responsibility may extend beyond a narrow reading of federal law. While it is true that Adventist eventually offered care to the accident victim the manner of their response – particularly the alleged overly technical attention to procedures designed to alert the hospital to accident victims across town as opposed to in their own parking garage – raises issues of both ethics and civil law. Put simply, the fact that Adventist violated no federal law, narrowly defined, does not mean that they may not still be responsible for a wrongful hospital death or case or Oregon medical malpractice on their property. A Portland hospital death and medical malpractice attorney can advise family members caught in unthinkable situations like this one of the best way to obtain justice when a narrow reading of federal criminal laws does not adequately address the harm suffered by victims and their families.

The Oregonian: Federal regulators clear Portland Adventist Medical Center in parking lot emergency

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Adventist passes review in parking lot death

On March 30 a case was argued before the US Supreme Court that has the potential to impact the use of nearly every generic prescription drug sold in America. The court heard oral arguments in a case involving generic drug manufacturers and their contention that they should be held to less strict labeling laws – and receive greater immunity from lawsuits – than the manufacturers of brand-name medications. This case has clear, significant implications for personal injury and medical malpractice law here in Oregon. The court’s final decision, expected in the late spring or early summer, will bear close scrutiny

According to a detailed account of the case on the website of the American Association for Justice, generic drug makers are arguing that a federal law requiring them to use the same labels as their brand-name rivals prohibits them from strengthening warnings to consumers and also, in effect, prohibits consumers injured by generic drugs from suing the manufacturers over labeling issues. They are making this claim, AAJ notes, despite a court brief filed by one of the congressmen who write the law saying that his, and Congress’, intent was nothing like what the drug makers claim.

At issue is a piece of legislation known as “Hatch-Waxman” that requires “a generic label to match that of its associated brand-name drug.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs, two women injured by a generic prescription drug for stomach conditions, described the case as turning on the manufacturers’ belief that “in the face of considerable information that the warnings on their products were inadequate” generic drug manufacturers did nothing to protect consumers, and feel they should suffer no consequences for that decision. The case is especially important since, as AAJ reports, “70 percent of all prescriptions in the United States are filled with generic drugs and that, of the drugs that have both a generic and a brand-name available, more than 90 percent of the prescriptions are filled with generics.”

The article notes that the plaintiffs’ attorneys say even the manufacturers concede that they could have phoned the Food and Drug Administration to ask for a ruling mandating stronger warning labels (for generics and brand-names alike) but failed to do so. AAJ reports that during oral arguments several of the justices on the Supreme Court seemed to find the manufacturers’ claims implausible at best. “Do you think Congress really intended to create a market in which consumers can only sue brand-name products?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

However it is resolved, this case is an important reminder of the role personal injury lawyers here in Oregon and elsewhere play in helping to protect consumers from corporations that use loopholes in complex laws to improve their bottom lines at the expense of public health or safety.

American Association for Justice – Trial News: Supreme Court takes up preemption in generic drug case

A report released this week by the consumer watchdog organization Public Citizen raises serious questions about the conduct of state medical boards, according to an analysis published by the Los Angeles Times. The charges, in turn, raise broader questions about the conduct of hospitals and doctors and the prevalence in our health care system of doctors who are problematic at best. Here in Oregon it must make conscientious citizens wonder whether instances of medical malpractice or even wrongful deaths have been allowed to occur as a result of insufficient professional oversight.

As outlined by Public Citizen on the group’s website (see link below) the study examined 20 years of data (1990-2009) regarding doctors who have had “one or more clinical privilege actions,” meaning that they have had some or all of their hospital or emergency privileges withdrawn because of misconduct, incompetence or some other professional infraction. It then compared these numbers with the numbers of physicians sanctioned over the same period by state medical boards. The analysis yields a shocking result: nationwide, 55% of doctors disciplined by their hospitals suffered no further punishment from their state licensing board.

When thinking about the possible implications of this information for Oregon medical malpractice we can take some comfort from the fact that our state had one of the better records on this score. In Oregon, 41.48% of doctors who had some or all of their hospital privileges revoked over the study period suffered no state-imposed sanction. That number is obviously far too high, though it is better than what one finds in most other states (for comparative purposes: Colorado had the lowest rate of unsanctioned doctors at 31.63%; Hawaii was worst with a truly shocking 77.08%).

Some will argue that the gap between hospital-punished and state-punished doctors is proof that individual hospitals hold their doctors to higher standards than the minimum prescribed by state medical boards, and, in fairness, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the discrepancy can be accounted for in this manner. It is, however, equally reasonable to assume that a good proportion of the difference can be attributed to state medical boards being slow to act or, perhaps, applying standards that are too lax. That, in turn, raises the question: who is protecting patients from doctors who, after being disciplined at one hospital, simply move on to another?

The ideal, of course, is for all physicians to be properly supervised and, when necessary, disciplined. It is difficult for individual patients to assess a doctor’s credentials – that is why we have state medical boards in the first place. When patient are injured because regulatory bodies failed to act properly, it is time for our courts to get involved and to act as a final line of defense – and accountability – between doctors and the public. A Portland medical malpractice and wrongful death attorney can offer invaluable advice and assistance to families who believe a doctor who should not have been practicing has damaged their lives.

Los Angeles Times: Report: States fail to discipline rogue doctors

Washington Post: Report: State boards don’t punish all doctors sanctioned by hospitals

Public Citizen’s News Release on the Study (this page includes a link to the full report)

A California nursing home has been ordered to pay the largest fines allowed under state law following the death of a patient. For us here in Oregon this nursing home neglect and abuse case, though it comes from out-of-state, serves as a powerful reminder of the important role courts and regulators play in keeping watch over those charged with helping vulnerable seniors.

According to a report in the Orange County Register the case stems from the death of 93-year-old Donald Bodkin, who, the paper reports, “died in September from an undetected ruptured intestinal ulcer and infection.” Bodkin was not a long-time resident of the home but, rather, had checked in only a few weeks earlier for a temporary stay while recovering from hip surgery.

The paper reports that the state believes the home did not assess Bodkin’s condition properly, failed to tell his doctor once the symptoms became obvious and ignored warnings from both family members and an occupational therapist “that he was lethargic and in pain.” The nursing home has expressed regret for Bodkin’s death but said in a statement that it does not believe the actions of any of its staff “caused or contributed to this unfortunate event.”

This tragedy is a reminder of how important it is for state governments to supervise nursing homes and for our courts to enforce the rules and regulations government puts in place to protect our seniors. When Oregon nursing home neglect or abuse take place and the people charged with helping our loved ones through their final years fail to perform their jobs, an Oregon nursing home abuse attorney can help families and other loved ones win justice.

Orange County Register: Nursing Home fined in Patient Death

With little public notice this week the House Judiciary Committee in Washington DC sent to the floor a proposed law that, if enacted, will dramatically curtail the right of Oregonians to receive just compensation in medical malpractice lawsuits. As laid out in the official summary of the legislation (click here to read the full summary at the legislative-tracking website Thomas.gov) the so-called Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 would shorten the statute of limitations for most medical malpractice cases and make it much more difficult to win punitive damages in an Oregon medical malpractice case. Any defendant who managed to win in court despite these new rules would find that the law also places severe limits on the size of the damages a court can award.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), was first introduced late last month as HR 5 (the Senate version of the legislation, S 218, is sponsored by Nevada Republican John Ensign). It was hustled through the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and passed out of committee on a voice vote – a stunningly fast timeline for such potentially momentous legislation.

Two of the most telling aspects of HR 5 are clauses that would shield the pharmaceutical and medical device industries from responsibility for their actions while limiting attorney’s fees in medical malpractice and medical wrongful death suits to a level that may discourage many attorneys from taking on such cases.

The sections shielding medical companies would bar the awarding of punitive damages for any claim against a product “approved, cleared or licensed by the Food and Drug Administration” while also making it much harder to sue the doctors and other medical staff themselves. Victims would have to prove that a medical professional had acted with “malicious intent” – a standard that seems designed to be impossible to meet.

Even if someone did manage to convince a court that a doctor was trying to harm the patient (that’s basically what “malicious intent” means) the law would severely limit both the amount the victim could win, and the portion of the award that could go for attorney’s fees. In this respect, the bill seems to be modeled on legislation recently enacted in Texas which, as I wrote last December, has made it difficult for victims to find attorneys economically able to take their cases and defend them against deep-pocketed hospitals and medical companies.

The question going forward is whether we, as Americans, will allow our rights to justice and fair compensation to be taken away so easily?

On its surface it is an Oregon wrongful death story so unbelievable it reads like the plot of a prime time police drama: a man feeling ill and heading for the hospital suffers a heart attack, crashes his car into a wall inside the hospital’s parking structure only steps from the emergency room entrance… then lies there, unconscious, for 20 minutes before anyone notices him. When summoned to the scene, the police attempt to revive him while sending another officer running into the emergency room for help – only to be told that hospital protocol requires the police to call 911 first and then wait for a dispatcher to give a formal order for the hospital’s own ambulance to pick up a patient lying only steps from the emergency room door, according to an account published in The Oregonian.

The heart attack victim, Birgilio Marin-Fuentes eventually made it into the emergency room, but was pronounced dead a short time later. The week since this Oregon hospital death has been marked by finger pointing between the police and the hospital, Portland Adventist, a threat from a U.S. congressman to investigate the hospital and seeming incomprehension throughout the city at how bureaucracy could have gotten so badly in the way of what would seem to be simple common sense.

However this case is eventually resolved on a criminal level, it raises serious questions that may also need to be resolved in civil court, via a Portland wrongful death or Portland medical malpractice lawsuit. Even if there were compelling reasons to adhere to procedures designed to dispatch emergency care across town, rather than across the hospital’s own parking lot, one needs to ask, in turn, why the emergency protocols themselves were so rigid.

Questions like these are best addressed with the help of a Portland wrongful death attorney who specializes in Oregon medical malpractice and personal injury law. A skilled legal specialist can advise families and survivors on the best ways to obtain justice in the wake of what can seem like a particularly senseless tragedy.

The Oregonian: Portland police try to save a life just outside Portland Adventist Medical Center

A newspaper’s detailed account of a teenage girl who suffered brain damage and eventually died because of negligence during what should have been a routine outpatient procedure was presented to Congress last week by patients rights advocates, according to an account in the Sacramento Bee.

The girl suffered brain damage during what should have been a routine procedure at a Los Angeles area hospital operated by UCLA. She never regained consciousness and died shortly after her parents authorized the removal of her respirator. What is truly shocking about this case, however, is the lengthy battle the girl’s parents had to go through just to get the hospital to level with them about what happened – and the difficulties they experienced in finding a medical malpractice attorney willing to take the case because of statutory limits on medical malpractice damages.

Hospitals and doctors claim such limits are necessary to curb frivolous lawsuits. In many states, however, the effect has been to shield the medical industry from accountability for negligence, particularly negligence leading to wrongful deaths here in Oregon and elsewhere around the country. Relatively low damage limits, in particular, can create an incentive for hospitals to stall families and their wrongful death attorneys with the goal of making the case too expensive for a personal injury or medical malpractice lawyer to pursue.

Additionally, the wide variance of medical malpractice law from state to state can make it especially difficult for bereaved families to know where they stand.

For all these reasons it is especially important that families who believe they may have been the victim of medical negligence here in Oregon to contact a Portland medical malpractice attorney at the first possible opportunity. Justice is best served by making the proper enquiries as soon as possible after the damage is done.

Sacramento Bee: Parents assail malpractice caps after daughter’s death at UCLA hospital

A medical journal study released this month offers alarming evidence about the long-term prospects for stroke victims and raises broader questions about the way hospitals treat them. The study, originally published in the medical journal Stroke, and reported on by a number of mainstream media outlets, found that, as summarized by Bloomberg Businessweek: “within a year of having a stroke, almost two-thirds of Medicare patients die or wind up back in the hospital.”

According to Businessweek, the study looked at data covering over 91,000 Medicare patients at 625 hospitals nationwide. It covered the years 2003 to 2006 and found no change in the rates of rehospitalization or death over that period. One caveat, noted by outside experts interviewed by the magazine, is that a study like this – one focusing on older patients – can have a difficult time controlling for other medical issues the patients may be experiencing.

The study uncovered a death rate of 14.1 percent within the first 30 days after a stroke and 31.1 percent within a year. More alarmingly, “61.9 percent of stroke patients were readmitted to hospital or died within a year of their stroke,” Businessweek notes.

The results raise complex questions about wrongful death and medical malpractice both here in Oregon and elsewhere. Does this extraordinarily high rehospitalization rate indicate that the medical profession may not be handling stroke victims – especially those on Medicare – in the best way possible? Is a failure to question ‘standard’ practices leading to worse outcomes form patients?

As the medical profession begins to grapple with these questions the study’s findings are something loved-ones should keep in mind in considering whether a companion or relative has received the best and most appropriate treatment when hospitalized following a stroke. Consulting with a Portland medical malpractice and wrongful death attorney is a key first step toward protecting your family’s rights and ensuring that justice is done following a stroke or other medical tragedy.

Bloomberg Businessweek: Health Risks Rise for Medicare Patients in Year After Stroke

WebMD: Study Gives ‘Striking’ Snapshot of Stroke Prognosis

Resource:
Centers For Disease Control & Prevention – Stroke Information Page

In looking at ways to contain the ever-rising cost of health care in America tort reform – a fancy way of saying ‘making it harder to sue bad doctors’ – is often cited as a quick fix. A recent article in the New York Times, however, underlines in the most harrowing ways possible the consequences that can arise when a legislature lets the urge to cut doctors costs outrun its concern for patients rights.

As the article details, in 2003 Texas changed its tort laws with the goal of making it “more difficult for patients to win damages in any health care setting, but especially emergency rooms.” The state’s big idea was to cap damage awards with the goal of bringing down doctors’ insurance rates: noneconomic damages in Texas are now limited to $250,000 from each health care provider and $750,000 overall.

The legislature also, however, sought to provide extra protection to emergency room doctors, on the grounds that they must often make split-second life-or-death decisions and, thus, should be insulated from frivolous lawsuits. It is a laudable goal in theory: reform that makes life easier for the hardest-pressed doctors and, in the process, lowers their insurance rates. To achieve this, however, the legislature used sweeping language, declaring that emergency room doctors cannot be sued at all unless a victim can show the doctor acted with “willful and wanton negligence”. In practice, as the Times notes, that standard has proven virtually impossible to meet.

Doctors’ insurance rates have, indeed, dropped – but as the newspaper details, many victims of what would be deemed gross negligence virtually anywhere else today find themselves with little or no legal recourse in the state of Texas. In effect, Texas law now protects incompetent doctors from the consequences of their actions unless the doctor was actively trying to harm a patient – and the patient can prove it.

Mercifully, this is not the way we do things here in Oregon. Under our laws, victims of medical malpractice have a full range of options to consider, and, if their case is sufficiently strong, can fight for a truly just settlement with the help of a Portland medical malpractice attorney. We can all agree that America’s medical system has its problems – but denying victims what they are rightfully due is not the way to fix them.

New York Times: State’s tort reform makes lawyers wary of taking on patients

With recent statistical reports demonstrating that elder abuse is a rising problem here in the United States, media reports here in Oregon indicate that officials at the state Department of Human Services fear our state may have become part of this disturbing trend.

According to a recent article published in The Daily Astorian, “national studies estimate 3 to 5 million seniors, aged 65 and older, have experienced abuse – but only 1 in 5 cases are reported.” Adult Protective Services agents are asking family members to keep an eye out for signs of trouble, particularly as we enter the holiday season.

Elder Abuse can take many forms, and need not be physical in nature. As an information page at the Oregon Department of Human Services’ website (see link below) outlines, Oregon elder abuse can take many forms. These may involve Oregon medical malpractice or nursing home neglect, but can also include financial exploitation or psychological and emotional trauma.

As the news website MyCentralOregon.com notes, “approximately 13% of Oregon’s population is now 65 years or older, with nearly 76,000 Oregonians having reached 85.” Those numbers speak to a need for redoubled vigilance on the part of the younger generation now charged with the care of aging parents.

If you feel that a loved one has been the victim of Oregon elder abuse or neglect, or of Oregon medical malpractice you owe it to yourself as well as the rest of your family to speak with a Portland medical malpractice attorney at the earliest possible opportunity. Because the definition of elder abuse can be so broad, and because medical malpractice can often be an extremely complicated charge to prove, skilled legal representation is essential at every stage of the process.

My CentralOregon.com: DHS: Elder Abuse An Underreported, Growing Problem

Daily Astorian: Abuse of elderly prompts warning

Resource:
Oregon Department of Human Services information page: Abuse & neglect of seniors and people with disabilities

Recent reporting by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer highlights important differences in how Washington and Oregon treat the reporting of medical errors. The article focuses on Washington, where hospitals are required to report their medical errors to state officials. It notes, however, that there are many holes in the system – notably concerning definitional questions. It also adds that such problems can be even worse in the 23 states where the reporting of hospital errors is not required by law.

Oregon, unfortunately, is one of those states. As the Oregon Patient Safety Commission’s website notes, its mission is to “establish a confidential, voluntary serious adverse event reporting system in Oregon.” Because reporting is voluntary, it is difficult to tell whether the 32 deaths from “preventable errors” in 2009 reported by The Oregonian earlier this year represent the sum total of deadly Oregon medical errors, or whether the problem is more serious than indicated by the available data.

In this regard the example of Washington is sobering. According to the Post-Intelligencer, even in a state where the reporting of serious hospital incidents is mandatory loopholes can allow obvious errors to slip through the system. The article I link to below tells the story of a Yakima man who went into the hospital for routine shoulder surgery, suffered brain damage due to nursing errors and died two days later. The newspaper reports that because the victim did not die within 24 hours of the surgery, however, the events were not considered to be related for incident reporting purposes. It took a complaint by the victim’s family for the incident to be formally logged and the hospital to become subject to disciplinary action.

The fact that Oregon’s medical error reporting laws are not as strong as they ought to be should give all of us pause. It also makes it all the more important that families of Oregon medical malpractice victims review their options with the assistance of an Oregon medical malpractice attorney at the first possible opportunity. A Portland lawyer with specialized experience in the field of medical errors can be your most important ally in the struggle to obtain justice in the wake of an Oregon hospital accident.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Despite law, medical errors likely to go unreported

The Oregonian: Preventable errors killed 32 patients in Oregon hospitals last year

RESOURCE:
Oregon Patient Safety Commission

The New York Times reported last week that Massachusetts has reached a settlement with the Stryker Corporation in a lawsuit alleging that the hip and knee manufacturer “marketed items without regulatory approval and misled health care providers about the use of its products.” The case focused specifically on Stryker’s OP-1 implant and OP-1 putty, according to the Times.

The $1.35 million settlement with Stryker’s biotech unit consists of a $325,000 civil penalty and $875,000 in funds to combat illegal marketing by other health-care related companies. The remainder is taken up by “legal fees and investigative costs.”

After the Massachusetts attorney general announced the settlement the company issued a statement emphasizing that under the terms of the agreement it has admitted no liability. It is hard, however, not to miss the product liability issues this may raise for Stryker in other states. Clearly, any Oregon patient suffering from the symptoms that were raised in the Massachusetts case would be well advised to consult with a Portland medical malpractice lawyer to consider best way to proceed.

Oregon product liability is especially serious when it touches on the medical device industry. The idea that unsafe artificial joints might be surgically installed in the bodies of unwitting patients is little short of terrifying. It is worth considering that doctors may also be among the victims in cases such as these. One of the allegations in the Massachusetts complaint is that Stryker’s sales people misled medical professionals, pushing them to use the company’s products in ways the FDA had not approved.

If you believe you or a loved one have become the victim of this, or a similar form of Oregon medical malpractice, prompt consultation with an Oregon personal injury attorney is essential. Protecting your rights in court can be a lengthy and confusing process, especially when a powerful corporation is lined up against you. A Portland personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer can be a key ally in your fight for justice.

Bloomberg via The New York Times: Stryker settles case that claimed deception

The 2008 death of a 25-year-old woman who was kept waiting at an Oregon hospital for more than six hours has prompted an Oregon wrongful death lawsuit directed against Springfield’s Sacred Heart Medical Center, according to the Associated Press.

The suit was filed by the woman’s parents, a couple from Eugene, who contend that the hospital’s failure to see and treat their daughter in a timely manner contributed to her death two days before Christmas 2008.

According to the AP, the woman, Martha Barr, arrived at the hospital around midday and was initially assessed by hospital staff as suffering from “shortness of breath, anxiety, fatigue, abnormally fast heart and respiration rates and low oxygen saturation.” It was, however, more than six hours before a doctor actually examined her. The doctor reportedly ordered a series of tests, but Barr went into “respiratory and cardiac arrest” before they could be performed and died just over two hours later. AP reports that in the Springfield wrongful death court papers the Eugene parents “contend that a long wait to see an emergency room doctor proved fatal for their daughter.”

Tragedies like the one endured by the Barr family are precisely the sort of events that should lead surviving loved ones to consult with an experienced Oregon personal injury attorney with detailed knowledge of Portland wrongful death and medical malpractice issues. A skilled professional can offer invaluable advice to bereaved family members at these most difficult of times.

AP via MSNBC: Parents in wrongful death lawsuit against hospital

New York Injury News: Springfield Oregon-based hospital named in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

If you arrive in a hospital emergency room unconscious and suffering from an Oregon traumatic brain injury can the doctors use you for a medical experiment without your consent? You might have thought the answer to that question was pretty obvious: absolutely not. According to a recent article in the Portland Tribune, however, you would be wrong.

The Tribune reports that researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, beginning this week, are using a loophole in federal regulations governing medical studies on humans to move ahead with an Oregon brain injury study. Under the so-called “community-wide study exception” the hospital has staged about 20 community meetings to explain its proposed brain injury study and may now presume that any unconscious person brought into the emergency room with an Oregon traumatic brain injury has consented to involvement in the study unless they are wearing a bracelet that declares otherwise, or family members arrive at the ER within one hour of the patient’s admission and refuse to consent to the injured person’s enrollment in the program.

The study in question involves use of progesterone, a hormone that may help severely injured patients recover from brain injuries. It raises, however, a broader question of what ‘informed consent’ ought to mean in the real world. Can an entire community legitimately be said to have agreed to be involved in a study on the basis of a series of public meetings, some of which, according to the paper, were attended by only a handful of people? What about people from elsewhere in Oregon or from out of state who are unlucky enough to be involved in a Portland auto accident and just happen to be taken to OHSU?

This development is particularly troubling for the precedent it sets. Indeed, the Tribune article notes that other studies have been conducted here in Oregon under the “community-wide” exception.

Situations like these are a reminder of the important role a Portland traumatic brain injury attorney can play in protecting your rights when you are unable to speak for yourself. Medical studies are important, but that does not mean a severely injured person’s consent to participate in a serious medical experiment ought to be presumed on the basis of where they live or what hospital first-responders happened to transport them to. An Oregon brain injury lawyer can work with your loved ones to ensure that your wishes are honored – not merely inferred.

Portland Tribune: Brain injury study hopes to overcome ‘consent’ concerns

As a recent report in The Oregonian details, Adventist Medical Center has witnessed a dramatic drop in Portland hospital deaths from bloodstream infections in the three-plus years since it instituted a new set of simple, but effective, safety procedures. The development is obviously good for patients, but it also has implications for Oregon wrongful death and medical malpractice claims related to our state’s hospitals.

The paper explains that in 2006 Adventist began implementing a set of relatively simple procedures developed at Maryland’s Johns Hopkins University. These involve medical professionals carefully checking each other to ensure thorough hand-washing before care-givers have contact with patients, greater attention to the use of antiseptics to clean patients skin and more extensive use of “full surgical regalia”.

As the paper reports, data collected by the state shows a dramatic drop in mortality and infection rates once the new procedures went into effect – especially when compared with other Portland area hospitals that do not follow the Johns Hopkins guidelines. The newspaper, citing Adventist’s director of quality resources, reports that there have been no ICU infections at the hospital since the spring of 2007.

These dramatic results also raise troubling legal questions. If Oregon deaths or debilitating injuries result from infections that could have been easily prevented does this constitute Oregon medical malpractice, particularly if the want of simple sanitary precautions leads to a Portland wrongful death?

The specifics of every case are different. That is why consultation with an experienced Oregon medical malpractice attorney is so crucial if a loved one has died or if you have suffered a serious injury or infection in a Portland-area hospital where the Johns Hopkins procedures were not in place. A Portland wrongful death lawyer can offer valuable advice regarding the legal options that may be open to you, and fight the medical industry to get the justice you deserve.

The Oregonian: Preventing hospital infections: How Portland hospitals compare

A state appeals court has upheld a $1.4 million Oregon medical malpractice judgment against the Oregon Health & Science University’s hospital and one of its doctors. The court rejected arguments by the university and doctor that state law capped Oregon medical malpractice liability at $200,000, according to local media reports. The Portland Business Journal reports that the hospital plans to appeal the ruling.

The focus of the case is former Portland TV host Ken Ackerman. According to The Oregonian, Ackerman contends that a botched 2003 operation to repair a bulging spinal disk has left him in near constant pain, reduced his dexterity in one hand and reduced his sensitivity to hot and cold on one side of his body. Ackerman sued for $5 million and was awarded $1.4 million after a 2006 Portland medical malpractice trial. His suit also challenged a law limiting damages against state employees performing their official duties to $200,000. The question of whether the law protected the doctor and hospital from damages above that figure was effectively resolved when the State Supreme court overturned the limits in a separate 2007 case.

Ackerman’s latest victory is good news for anyone who has been the victim of Oregon medical malpractice and is seeking compensation for his or her injuries. A Portland medical malpractice attorney can advise clients on the best ways to approach a case, based on the victim’s own particular experiences. In addition to medical bills and lost wages or salary, compensation can include awards for pain and suffering, and for lost potential income. The state’s moves to revise the old caps on liability awards is an important acknowledgement that in this age of ever-rising medical costs the value of damages associated with Oregon medical malpractice claims should also rise accordingly.

The Oregonian: Court rules that former Portland TV personality should get $1.4 million from doctor, OHSU

Portland Business Journal: OHSU will appeal $1.4M ruling

A fascinating column in the November issue of Consumer Reports magazine offered a frank call for more openness in medicine. Dr. John Santa, an internist who also directs the magazine’s Health Ratings Center, wrote: “Until our health care system gets its act together, patients and their families will have to be constructively assertive to get to the bottom of any mishaps.”

The reason for this, Dr. Santa writes, is that American medicine has developed a professional culture that is very reluctant to acknowledge error. Doctors and nurses fear professional consequences. Administrators, in turn, fear that publicizing mistakes will make medical professionals even more reluctant to report them. Ultimately, the real losers, he writes, are patients, who “deserve to know what happened and that the doctor or hospital is trying to rectify the situation.”

Dr. Santa also offers a series of helpful, common sense suggestions for patients, among them: “Enlist family members to keep track of your care” and “Know what medicine you’re taking and tell your doctor or nurse if you don’t recognize what you’re given.”

Though Dr. Santa does not mention it, it is also true that the legal system has emerged as a check on the sort of medical malfeasance about which he writes. Here in Oregon, a Portland medical malpractice lawyer can offer patients and their families advice on legal remedies they may have after something has gone wrong during a hospital stay. Medical malpractice suits are rarely pleasant, and often come in the wake of great personal pain and suffering on the part of patients and their families. An experienced and compassionate Oregon wrongful death and medical malpractice attorney can, however, be an important resource when other’s mistakes have thrown your family into despair.

An update on an issue I wrote about last month (click here to see the original post from November 21): as part of the last minute maneuvering to round up 60 votes for health care reform legislation in the US Senate, the measure ending the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies’ exemption from anti-trust law was dropped from the bill.

The measure was originally proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and supported by Oregon’s Attorney General. It would have made the legal situation surrounding Oregon medical malpractice more favorable to patients by ending an exemption from anti-trust law that health insurance companies and medical malpractice insurance companies have enjoyed since the 1940s. The exemption makes it much harder for Oregonians who have been injured through medical malpractice to sue insurance companies or for families to sue in the event of a loved-one’s death.

Leahy, backed by a number of state attorneys general, proposed repeal of the exemption when the Senate began its debate on the health care reform bill last month. Retaining the exemption, however, was one of the conditions that Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) extracted from party leaders as a condition of his vote to end a Republican filibuster against the bill.

The measure would have made it easier for an Oregon medical malpractice lawyer to take on the large insurance companies. Under present law, the anti-trust exemption frees health insurers from many aspects of competitive pressure. That, in turn, makes them less willing to settle cases brought by victims of malpractice or insurance abuse. This patient-friendly measure is not entirely dead, however. It was contained in the version of the legislation passed by the House and may still survive the House-Senate conference that will craft a final bill after the Christmas break.

New York Times: Comparison of Senate, House health care bills

Washington Post: Deal on health bill is reached

An obscure provision being debated today in the US Senate could have a major effect on Oregon medical malpractice. If approved, it could become easier for Portland medical malpractice attorneys to help clients win the compensation they deserve.

The proposal, championed by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would repeal the WWII era McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts both health insurers and medical malpractice insurers from antitrust law. Though the proposal has received little publicity, it recently got a boost when ten state attorneys general, including Oregon’s John Kroger, wrote Leahy (who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee) urging approval of the repeal. When debate on the health care bill began in the Senate Saturday morning Leahy was among the first speakers and devoted his remarks to the proposal.

According to Leahy, and the attorneys general, repeal of the exemption would allow the government to crack down on “flagrant anti-trust violations, including price-fixing, bid rigging and market allocations.” The attorneys general’s letter called for repeal of the exemption to make “antitrust enforcement the same here as for virtually all other industries, enhancing competition to the benefit of consumers.”

By introducing competition into the Oregon medical malpractice market the measure would also make it easier for consumers to sue the insurance companies. A practical consequence of the antitrust exemption is that Oregon medical malpractice and other insurance companies are freed from competitive pressure, making it harder for injured consumers, assisted by an Oregon medical malpractice lawyer, to take them on in court.

VermontBiz: Ten state attorneys general back Leahy’s health insurance antitrust exemption repeal

Resources:
Oregon Attorney General’s Website

Senate Judiciary Committee Website – Documents Section

The parents of a 3-year-old boy that died after surgery have agreed on a $200,000 Portland, Oregon wrongful death settlement with the doctor that performed the procedure. Ian McClellan died from septic shock 8 days after Dr. Jayant Patel perforated the 3-year-old’s bowel while trying to insert a feeding tube inside him. The surgical malpractice incident took place on February 5, 1999.

This is not the first Oregon medical malpractice lawsuit naming Patel as a defendant. Also, in 2000 the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners barred the surgeon from working again in the state. He eventually moved to Australia where he kept performing surgeries. He has been charged with manslaughter in that country over the deaths of three patients. Patel has been called “Dr. Death.”

Per Matthew and Anna Maria McClellan’s Oregon medical malpractice involving fatal injuries to minors lawsuit that they filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Patel discovered the perforation the day after the surgery when he opened up their son again. They say that Patel and the hospitals told them that Ian died because he developed a postoperative infection. It wasn't until April 15, 2005 when the Oregonian began publishing a number of articles about Patel’s work that they discovered the real reason their son died. The McClellans had originally sued Patel and the hospitals for $1.55 million.

Patel was employed by Kaiser Permanente in Portland. However, he operated on the boy at HSU Doernbecher Children's Hospital. According to a 2005 article published on MSNBC.com, Kaiser banned Patel from performing certain operations in 1998 after reviewing 79 of his cases. In addition to no longer being allowed to perform pancreatic and liver surgeries, he had to ask for a second opinion when dealing with more complicated cases.

Surgical Malpractice
Surgical mistakes can be fatal for the patient on the operating table. Some examples of surgical errors that can be grounds for Oregon medical malpractice or wrongful death claims include:

• Operating on the wrong organ or body part
• Using unsanitary surgical tools
• Leaving surgical instruments in the patient’s body
• Puncturing an organ
• Performing the wrong surgery

Parents of Oregon boy settle in surgery lawsuit, Google/AP, July 2, 2009

Australia's 'Dr. Death' linked to 87 fatalities, MSNBC, May 26, 2005

Related Web Resources:
Medical Malpractice and Surgical errors/complications, Wrong Diagnosis

Medical Malpractice, Justia

A leading cause of pediatric malpractice is a birth defect that isn’t often discussed but occurs more often than one would think: Malrotation, which involves the abnormal alignment of the bowel. This usually happens while the fetus is growing. This birth defect can also be hereditary. Occurring in 1 in 500 live births (like cerebral palsy), most cases are diagnosed by the time the baby turns one.

However, it is not uncommon for pediatricians to misdiagnose or delay diagnosis of this potentially deadly bowel condition and mistake malrotation for a mild illness, such as acid reflux. The only way to untwist the bowels if the malformation is serious is through surgery and when treatment is delayed, the defect can be fatal if blood flow to the intestines is blocked for too long. In many instances involving a misdiagnosed malrotation, a child with this birth defect end up having to be rushed to an emergency room.

Signs of Malrotation:

• Abdominal pain
• Projectile vomit that is green or yellow in color
• A bloody stool
• A swollen abdomen
• Rapid breathing or heart rate
• Drawing up of the legs

Malrotation can also result in other complications, such as Ladd’s bands, volvulus, and obstruction caused by either of these complications. The sooner malrotation is diagnosed, the better the chances that a child will recover fully and develop normally.

Pediatric Malpractice:
Your son or daughter deserves the proper medical care and when a pediatrician or another doctor is careless or makes a mistake that causes injury or death, the medical care provider should be held liable for the injuries to your child. Grounds for pediatric malpractice can include:

• Surgical errors
• Birthing injuries
• Meningitis
• Negligent care
• Delayed diagnosis
• Wrong diagnosis
• Prescription mistakes

Malrotation: Potentially fatal bowel condition often misdiagnosed as mild ailment, Chicago Sun-Times, April 21, 2009

Intestinal Malrotation, KidsHealth

Related Web Resources:
Malrotation

Malrotation and Volvulus, The American Pediatric Surgical Association

Continue reading "Malrotation in Children is a Leading Cause of Pediatric Malpractice" »

According to doctors and nurses at Providence Health & Services, newborns at Oregon hospitals appear to be at risk of falling. Hospital records from Providence Hospitals indicate that 20 fall accidents involving newborns occur each year in Oregon hospitals—a figure that some researchers consider a low estimate because parents and hospital staffers don’t always report newborn falls when they occur.

In a scientific study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, reporters noted that some 600 to 700 newborn falls occur at US hospitals each year. Examples of newborn falls include babies:

• Falling out of bassinets while they are being rolled down a hallway or onto an elevator.
• Dropping onto the floor during delivery.
• Slipping through the delivering doctor’s hands and onto the ground.
• Falling out of a sleeping parent's arms.

While the report doesn’t cite any specific fall accidents at hospitals that resulted in infants sustaining serious injuries, one newborn did sustain a skull fracture. However, a 2003 article on the Whitaker Foundation’s Web site found that babies are vulnerable to traumatic brain injuries during falls when the head hits a hard surface. Traumatic brain injuries also happen to be one of the leading causes of childhood deaths.

Dr. Robert Christensen and his colleagues at Intermountain Healthcare says that newborn falls are preventable and that there are measures that hospitals can take to prevent fall accidents from happening. For example, ordering nurses to regularly check on infants that are being held by parents during the night, changing bed designs to minimize fall accidents, and modifying sedative drug use by new mothers.

Oregon hospitals, doctors, and nurses are supposed to provide newborns with the proper care following delivery. This includes implementing the proper safety procedures so that injury accidents do not happen. If medical error, negligence, or carelessness results in serious injuries to your son or daughter, you may have grounds to file an Oregon medical malpractice claim or lawsuit.

Other injuries to newborns that may be grounds for medical malpractice include:

• Birthing injuries
• Forcep injuries
• Facial paralysis
• Brachial palsy
• Cerebral palsy
• Injuries caused by heparin (or another drug) overdose
• Fractures during labor
• Wrongful death

Hospitals look into ways to prevent newborn falls, The Oregonian, November 19, 2008

Infants More Vulnerable to Serious Brain Injury From Falling Than Previously Thought, The Whitaker Foundation, August 12, 2003

Related Web Resources:

Newborn Injuries, Family Practice Notebook

Birth Injuries

Continue reading "Oregon Hospitals Take Steps to Protect Newborns from Fall Injuries" »

The estate of Bend man Stephen Brenn is suing orthopedic surgeon Dr. Anthony Hinz for almost $10 million for Brenn’s wrongful death. The lawsuit has gone to trial.

Brenn died in 2006. The complaint accuses Hinz of negligence when he performed elective ankle surgery on Brenn. Brenn died just hours after the procedure.

Brenn’s estate has already reached a settlement agreement with St. Charles Medical Center-Bend. The trial now goes forward to determine whether Hinz and the nurses that gave Brenn pain medication were responsible for his wrongful death.

If your loved one has died because of what you believe was the negligence or carelessness of a doctor, a surgeon, a dentist, a nurse, a hospital, or another health care provider, you may be entitled to wrongful death recovery. Damages can include financial compensation for funeral and burial costs, the loss of a victim’s income and other benefits, loss of companionship, and other losses depending on the specifics of the case and your relationship to the deceased.

Examples of medical malpractice errors that can be grounds for a wrongful death lawsuit if the patient dies:

• Surgical mistakes
• Wrong diagnosis
• Delayed diagnosis
• Failing to provide a diagnosis
• Prescription errors
• Failing to perform the proper tests

It is important that you discuss your legal options with an experienced Portland, Oregon wrongful death law firm.

Bend doctor on trial in wrongful-death lawsuit, KTVZ.com, August 5, 2008

Wrongful Death Suit Asks for Almost Ten Milllion, KOHD.com, August 5, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Types of Medical Malpractice, WrongDiagnosis.com

Ankle / surgery, Intute