Panama City Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

How much radiation have you gotten from X-rays and CT and nuclear scans? Is it a potential cause of cancer, and do doctors have legal responsibility to you for it? Eric Topol was the head of the renowned cardiology department of the Cleveland Clinic. Now, he is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. He is a very knowledgeable doctor who advocates for increased use of available digital technology in medicine not only to give us better healthcare but also to prevent us from being harmed by malpractice.

Topol says we are overusing radiation on people here in the U.S. and that the situation is far worse here than anywhere in the world. In his studied view, the runaway use of nuclear and CT scans and PET imaging is alarming. Patients aren't informed about how much radiation they are getting or that it can cause cancer in them down the road. Non-ionizing radiation, as in MRI and ultrasound, doesn't hurt us, but doctors continue to rely heavily on scans that have harmful ionizing radiation.

A unit of measurement of the amount of radiation is a millisievert. Topol says we should be told how many millisieverts we are getting with a scan. Few people know that a CT angiogram of the heart is 16 millisieverts, the equivalent of 800 chest x-rays, or that a typical nuclear scan used in cardiology gives 41 millisieverts, the equivalent of 2000 chest x-rays. A simple badge, like that worn by technicians in x-ray labs, could measure the amount of radiation delivered to us over time. They aren't used on us.

The medical profession hasn't been held accountable for this over-treatment which data shows is causing an alarming 2-3% of the cancers in this country. He feels it represents a crisis, particularly in children. Dr. Topol frankly states that doctors are guilty of a serious breach of their responsibility to their patients. In plain words, that is medical malpractice.

In November 2010, I reported to you that total hip replacement implants made by Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, DePuy, were failing at a high rate, not unlike a lot of other products that are marketed before being adequately tested. People who have gotten the DePuy ASR and the DePuy ASR XL prostheses are having to get another surgery to replace the defective implants at an alarming rate.

DePuy's unfortunate victims will experience a great deal of unnecessary pain to have the replacement surgery. Even after they have it, they may have other problems, because the metal on metal system as designed results in so much wear on the parts that small bits of the metal come off and remain in the person's joint or go to other parts of the body like the blood stream, causing potentially grave health problems.

It now turns out that in 2010, Johnson & Johnson did an analysis and found that its DePuy device would fail within five years in about forty percent of patients who received it. It kept the information secret. The company's analysis also indicated that the implant will prematurely fail in thousands more patients within the next few years. The device is so bad that DePuy, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, is offering to pay for the surgical costs for replacement. However, it is not paying for the pain and suffering of the replacement surgery and rehabilitation after it or for the other problems caused by the metal particles that move throughout a patient's body. That's why thousands of patients have filed suits against Johnson & Johnson. As these suits progress, we will get more of the company's internal documents and take depositions of more of its engineers and executives. As we do, more light will shine on what its corporate executives knew about the implant's problems before it was recalled in mid-2010 and the actions they did or didn't take. Thirty thousand of these devices have been implanted in the U.S., many of them in the Florida Panhandle and south Alabama.

While the practice was once reserved for schoolchildren, it seems like everything and anything is graded these days. The trend can sometimes feel a bit much, but it can also provide helpful insight into institutions that are otherwise tough for the general public to evaluate. Health care is one such field and our Panama City medical malpractice attorney was saddened to read that one of our region's medical centers failed to receive a passing grade in a recent study. It is crucial that the public is aware of failing hospitals, but it is an upsetting and even frightening problem.

Panama City's News Herald recently reported on a study by the Leapfrog Group, an organization that studies and compares hospitals, rating them on performance, adherence to national safety standards, efficiency, patient satisfaction, and overall quality of care. The group's nine-member Blue Ribbon Expert Panel calculated the Hospital Safety Scores using twenty-six publicly available pieces of safety data to build a single score. Leapfrog's analysis included the hospital's ability to keep patients free of infections and injuries as well as the ability to prevent medical and medication errors. Study panelists included doctors from Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and the University of Michigan. Consumer Reports also worked on the study.

Alarmingly, Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart Health System received a "below average" score, making it one of eight hospitals in Florida to receive a "D" grade. While Bay Medical declined to comment directly on the study, Pam Spires, the chief quality officer, did release a more general statement asserting that the hospital has high ratings on quality and safety measures from other groups including the federal government's Hospital Compare database, Florida's own Health Finder database, and HealthGrades, a nationally recognized study. Spires also criticized the Leapfrog study's methodology, citing other nationally recognized medical centers that received "D" and "F" ratings. She also noted that the study did not consider certain safety measures such as the computerized order and medication system, a safety project that involved an investment in the millions of dollars.

On a better note, Leapfrog gave Gulf Coast Medical Center an "A", noting it met all criteria in order to achieve an "excellent" rating. Carlton Ulmer, the center's CEO, said this ranking is due to a commitment to treat both patients and employees as family. He noted the hospital strives to do what is best for everyone who comes through their doors and also what is best for the community as a whole. Grades for other Panhandle region hospitals include: an "A" for Fort Walton Beach Medical Center and Gulf Breeze Hospital, a "B" for Niceville's Twin Cities Hospital, and a "C" for Marianna's Jackson Hospital. Overall, the state of Florida ranked 10th in the nation with 39% of the 61 hospitals studied in the state (not all hospitals were included) achieving "A" ratings. Massachusetts landed the top spot in the Leapfrog study.

We should be able to trust that our hospitals are providing quality care with an emphasis on safety. Although we understand the need to publicly defend their institution's quality, we hope that Bay Medical and other hospitals that received low scores will take a hard look at the study and learn lessons from its rankings. Our Panama City malpractice law firm is dedicated to advocating on behalf of those injured by medical errors, negligent care, or other safety failures. We hope one day this service is no longer needed, but until that happens we will be here to help the victims.

See Related Blog Entries:

Panama City Medical Malpractice Attorney Looks at Proposed Reform

Overview of Medical Malpractice Claims in Florida

(Photo by Robert Linder via stock.xchng)

What if you gave a cookie to a kid day after day for his behavior whether it was good or bad? Would the kid learn anything from it, or would he be encouraged to do as he pleased regardless of how damaging his behavior was? Rewarding a kid's good behavior by giving a cookie leads to more good behavior. Similarly, refusing to give a cookie when behavior is bad leads to correction of the bad behavior.

This principle is applied in the law every day, most recently in the area of Medicare payments to hospitals. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), adopted a "no-pay"rule. Using our analogy, it is a no-cookie rule that encourages hospitals to reduce their malpractice rates. This is how it works. Medicare stopped paying for the treatment for preventable complications from hospitalization. The largest category of complications was infections after surgery and after placement of urinary and central venous catheters, costing millions and millions of dollars to treat. Guess what happened after CMS stopped paying the hospitals to treat the preventable complications? Their behavior improved not just a little, but dramatically. For example, bloodstream infections from having catheters placed in blood vessels dropped thirty-three percent. The kids' behavior got better, because they weren't getting the cookies even for their bad behavior.

A random sample of infectious disease doctors in the U.S. was conducted two years after the no-pay rule was adopted. Eighty-one percent of the doctors reported increased attention to prevention of hospital acquired infections. Part of the reduction in preventable infections came from faster removal of catheters. When hospitals treated people appropriately, they got paid. If they committed malpractice, they didn't get paid to treat the problems they caused. A simple but profound change in the law made the difference.

Continue reading "The Medicare No-Pay Rule to Hospitals for Treating Preventable Complications" »

Our Panama City medical malpractice lawyer is proud to help injured victims and their families understand and navigate a claim for medical malpractice in Panama City and throughout Northern Florida. This post will provide answers to some basic questions that prospective clients have about this complex area of law.

What is medical malpractice?

Medical malpractice occurs when an injury or negative health outcome arises due to the failure of a doctor or other health care practitioner to provide care that meets the standards of good, acceptable medical practice. The standard compares the treatment provided to that accepted by the medical community. Both action and failure to act (such as failure to diagnose a condition or provide appropriate treatment) can give rise to a medical malpractice claim.

Who can bring a malpractice claim in Florida?

Most malpractice cases are brought by the affected patient. In some cases, family members may also have related claims. If the injured person is a minor or is unable to advocate on their own behalf, a representative may be appointed to act on the patient's behalf.

What does a claimant need to prove for a medical malpractice claim to be successful?

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim must show negligence (i.e. failure to meet the required standard of care), proximate cause (i.e. the failure led to the negative outcome claimed), and damages.

How long do I have to file a malpractice claim?

In Florida, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is two years. The period begins at the time the patient (or a representative) knew or should have reasonably known that the injury occurred and that malpractice was the cause.

Is there anything that needs to be done before a medical malpractice claim can be filed?

Florida law has a specific notice requirement for medical malpractice claims that does not apply to most personal injury cases. The claimant must provide the potential defendant with ninety days written notice of the intent to file a malpractice suit. This notice must include a written affidavit from an expert who has reviewed the claim and found reasonable grounds for a medical malpractice claim. During the notice period, the potential defendant can review the claimant's medical files and ask for additional discovery.

What is the role of expert testimony in malpractice claims?

In most cases, a Florida medical malpractice claim requires the testimony of an expert in the medical arena. Expert testimony is used to explain the applicable standards of medical care. An expert witness is usually also necessary to show causation i.e. showing that the provider's action or inaction caused the injury to the patient.

Are there limits on damages that can be recovered in a medical malpractice claim?

Yes. In most cases, noneconomic damages in a Florida medical malpractice suit against a practitioner are limited to $500,000 per claimant. If the injury results in death or leaves the patient in a persistent vegetative state, the noneconomic award limit is $1,000,000.

If you believe you have a claim for medical malpractice against a Panama City doctor or other medical provider, please contact our office. Our team is available 24/7 to take your call and our Panama City injury attorney offers a free consultation to help you understand how the law applies to your unique case.

See Related Blog Posts:

Area Hospital Recognized for Excellence

When Medical Malpractice Occurs, Should Claims Always Be Made?

Continue reading "Overview of Medical Malpractice Claims in Florida" »

Victims whose health declined as a result of poor care or medical malpractice in Panama City should have their basic legal rights protected. Our Panama City medical malpractice lawyer follows the progress of legislation in the healthcare arena that may impact how legal disputes are resolved as they relate to medical malpractice.

Florida's governor, Rick Scott, is currently considering an important bill that could affect the availability and practice of quality healthcare in Northern Florida. WJHG is reporting that a group of health professionals have joined a number of former health department officials in urging Governor Scott to veto legislation currently before him that would reorganize the Florida Department. The 161 page bill would impact care in Florida in a number of ways.

A group of former health officers is particularly concerned by a provision in the bill that would close the only dedicated TB hospital in Florida. AG Holley is a facility located in South Florida. Supporters of the closure note that the hospital is a five hundred bed facility, but that it only averages thirty patients at a time. They also note that AG Holley is expensive to run. Critics of the closure say the move will put the rest of the state at risk. The hospital focuses solely on hard to treat patients with drug resistant tuberculosis who have been non-compliant with medication regimes and have been ordered into treatment until they are cured.

Those urging Governor Scott to veto the pending legislation also note that the bill would no longer require by law that the Department of Health promote healthy lifestyles. Officials from the Florida Public Interest Research Group believe the change would undermine the Department's role in promoting public health. Supporters of the legislation suggest such promotion of healthy lifestyles would still be permitted under different statutes.

The bill would also change certain billing procedures. Some patients visit the health department because they are afraid to see their own physician to discuss concerns about or treatment of a sexually transmitted disease. Currently, the health department will see these patients, treat them, and bill the patient's health insurance. The new bill passes the bill for these services to the taxpayer.

An additional component of the bill ends a controversial inspection procedure for septic tanks and shifts this responsibility to county-level government.

The bill is sponsored by Representative Matt Hudson of Naples. He disagrees with the critics and believes the legislation would allow the Department to focus on its core mission and lead to better health outcomes. Governor Scott must decide whether he will veto or approve the bill by April 28th.

Medical care is often the subject of fierce debate at the national, state, and local levels. Regardless of policy preferences, it is important for residents to be able to trust that their physician and the health care system as a whole will act in the best interests of the patient's health. If you believe that a medical provider's actions or failure to act resulted in harm to your health or the health of a loved one, please reach out to an experienced Panama City medical malpractice lawyer. With experience in the medical malpractice field, The Pittman Firm can help you get the compensation that you deserve.

See Related Blog Posts:

Panama City Medical Malpractice Attorney Looks at Proposed Reform

Legislative Alert: The New Congress' Efforts to Erode Medical Malpractice Laws

Our Panama City medical malpractice lawyer is all too familiar with what can happen when doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals make mistakes that hurt their patients. Medical mistakes can cause infections, loss of limbs, misdiagnosed or undiagnosed diseases, paralysis, and death. In addition to consequences that affect physical health, these negligent mistakes can also lead to severe financial loss due to additional medical bills incurred because of the malpractice and other types of financial hardship, such as lost wages. Therefore, when doctors make mistakes, it is important for the patients who are harmed to be able to get compensation for their suffering. Although money can never undo what happened, it is sometimes the only available option. It also works as an incentive to make doctors take additional precautions to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

According to an article by the Insurance Journal, however, a bill has been introduced in the Florida legislature that would severely limit patients' ability to recover in a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit. The bill would add additional protections for doctors, even though the state already has an involved process for these types of cases, including a requirement that doctors be given notice of the claim before a lawsuit is filed, as well as liability caps that limit how much a patient may recover in certain types of cases. If the bill passes, it will raise the standard of proof and make it more difficult for patients to prove their allegations and prevail in court.

In addition, the bill raises serious privacy concerns with the provisions that would allow an attorney representing a doctor to interview other doctors that the patient visited around the same time. Thus, by filing a medical malpractice claim, the patient would essentially be authorizing strangers to dig through his or her medical records, even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, if passed, this provision will likely be enough to dissuade some people with legitimate claims from ever filing them, which will make it easier for those doctors who are habitually negligent to continue practicing.

The bill coincides with other reports that show Florida is facing a severe shortage of medical staff in 2012. An article by the Sun Sentinel notes that with many nurses retiring and with increasing regulations because of the new federal health care laws, the state expects to have a shortage of about 15,000 nurses this year. The shortage will undoubtedly translate into more overworked nurses and doctors, which will likely also mean more mistakes and oversights as tired medical staff members try to keep up with the demands of caring for more and more patients in less time. More patients are likely to become victims of medical mistakes, making it even more important for local residents to turn to a Panama City personal injury lawyer to help them get the compensation they deserve.

Most medical professionals work diligently day in and day out to provide quality care to their patients. However, that does not mean that when mistakes are made, those hurt do not deserve fair compensation for the harm caused. If you find yourself in this situation, please get in touch with our Panama City medical malpractice lawyer to share your story and see how we can help.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

What is the Value of a Life?

When Medical Malpractice Occurs, Should Claims Always be Made?

A New York Times headline caught my attention last week. It asked, "What is the value of a life?" As a lawyer who handles personal injury and deaths caused by someone else's carelessness, I often have to put a monetary value on life. It is very difficult to do. The first reaction to having that task is to sit back and think, "How can I equate a certain amount of money with all the things that comprised that person's life?" The New York Times article that compelled my attention went on to say that the value of a life depends on whatever government agency is considering it. But the general theme was that one way to measure the cost of a life is by the amount of money spent trying to save a life.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security spends a lot of money trying to prevent deaths from terrorism. The Department of Defense spends a huge amount trying to stop deaths from IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The health department devotes money to preventing cancer deaths. In general, the government seems to value a life at between 6 and 9 million dollars.

Those are interesting measures, but in the law there are different standards for valuing a wrongful death, that is, one caused by an accident, medical or nursing home malpractice, or a dangerous product. In Alabama, the damages are punitive, so a jury there can award whatever sum it thinks should be sufficient to punish the conduct of the bad trucker or the careless doctor. Georgia puts a jury in the shoes of the deceased person to value the entire life from that person's perspective. Florida on the other hand imposes limits by defining specific elements of damage that can be awarded for wrongful death. Included in those are the emotional suffering of the family members due to the loss, medical and funeral expenses, loss of companionship and guidance to children, and the lost earnings that might have been expected to go to the family. Valuing a life for court cases is a complex process made no easier by the various laws that exist.

Should a claim always be made when medical malpractice occurs? Malpractice happens a lot in doctor's offices and hospitals. I get calls about it almost every week. Various government agencies estimate that many thousands of people die every year due to medical carelessness. Yet, a serious analysis has to occur before anyone should make a claim for it.

The first question is: can I prove that malpractice occurred? This is not as simple as it might seem. A bad result might indicate that malpractice was involved, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that it was. Doctors aren't guarantors of perfect care, just reasonable care under the circumstances. For a jury to find that a doctor was guilty of malpractice, it must decide that the doctor deviated from an acceptable level of care which is more or less defined as a range of care within which other practitioners of the same kind would have performed under the circumstances. Assuming that malpractice can be established using that definition, the second question is: Did the malpractice cause damage to the patient, or was the bad result caused by something else like, for instance, an infection or disease that was simply incurable even though the doctor tried.
If the malpractice was the legal cause of the damage, the third and final question in the analysis is this. Is the damage so bad that it warrants your making a claim against the doctor or hospital? It's important for you to have that question answered before you make the claim, because malpractice cases are expensive to investigate, prepare, and try. Be as sure as you can that the end result in a case will be worth your time and effort after the expenses of the case are deducted from a court award.

If all 3 questions can be answered in the positive, the case should proceed, because you should be compensated, and malpractice claims serve as a deterrent to further malpractice. You might save someone else from the same experience. On the other hand, if even one of the questions is answered with a "no," you would be wise to walk away and just be happy that you are alive.

The 112th Congress has been in session for only a few weeks, but it seems intent upon changing medical malpractice liability laws. The House Judiciary Committee's first hearing was entitled "Oversight Hearing on Medical Liability Reform - Cutting Costs, Spurring Investment, Creating Jobs." And only a few days ago, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Republican from Georgia, introduced H.R. 5, the Health Act. This bill can be dangerous to all of us who consume medical services, because it is so broad. It applies to all health care providers, regardless of the theory of liability. It also applies to cases against the pharmaceutical, nursing home, and insurance industries. The bill preempts state law that is more protective of patients while keeping in place state law that favors medical providers.

H.R. 5 is on a fast track. Here are some of its major points. As I said, it is very broad. It covers not only doctors and hospitals but also nursing homes, the pharmaceutical industry, and insurance giants. It reduces the amount of time an injured patient has to file a lawsuit to just one year from the date an injury was discovered or should have been discovered. It limits the non-economic damages to $250,000 regardless of the amount of suffering inflicted on the injured person or a deceased patient's survivors. That might sound like a lot of money, but consider the type suffering that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords from Tucson has experienced and will continue to suffer during her coming months of rehabilitation and possibly the rest of her life. It is a pittance in comparison. Her circumstances happen to be from a bullet, but the same effects are seen every day from medical and nursing home malpractice.

The bill also completely eliminates joint liability where several defendants' poor judgment and substandard care contributes to an injury or death. This means that longstanding principles of fairness to the victim are sacrificed to the economic benefit of one or more perpetrators of the negligent care. The bill also limits punitive damages to $250,000 or two times the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater. Since punitive damages laws presently in place are thought to deter grossly negligent conduct by nursing homes, hospitals, and doctors, the new bill would make it more economically feasible for those defendants to engage in irresponsible conduct to the detriment of their patients, including you and me.

The bill also completely immunizes manufacturers of drugs and medical devices that are approved by the FDA from punitive damages. The FDA doesn't have the funding or the manpower to ensure the safety of drugs and devices, especially when a manufacturer covers up reports of adverse reactions of drugs or failures of medical devices. Nevertheless, under this bill, those manufacturers would be protected. The deterrent effect of punitive damages would be removed from the equation. We live in dangerous times, perhaps more so when legislatures and Congress are in session.