Video footage shot at a Richmond, Kentucky nursing home reveals abuse and neglect of an 84-year-old resident. The camera was hidden in the bedroom of Armeda Thomas, an Alzheimer’s resident at Madison Manor.
When they noticed multiple handprint bruises all over Armeda's body, family members hid a camera in the elderly woman’s room.
The nursing home staff couldn’t properly explain what happened. In fact, the workers claimed the bruises occurred because Thomas was "combative."
The footage shows that staffers were lying: Here we see them taunting and physically abusing Thomas, as well as neglecting to clean and feed her. The video also shows Thomas being pulled out of bed by her neck and wrists.
X-rays taken of Thomas in September 2008 showed lumbar vertebrae fractures.
The nursing home abuse and neglect incidents were captured on videotape between August 17 and September 8, 2008.
Documents were also reportedly falsified to show that Thomas had been fed when in fact, in two instances, it was the nursing home assistant who ate her food. In just a couple of weeks, the elderly resident reportedly lost about 19 pounds.
Now, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office will be filing criminal charges against the Richmond home for nursing home abuse and neglect.
Since the criminal probe began, evidence began to surface that at least 17 other nursing home residents with cognitive impairments had sustained “injuries of unknown origin” and that Madison Manor failed to properly investigate the causes of their injuries.
Madison Manor has been issued a Type-A citation, which is the most serious citation that the inspector general's office of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services can give a nursing home. Although the issues for which the citation was given were reportedly corrected last month, some deficiencies still exist.
Thomas, who was removed from the home immediately after the abuse was discovered, died from Alzheimer’s-related complications on November 7.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Doctor malpractice lawsuits: knowing your rights
From time to time we all need to see a doctor. In most cases, our injuries will well taken cared of by our doctor. In some instances though, difficulties arise due to medical negligence or doctor malpractice.
Medical lawsuits are the only way for you to get medical compensation for the harm that you suffer because of doctor malpractice or medical negligence.
There are so many ways in which a medical professional may be negligent:
Medical lawsuits are the only way for you to get medical compensation for the harm that you suffer because of doctor malpractice or medical negligence.
There are so many ways in which a medical professional may be negligent:
- He might commit a diagnosis error and treat you in the wrong way. This will most certainly cause bodily harm, especially if the illness continues while the therapy for an illness that you don't suffer is being handled.
- He may refuse or neglect to treat you at all, which would also be a valid ground for malpractice suits.
If you believe that you are a victim of doctor malpractice, you must see a medical lawyer or attorney. He will give you legal advice to see what can be done to compensate you for any injuries that were caused as a result.
Medical malpractice is not just limited to medical professionals. There is also a dental malpractice lawsuit in which you can sue a dentist if you have had some problematic dental work. You can also sue a hospital in a medical lawsuit if you feel that the medical facility was also at blame for your injuries.
In all of these cases, a medical attorney or lawyer is the first place to start. He can advise you on what steps you should take and can also help assess the extent and value of your problems.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Doctor malpractice translates to additional $1.5B annual cost
Insurance companies shell out about $1.5 billion annually in treating preventable medical errors that occur during or after surgery, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
For financially strapped hospitals, the situation can be devastating, as Medicare as well as other major insurers across the country stop paying for what is called “never events.” The AHRQ study also reveals the financial impact errors have on medical or doctor malpractice claims.
For the years 2001 to 2002, economists William E. Encinosa, PhD, and Fred J. Hellinger, PhD, analyzed MarketScan insurance claims. They were looking for 14 AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) among the 161,004 surgery cases that were studied. Excess 90-day costs ranged from $646 for technical problems (accidental laceration, pneumothorax, etc.) to $28,218 for acute respiratory failure, with up to 20 percent of these incurred post discharge.
They study found many other causes of additional costs associated with PSIs.
• Postoperative infections: $19,480 (or 48 percent more than patients who had error-free surgeries).
• Metabolic problems, such as renal (kidney) failure or uncontrolled blood sugar: $11,797 (32 percent more).
• Vascular (e.g. blood clots) or pulmonary problems: $7,838 (25 percent more).
• Wound opening: $1,426 (6 percent more).
The study also found that preventable errors were responsible for about ten percent deaths within 90 days of surgery, with a third of the deaths occurring after initial hospital discharge.
For financially strapped hospitals, the situation can be devastating, as Medicare as well as other major insurers across the country stop paying for what is called “never events.” The AHRQ study also reveals the financial impact errors have on medical or doctor malpractice claims.
For the years 2001 to 2002, economists William E. Encinosa, PhD, and Fred J. Hellinger, PhD, analyzed MarketScan insurance claims. They were looking for 14 AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) among the 161,004 surgery cases that were studied. Excess 90-day costs ranged from $646 for technical problems (accidental laceration, pneumothorax, etc.) to $28,218 for acute respiratory failure, with up to 20 percent of these incurred post discharge.
They study found many other causes of additional costs associated with PSIs.
• Postoperative infections: $19,480 (or 48 percent more than patients who had error-free surgeries).
• Metabolic problems, such as renal (kidney) failure or uncontrolled blood sugar: $11,797 (32 percent more).
• Vascular (e.g. blood clots) or pulmonary problems: $7,838 (25 percent more).
• Wound opening: $1,426 (6 percent more).
The study also found that preventable errors were responsible for about ten percent deaths within 90 days of surgery, with a third of the deaths occurring after initial hospital discharge.
Monday, December 1, 2008
New York: physician-oversight law overhauled
The State of New York has overhauled its physician-oversight law. This in effect gave the state medical board more power, consumers more information, and doctors less confidentiality.
In the past, charges against doctors had remained confidential until the Board for Professional Medical Conduct decided on their validity. Now, if the three-member board unanimously decides a hearing is warranted, the charges will be made public within five days after the doctor is notified. Even if the three-member board is divided, it may vote to go public anyway. Either way, disclosure is tied to holding a hearing, not on reaching a determination.
In addition, the results of those hearings will be made public. so consumers will know when a doctor is exonerated as well as when misconduct charges are upheld.
This new law grants more power to the medical conduct investigative program to effectively and quickly identify doctors who engage in misconduct.
The law was drafted after a Long Island case garnered national attention. Last November, the state sent letters to more than 10,000 people warning that a physician may have exposed them to infection by using the same syringe on multiple patients.
Almost three years after first discovery that the doctor's actions had caused at least one patient to contract hepatitis C, letters went out. According to newspaper reports, the doctor stopped re-using syringes in 2005 but prolonged negotiations with lawyers over releasing his records caused the 34-month delay in notifying patients that they had been endangered.
The new law allows the state to put an immediate stop to dangerous practices without waiting for a hearing, giving doctors one day to produce office records for inquiry. It also gives the medical board access to the personal medical records of physicians accused of drug or alcohol addiction, eliminating the need for court orders. The board can order a clinical competency at will.
The physician charged with re-using syringes had a long history of malpractice litigation, with 11 payouts over 10 years. The board is now empowered to use malpractice histories to initiate investigations. Doctors are mandated to update their profiles on the health department Web site every six months and to include any disciplinary actions the state has taken against them.
In the past, charges against doctors had remained confidential until the Board for Professional Medical Conduct decided on their validity. Now, if the three-member board unanimously decides a hearing is warranted, the charges will be made public within five days after the doctor is notified. Even if the three-member board is divided, it may vote to go public anyway. Either way, disclosure is tied to holding a hearing, not on reaching a determination.
In addition, the results of those hearings will be made public. so consumers will know when a doctor is exonerated as well as when misconduct charges are upheld.
This new law grants more power to the medical conduct investigative program to effectively and quickly identify doctors who engage in misconduct.
The law was drafted after a Long Island case garnered national attention. Last November, the state sent letters to more than 10,000 people warning that a physician may have exposed them to infection by using the same syringe on multiple patients.
Almost three years after first discovery that the doctor's actions had caused at least one patient to contract hepatitis C, letters went out. According to newspaper reports, the doctor stopped re-using syringes in 2005 but prolonged negotiations with lawyers over releasing his records caused the 34-month delay in notifying patients that they had been endangered.
The new law allows the state to put an immediate stop to dangerous practices without waiting for a hearing, giving doctors one day to produce office records for inquiry. It also gives the medical board access to the personal medical records of physicians accused of drug or alcohol addiction, eliminating the need for court orders. The board can order a clinical competency at will.
The physician charged with re-using syringes had a long history of malpractice litigation, with 11 payouts over 10 years. The board is now empowered to use malpractice histories to initiate investigations. Doctors are mandated to update their profiles on the health department Web site every six months and to include any disciplinary actions the state has taken against them.
$25 million award slashed
A West Virginia doctor who filed a defamation case will get less than half the $25 million that was awarded to him.
When Dr. R.E. Hamrick Jr. decided to self-insure against malpractice liability, the Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) revoked his privileges. A few days later, under court order, CAMC restored the privileges under court order, but Dr. Hamrick sued, charging that the suspension tarnished his reputation.
In February, a circuit court jury awarded him $5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages for the hospital's “fraudulent, malicious, and oppressive conduct.” Special Judge Joseph Alsop ruled the jury went too far and slashed the award to $10 million.
When Dr. R.E. Hamrick Jr. decided to self-insure against malpractice liability, the Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) revoked his privileges. A few days later, under court order, CAMC restored the privileges under court order, but Dr. Hamrick sued, charging that the suspension tarnished his reputation.
In February, a circuit court jury awarded him $5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages for the hospital's “fraudulent, malicious, and oppressive conduct.” Special Judge Joseph Alsop ruled the jury went too far and slashed the award to $10 million.
"Loss of chance" medical lawsuits
According to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, physicians can be held liable for doctor malpractice even when a patient's chances of survival is slim in the first place. The is the first time ever that the state's Supreme Court recognized “loss of chance” that in effect allows more plaintiffs to seek damages.
In the past, Massachusetts allowed medical lawsuits or doctor malpractice lawsuits only when patients had better-than-even chances of surviving. What this meant was that the rule protected doctors from any doctor malpractice liability whenever a patient's chances of survival has gone under 50 percent, said Chief Justice Margaret Marshall in a unanimous opinion.
“The loss-of-chance doctrine views a person's prospects for surviving as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than even. Where a physician's negligence reduces or eliminates the prospects for a more favorable medical outcome, the physician has harmed the patient and is liable for damages,” Chief Justice Marshall added.
Already, there are about 20 states that permit loss-of-chance lawsuits, as noted by Chief Justice Marshal. Legal experts believe that her ruling will have a great impact on other courts.
The is a case involving the estate of Kimiyoshi Matsuyama. Matsuyama, who, at age 46, died of gastric cancer, repeatedly consulted an internist about stomach pains. The internist recommended OTC remedies for GI reflux disease but didn't order diagnostic tests or refer the patient to a specialist until May 1999. At that point, Matsuyama was diagnosed with advanced infiltrative gastric adenoid carcinoma. He died five months later.
A trial jury awarded Matsuyama's wife and son damages totaling just over $1 million, including more than $300,000 for “loss of chance.” During their deliberations, the jury set $875,000 as overall compensation for the wrongful death. Calculating that Matsuyama's chance of survival had been 37.5 percent when he first consulted the doctor, jurors awarded $328,125 -- or 37.5 percent of $875,000 -- specifically as “loss-of-chance damages.”
Noting that negligence clearly contributed to loss of chance, the supreme court upheld their reasoning.
In the past, Massachusetts allowed medical lawsuits or doctor malpractice lawsuits only when patients had better-than-even chances of surviving. What this meant was that the rule protected doctors from any doctor malpractice liability whenever a patient's chances of survival has gone under 50 percent, said Chief Justice Margaret Marshall in a unanimous opinion.
“The loss-of-chance doctrine views a person's prospects for surviving as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than even. Where a physician's negligence reduces or eliminates the prospects for a more favorable medical outcome, the physician has harmed the patient and is liable for damages,” Chief Justice Marshall added.
Already, there are about 20 states that permit loss-of-chance lawsuits, as noted by Chief Justice Marshal. Legal experts believe that her ruling will have a great impact on other courts.
The is a case involving the estate of Kimiyoshi Matsuyama. Matsuyama, who, at age 46, died of gastric cancer, repeatedly consulted an internist about stomach pains. The internist recommended OTC remedies for GI reflux disease but didn't order diagnostic tests or refer the patient to a specialist until May 1999. At that point, Matsuyama was diagnosed with advanced infiltrative gastric adenoid carcinoma. He died five months later.
A trial jury awarded Matsuyama's wife and son damages totaling just over $1 million, including more than $300,000 for “loss of chance.” During their deliberations, the jury set $875,000 as overall compensation for the wrongful death. Calculating that Matsuyama's chance of survival had been 37.5 percent when he first consulted the doctor, jurors awarded $328,125 -- or 37.5 percent of $875,000 -- specifically as “loss-of-chance damages.”
Noting that negligence clearly contributed to loss of chance, the supreme court upheld their reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)