Company to Pay for Unsafe Infant Tylenol, Children’s Tylenol and Children’s Motrin

McNeil, a local Montgomery County  healthcare company which produced the medications infant tylenol, children’s tylenol and children’s motrin in its Fort Washington,PA location will have to pay 25 million dollars.  The company recently plead guilty because in 2009 when a consumer alert was issued,indicating there were black specs in the medicine,  the company failed to  initiate a corrective plan.  Consumers found what turned out to be nickel and chromium in the medication, which was not an intended ingredient. Upon investigation, the Food and Drug Administration found that there were more than 30 batches of children’s medication that had  nickel and chromium in them. The local Fort Washington company, which is a division of Johnson and Johnson, remains under a 2011 injunction and must  take corrective measures before it is permitted to reopen.

If a loved on has been injured by a defective drug contact Stark & Stark today for a free consultation.

Newly Legalized Immigrants may be Eligible for Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid Benefits

Immigrants who receive provisional legal status under President Obama’s new executive orders may be eligible for Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid benefits.  Under the President’s plan, U.S. residents can apply for provisional legal status if they have  lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, can pass a criminal background check and have paid their share of taxes.

Provisional legal status, which must be renewed every 3 years, would allow qualified residents to obtain legal work permits and a Social Security number.  Consequently, they would pay into Social Security and Medicare through payroll taxes and thusbe eligible for benefits. Only those years after they obtain provisional legal status would count towards Social Security benefits and these individuals would have to work at least 10 years, legally, in the U.S., to receive Social Security Retirement benefits.

Nursing Home Arbitration Agreement Rejected By Judge

Often nursing homes will require residents or their families to sign arbitration agreements before the resident will be accepted into the facility.   Such agreements vary but, in essence, they provide that, should the resident or their family believe that the resident has been the victim of negligence, abuse or neglect while at the facility, they agree not sue in court, but rather will resolve the claim via a private, binding arbitration.  An arbitration is a proceeding where the parties present their case to a neutral third-party, called an arbitrator (often a retired judge or experienced attorney), who then makes a decision and decides the amount of damages, if any.

Recently, a Berks County, Pennsylvania trial judge refused to enforce one such agreement, required by a Manor Care facility.  The judge concluded that this particular agreement was against public policy, because it was both one-sided and confusing.  The judge explained that cases involving injuries should not be the subject of routine arbitration unless both parties fully and completely negotiated and agreed to the final terms of the agreement.

By entering into these agreements, nursing home residents and their families must understand that they are giving up their right to have a future their case heard by a jury of their peers.  If you believe that you or a loved one has been the victim of nursing home negligence, abuse or neglect, contact the experienced attorneys at Stark & Stark for a free consultation.

Spousal Benefit

If your spouse has already filed for his or her Social Security Retirement Benefit, and you have reached full retirement age (66 for the current crop of baby boomers), you can receive a monthly spousal benefit equal to half of your retired spouse’s full retirement benefit.  You can do this yourself without filing for your own retirement benefit, to which you will continue to contribute if you are still working.  The spousal benefit is not deducted from your retired spouse’s monthly check, so there is no diminution in the amount your retired spouse receives.

You can receive a monthly spousal benefit if your spouse is retired but you have not reached your full retirement age but if you take the spousal benefit before your full retirement age, you will be deemed to be filing for your retirement benefit, as well.  Your spousal benefit is then considered excess and it will definitely be less than half of your retired spouse’s full retirement benefit, and may even be zero.

Example:  Mary is going to be 66 next month.  She is working and intends to keep working for a number of years.  Her husband, John, is 70 and he retired a few years ago.  John’s full retirement benefit is $2,000 per month.  When Mary turns 66, she is entitled to half of John’s monthly benefit, $1,000 per month, despite the fact that she is still working.  Once she begins receiving her monthly spousal benefit, John will continue to receive a monthly benefit of $2,000 per month.

If you are interested in getting spousal benefits, you should make an appointment with your local Social Security Administration office to apply for the spousal benefit.

Commercial Drivers Physicals Only to be Performed by Certified Medical Examiners

As of 2014 all new U.S. DOT physicals are required to be performed by health professionals who have qualified pursuant to stringent protocols and who are now listed on the “National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners”.  Mandatory U.S. DOT exams assess a driver’s condition to be able to competently and safely be behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle.   The exam includes assessing basic vision, hearing, muscle function, respiratory systems, and also assesses individuals for cardiovascular diseases or other health ailments that could affect the driver’s ability to operate such a vehicle.   Medical Examiners on the Registry are now required to maintain a certain level of competence and must attend periodic training sessions and go through a re-certification process.  If they fail to maintain these pursuant to Federal Standards, they will be removed from the National Registry.   It is critical when assessing a commercial driver’s competence/ability to operate commercial vehicles that their medical history and status of the medical certificate be assessed, and now with the new regulation the competency of the examiner is also critical.   Competency of the examiner is now based on training standards for these medical professionals who desire to perform commercial driver physicals.   Under the prevailing regulations, all Interstate commercial truck and bus drivers are required to undergo and pass a medical examination at least every two years in order to obtain/maintain a valid Medical Certificate, which in turn allows them to have an active commercial driver’s license.

As Secretary Anthony Fox of the U.S. DOT stated “safety is our highest priority and that every commercial truck and bus driver be qualified, alert and focused when they are behind the wheel”.

The Benevolent Gesture Act

In 2013, the Pennsylvania legislature passed “The Benevolent Gesture Medical Professional Liability Act”, which is colloquially referred to as “The Apology Law”.  This statute allows a health care provider to apologize to a patient for a mistake or perceived mistake, or a bad outcome, without fear that the apology will be used against the health care provider in a medical malpractice lawsuit.  As long as the apology or benevolent gesture is not made after the lawsuit has been filed, or the apology is not also a statement of negligence or fault, it cannot be later used against the health care provider, in a court of law.

One of the intended results of the law was to lower the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed, however, it has had little or any effect with regard to this statistic so far.

Lower Insurance Payments to Healthcare Providers Leads to Increased Medicare Spending

A recent study by researchers at Stanford University and Harvard University has shown that if a private health plan manages to negotiate lower prices with health care providers, they may make up the difference by providing health care to Medicare beneficiaries. The study examined data from more than 300 geographic regions in the U.S., including Medicare spending on inpatient and outpatient care as well as prescription drugs for fee-for-service beneficiaries.  The researchers found that a 10% lower private price for health care services is associated with a 3% increase in Medicare spending per member, per year, and 4.3% more specialist visits.

New Massachusetts Law Creates Process for Early Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims

A new Massachusetts law has created a procedure designed to encourage early resolution of medical malpractice claims and avoid litigation.  For the most part, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, medical malpractice claims are adjudicated through the courts.  Unlike other types of personal injury claims, where a significant percentage of cases settle before a lawsuit is actually filed, nearly all medical malpractice cases end up in litigation.  Under the new Massachusetts law, anyone who intends to sue a healthcare provider must give the provider six months notice of their intuition to file a lawsuit.  The idea is that this six-month period allows the healthcare provider the opportunity to investigate the claim and, if it has merit, negotiate a resolution.

In addition to the six-month waiting period, the law requires healthcare providers to inform patients when medical mistakes are made, and also incorporates an “apology law” which is similar to the Pennsylvania Benevolent Gesture Law that was recently signed into law.  Like the Pennsylvania statute, the apology law allows healthcare providers to apologize for medical mistakes without having their words used against them in a subsequently medical malpractice case.

As I have discussed often in this space, states have taken a number of different approaches to limit, if not eliminate, the filing of frivolous medical malpractice claims and/to encourage the early resolution of such claims.  The recent trend seems to be some variation of the waiting period Massachusetts has decided to employ.  For example, in Oregon, the legislature has created a forum in which healthcare providers and patients can attempt to amicably resolve medical malpractice claims outside of the court system.  Under that program, when a patient believes they have been the victim of medical malpractice, they have the option of holding a discussion with the doctor or other healthcare provider they believe has injured them.  The conversation is completely confidential, and the parties have the option of having a mediator present.  As with the Massachusetts law, the goal is to encourage early resolution of claims outside of the court system.

While Pennsylvania has enacted certain procedural mechanisms that have been very effective at limiting the filing of frivolous medical malpractice claims, they have yet to adopt any sort of formal program that would facilitate pre-suit settlement of such claims.  However, at least in my own practice, I have seen an increase in the desire of healthcare providers and their liability insurance carriers to discuss pre-suit settlement.  Perhaps Pennsylvania, like other states, will at some point take the step of endorsing and formalizing this process.

 

Pennsylvania Verdicts and Settlements Rising

According to an article published in The Legal Intelligencer on December 19, 2014, which was based on data compiled by PaLaw Magazine, verdicts and settlements in Pennsylvania are trending higher.  The average figure of the largest verdicts in 2014 was higher than in 2013.  According to the article, medical malpractice cases dominated the list of top verdicts and settlements in Pennsylvania for 2014, a trend that has been consistent since 1994.  The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and the federal U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which sits in Philadelphia, led the way as the courts with the most cases that made the top verdicts and settlements list.

According to the article, the top three settlements involved qui tam actions.  Qui tam actions are essentially federal whistle blower claims, in which private citizens bring claims against a corporation or contractor that defrauded the government.  The individual brings the claim on behalf of the government.  The top three cases were United States v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which involved the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor; United States v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, which involved the prescription drug Lidoderm; and Brown v. Amedisys, which involved false billings to Medicare.

At Stark & Stark we have extensive experience in working with all types of cases such as those listed above right in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. If you or a loved on has been injured, contact Stark & Stark today for a free consultation.

Blog Categories