Gross Negligence for Georgia ER Negligence Cases

In Georgia, by statute, a plaintiff must prove gross negligence, rather than just ordinary negligence, in order to prevail in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence in a hospital Emergency Room. Gross negligence is a higher standard than ordinary medical negligence, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to establish and, therefore, prevail in their case.

In Pennsylvania, medical negligence is established where a medical professional has deviated from or breached the applicable medical standard of care. The standard of care that applies to a particular medical decision or procedure must be established by experts who practice in the applicable medical specialty. For example, if the claim is that a radiologist delayed the diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s cancer by failing to properly interpret a finding on a CT scan, the plaintiff must present testimony from an expert radiologist as to what the standard of care required of the defendant radiologist under the circumstances. If the defendant radiologist failed to meet, or deviated from, that standard of care, he would have committed medical malpractice and will be liable to the plaintiff if it is proven that his medical negligence caused, or increased the risk of, harm to the plaintiff.

Gross negligence, on the other hand, requires something more; the plaintiff must prove that the defendant grossly deviated from the applicable standard of care. Again, this is a much higher burden for the plaintiff.

The George ER law states that the gross negligence standard applies to “emergency medical care in a hospital emergency department.” Therefore, the fact that the care occurred in the ER alone, does not trigger the use of the higher standard – the care must also be of an emergent nature. In other words, non emergency care that happens to occur in the ER, would not be subject to the gross negligence standard. If you presented to a Georgia ER with common-cold like symptoms that did not require emergency treatment, any care you received in that ER would not be subject to the gross negligence standard.

Recently, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously decided that, when determining whether “emergency medical care” was involved, and therefore the ER gross negligence standard applies, an objective test must be applied. This means, simply, that it does not matter what the medical providers involved were thinking or intending at the time the treatment was rendered; their subjective belief about the kind of care they were providing is irrelevant. What matters, the Georgia Supreme Court explained, is the patient’s medical symptoms and whether they warranted emergency services.

First Two Bellwether Trials in Pradaxa Litigation Scheduled

The use of Pradaxa has been linked to serious injury. There are nearly 2,000 cases currently pending in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. Pradaxa is a blood thinner that was marketed to replace warfarin, a commonly used anticoagulant. Unfortunately, there is no readily-available antidote for the internal bleeding that can sometimes occur in patients treated with Pradaxa.

Judge David R. Herndon, Chief Judge of United States District Court, presiding over the litigation, recently entered scheduling orders for the first two bellwether trials. The first trial will begin on September 8, 2014, while the second trial is scheduled to begin on December 1, 2014.

If you or a loved one has experienced serious side effects after taking Pradaxa, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Endo International Settles Pelvic Mesh Cases for $830 Million

Endo International Plc (“Endo”) has agreed to pay $830 million to resolve legal claims from women who allege that they were injured by the company’s transvaginal mesh devices. Endo said the settlement will cover a “substantial majority” of the mesh litigation brought against its American Medical Systems subsidiary.  This settlement comes only one year after Endo agreed to pay $54.5 million to settle an undisclosed number of other mesh cases.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer.

Boehringer Ingelheim Sanctioned $931,000 for Destroying Documents

The use of Pradaxa has been linked to serious injury. There are nearly 2,000 cases currently pending in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. Pradaxa is a blood thinner that was marketed to replace warfarin, a commonly used anticoagulant. Unfortunately, there is no readily-available antidote for the internal bleeding that can sometimes occur in patients treated with Pradaxa.

Judge David R. Herndon, Chief Judge United States District Court, presiding over the litigation, recently decided that Boehringer Ingelheim, maker of Pradaxa, had acted “in bad faith” by failing to preserve documents related to the drug’s development and marketing. Judge Herndon reportedly found that Boehringer’s behavior was “egregious” and “grossly inadequate” and justified a sanction of more than $931,000. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that Boehringer marketed Pradaxa knowing it could cause bleed-out deaths. It is alleged that Pradaxa is linked to more than 500 bleeding-related deaths over a two year period. In addition to the monetary penalties, Judge Herndon ordered Boehringer executives to turn over files and respond to additional document requests.

If you or a loved one has experienced serious side effects after taking Pradaxa, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

AAN Guideline Recommends Removal of Player If Concussion Suspected

An evidence- based guideline from the AAN for evaluating and managing athletes with concussions recommends that athletes who are suspected of having a concussion be removed from the game immediately and not be returned until assessed by a licensed health care professional trained in diagnosing and managing concussion.

Abstract on Structural Changes to the Brain One Year After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

I recently read an abstract in the journal Radiology in which the researchers demonstrated structural changes to the brain one year after injury after a single concussive episode. According to an article published in Health Imaging, Yongxia Zhou, PhD, from the department of radiology at New York University (NYU) School of Medicine in New York City, and colleagues enrolled 28 MTBI patients with posttraumatic symptoms after injury and 22 matched control subjects in the study.

Diffusion Tensor Imaging Used to Diagnose White Matter Damage After TBI and to Predict Neuropsychological Outcome in Individual Patients

A new paper published in the Annals of Neurology by trained pattern classifiers discriminated between patients with microbleeds and age-match controls with a high degree of accuracy, and outperformed other methods. “Individual prediction of white matter injury following traumatic brain injury,” Hellyer PJ, Leech R, Ham TE, Bonnelle V and Sharp DJ, Ann Neurol 2013.

Risk for Addiction-Related Disorders Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

This month’s issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Aflagship@ journal of the American Psychiatric Association, includes a study entitled ARisk for Addiction-Related Disorders Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in a Large Cohort of Active-Duty U.S. Airmen,@ Miller SC, Baktash SH, Webb TS, Whitehead CR, Maynard C, Wells TS, Otte CN and Gore RK, Am J Psychiatry Miller, et al.; (2013).

Binder, Rohling and Larrabee Meta-Analytic Review Criticized Again

Neuro law attorneys are very familiar with the meta-analytic review of neurological studies that was authored by Binder, Rohling and Larrabee (Binder 1997). It is a study that is often cited by defense attorneys to support the myth that recovery after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) occurs within the first three months, with any subsequent changes in performance being of limited statistical and clinical significance.

Blog Categories