Preventing Harm to Patients should be Priority #1 for Healthcare Providers

A recent BMJ (British Medical Journal) study listed medical errors as the third leading cause of death in the United States. The BMJ recommends that healthcare providers make prevention of patient harm the top healthcare priority and institute policy and procedure changes directed toward that objective.

The study points out that the medical cause of an injury or death on the death certificate doesn’t reflect that “communication breakdowns, diagnostic errors, poor judgment, and inadequate skill can directly result in patient harm and death.”

Read More about Preventing Harm to Patients should be Priority #1 for Healthcare Providers

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.

Surgical Complications vs. Surgical Mistakes

Not every complication which occurs during or as a result of surgery is actionable under the law.  Some complications are foreseeable and a risk of certain procedures. In addition, just because a surgery is unsuccessful does not mean that a surgeon was negligent.  However, many complications are the result of a preventable mistake, and if the patient has a complicated or prolonged recovery and requires subsequent surgeries to correct the mistake, that person may have a viable medical malpractice case.

Here are a few surgical errors that may be considered malpractice and should be investigated by a lawyer specializing in medical malpractice litigation.

  • Surgical Equipment Left Behind:  If a surgeon leaves behind a clip, a clamp, a needle, or even something larger, such as a hemostat or tweezers, that surgeon has been negligent.  If an infection results and/or subsequent surgery must be performed to remove the object, and there are sufficient damages, it may be worth investigating this claim.
  • Wrong Organ Removed:  If, for whatever reason, a surgeon removes the wrong organ or limb from the wrong side of the body, this is clearly negligence which should be investigated.
  • Organ and/or Tissue Damage:  Some tissue damage during surgery may be acceptable or necessary but if a surgeon accidentally cuts or damages an organ, or tissue, or a nerve, and this mistake results in substantial impairment to the patient, the surgery should be investigated

If you or a loved one has been injured due to a complication or mistake, contact Stark & Stark today for a free consultation.

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.

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Closes Medical Malpractice Reporting Loophole

Generally, physicians and their liability insurance carriers are required to report all medical malpractice payments to the National Practitioner Data Bank.  Due to a legal loophole that exists in certain states, however, doctors and their insurance companies have be able to avoid reporting medical malpractice settlements that result from a mediation process.  In effort to close this loophole, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently signed a decision memorandum requiring doctors and medical liability insurance companies to report all medical malpractice payments made by or on behalf health care providers if even they are the result of a state-approved mediation process.

If you believe that you or a loved one has been the victim of medical malpractice, contact the experienced medical malpractice attorneys at Stark & Stark for a free consultation.

Can Informed Consent be a Defense in Medical Malpractice Cases?

Before a doctor performs any type of medical procedure, they must obtain the patient’s “informed consent” to do so. In general, this means that the patient must be provided with all potential risks, side effects and alternatives to the procedure, so that they can make an educated decision about whether or not to go through with the procedure. Pennsylvania courts have long recognized this requirement and have even held that a physician’s failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent before performing a surgery or procedure may amount not only to negligence, but to a battery.

Superior Court Clarifies Scope of MCARE Statute of Repose

The Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (or “MCARE”) Act Statute of Repose is a topic that has been previously discussed in this space. Statutes of Repose are similar to statutes of limitations. They provide a date or time frame by which a lawsuit must be filed. However, they are stricter than statutes of limitations. Once a statute of repose has expired, the legal cause of action actually ceases to exist. The MCARE Statue of Repose, which applies to medical malpractice cases, provides:

Appellate Division Clarifies the Principles of Equitable Tolling and Allows Joinder of a Physician Post Expiration of the Stature of Limitations

A two Judge Panel of the Appellate Division on November 27, 2013 found that the Trial Court erred by disallowing plaintiff’s request to name a doctor as an additional party beyond the Statute of Limitations. The Court followed the analysis of Lopez and its five factors and determined that in totality there was basis for the relief sought and plaintiff must be able to join this additional party.

Blog Categories