Mississippi Rep. Tommy Reynolds, a Democrat, joined the National Conference of State Legislatures Law and Criminal Justice committee co-chairmen, South Dakota Sen. Joni Cutler, a Republican, in backing a recent letter that encouraged other house leaders to express their "strong, bipartisan opposition" to federal medical malpractice reform because it would infringe upon states' rights, reports Julian Pecquet at Healthwatch. Healthwatch is touted as Capitol Hill's healthcare blog on their website.

The letter came in response to House Republicans efforts to pass a tort reform bill (H.R. 5) that would cap non-economic damages at $250,000. Non-economic damages include things like pain, suffering, emotional distress or mental anguish. Pecquet says legislators want the bill to pass "next week as a way to pay for repealing the health reform law's Medicare cost-cutting board" by stabilizing medical malpractice insurance rates.

Continue reading "Mississippi State Representative Opposes Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Bill: Bill Would Unfairly Cap Plaintiffs' Damages" »

Normally, a medical malpractice lawsuit involves several factors, including proving the applicable standard of care, securing witnesses, confirming the facts of the incident, determining the extent of the patients injury or damages, and preparing for trial. However in the case of one Jackson, Mississippi couple, these factors did not apply. In a sense the resolution of this case was to the advantage of this couple, but in some ways it is a testimonial to the severe injury and pain that this couple clearly suffered.

On Tuesday January 10, 2012, Hinds County, Mississippi Judge Bill Gowan awarded Daschica Thomas and her husband, Christopher Thomas of Jackson, Mississippi $600,435 in a lawsuit arising from a pregnancy termination procedure that Mrs. Thomas received in 2003.

According to the Clarion Ledger, the Thomas' medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against Dr. Joseph Booker in 2005. At the time Mrs. Thomas received her procedure, Dr. Booker was practicing at what was previously known as the Jackson Women's Health Organization abortion clinic. In addition to Dr. Booker, the lawsuit also names the clinic, the National Women's Health Organization of Jackson, and others as defendants.

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas alleged in their lawsuit that Booker stopped performing the pregnancy termination shortly after starting it and said he was unable to finish it. Dr. Booker recommended that Thomas come back so it could be completed by another doctor. According to the Clarion Ledger, the Thomas' complaint states in part: "Booker did not recommend antibiotics to her," according to court papers. Thomas, a diabetic, began cramping and went home, but there "she continued to spot, bleed and she felt dizzy, sick and feverish." As a result of Dr. Booker failing to complete the procedure, Thompson suffered sepsis poisoning, and fell into a coma for a week and half.

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas were saved the possible agony and anguish of reliving their injury at trial because the defendants, Dr. Booker and the Jackson Women's Health Organization failed to respond to their complaint. As a result of the defendants' failure to answer, Judge Gowan entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas.

Continue reading "Jackson, MS Couple Victorious in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Regarding Doctor's Refusal to Complete Pregnancy Termination Procedure" »

For many, the prospect of visiting the dentist is already one that is filled with anxiety, for several reasons. However, the death of a 17 year old young woman from Maryland may lead to additional fears about the dentist. According to the Baltimore Sun, the parents of Jennifer Michelle Olenick , a high school student from Woodstock, Maryland, have filed a civil suit against the dentist who was treating Jennifer on March 28, 2011, when her pulse and oxygen levels began to drop. Jennifer subsequently passed away on April 6, after laying in a coma for several days.

Jennifer Olenick, a 17 year old high school junior who was better known by her friends as Jenny, went in to the offices of Dr. Domenick Coletti on March 28, 2011 in order to undergo a routine wisdom tooth surgery. However, Jenny's surgery turned out to be anything but routine. The Baltimore Sun reports that according to Dr. David Fowler, the state's chief medical examiner, Jenny was first given a standard dose of anesthesia by anesthesiologist Dr. Krista Michelle Isaacs during the procedure that did not "get her deep enough so she was fully anesthetized." Because of this, more anesthesia was administered by Isaacs.

According to the Baltimore Sun, at approximately 8:05 a.m., Jenny began to experience bradycardia, or a slowing of her heart rate. Next, according to medical examiner Fowler, "A little while later, the oxygen saturation in her blood started dropping." Shortly thereafter, according to the autopsy report, Jenny went into hypoxic arrest. Emergency responders were called and advanced cardiovascular life support protocol was initiated. Jenny was subsequently rushed to Howard County General Hospital and then to Johns Hopkins Hospital for more specialized care. Tragically, Jenny died at Johns Hopkins Hospital on April 6 after being in a coma for days. Jenny's autopsy found that she suffered acute hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, or damage to the brain from a lack of oxygen, and severe brain edema, or swelling of the brain tissue. These conditions are what lead to her death. However, the question is whether her death could have been avoided.

According to the lawsuit filed by Jenny's parents against her dentist and the anesthesiologist, her death most definitely could have been avoided. On November 30, 2011, Jenny's parents filed a lawsuit against Dr. Krista Michelle Isaacs, the anesthesiologist; Dr. Domenick Coletti, the oral surgeon; Central Maryland Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery PA and Baltimore Washington Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Center LLC, both Columbia practices in which Coletti is a partner; and Safe Sedation LLC, which the Maryland Board of Physicians Web site lists as Isaacs' primary practice setting. The lawsuit alleged that Isaacs and Coletti were negligent in their care of Jenny and failed to resuscitate her after her heart rate slowed to a "panic level" of 40 beats per minute and her body began losing oxygen. The suit goes on to claim that those failures led to Jenny not having a pulse when emergency responders arrived at Dr. Coletti's office, and that they directly allowed for the "massive and irreversible brain injury" that resulted in her death April 6.

Continue reading "Dental Malpractice Leads to Death of Maryland Teen" »

A recent proposal made by Arizona State Representative Ted Vogt, of Tucson, has several trial lawyers in the state very concerned. Representative Vogt has proposed a piece of state legislation that would allow trial judges to order someone who lost a lawsuit to pay all the costs and legal fees of the winner. These types of laws are typically referred to as loser pays laws. Most American courts follow what is known as the "American rule," where each party bears their own litigation expense. However, loser pay laws follow what is known as the "English Rule," which require the non-victorious party in a lawsuit to bear the burden of not only their legal expenses, but the expenses of opposing parties as well.

According to Representative Vogt, the implementation of a law like this "is only fair." Vogt believes that a measure such as this would decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits brought in the state. It not surprising that Rep. Vogt has this opinion, because it is not his first time championing such a piece of legislation. Just last year, Vogt proposed a stricter version of the law that he is currently championing. Vogt first proposed a laws that would automatically require the loser of a lawsuit to bear the burden of their opponents court costs. Fortunately, that proposition received enough opposition that it was unsuccessful. It was this opposition, according to Vogt, that caused him to fine tune his proposal. Although the detail of the new proposed law are not ironed out completely, this new version would leave the final decision on who should pay costs and legal fees to the judge who heard the case.

Despite Vogt's statement that "I absolutely don't want to do anything to affect anybody's ability to go into court," it is likely that a measure such as this, if successful, would do just that. As would be expected, members of Arizona's Trial Lawyers Association, who represent those who go to court with cases of personal injury, property damage, medical malpractice and wrongful death, are adamantly opposed to any measure such as this. According to the organization's president, Janice Goldstein, in response to the contention that this type of law would cut down on frivolous suits, "Just because you lose a lawsuit doesn't mean it was a frivolous case. Ms. Goldstein is correct, because of the several variables that go into presenting an issue at trial, the failure to receive a favorable jury verdict is not indicative of the merits of a particular case.

Ms. Goldstein was also very correct in her statement that: "You need to be careful you don't have a chilling impact on people who have been harmed feeling that they cannot bring a case against a large corporation. Because, if they lose and the jury decides against them, they would have to pay for all of those fees." It is true that if a measure like this were to be implemented, it would have a the effect of virtually robbing people of their ability to be heard in the judicial system. As a Mississippi trial attorney, attempts to implement measure such of this cause me great concern, because of large detriment they would have to those who have been the victim of another's negligence. If laws like this are passed, it would hamper deserving individual's ability to receive the compensation they deserve as a result of injuries they have sustained, and that is not right. So, it is my hope that the legislative body of Arizona once again rejects this legislation, and it is also my hope that no other states see consider such measures.

When we step into a hospital seeking treatment, we rely on the experience and advice of the medical professionals who treat us. Especially when we are in very vulnerable states, we look to doctors and other medical professionals to give us accurate information, in order to protect us from possible infection or further injury. We look to hospitals and medical professionals to help, not hurt. However, according to the Clarion Ledger, when Ellecia Small and Kinyata Johnson entered the University of Mississippi Medical Center in order to receive organ transplants, they did not exit as healthy patients, they exited as the victims of medical malpractice.

Both Small and Johnson received kidney transplants from the same donor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in 2009. Small, who received her transplant in November of 2009 exited the hospital with a new kidney, which should have meant a new lease on life. However, three months later, she died. Johnson, the other kidney recipient is now partially blind and needs constant care. Both Johnson and the family of Small are filing separate lawsuits against the University of Mississippi Medical Center, as well as the Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency for medical malpractice. Both parties are being represented by Joe Tatum, a Jackson, Mississippi medical malpractice attorney.

According to Tatum, when Johnson entered the hospital, "he thought it [the transplant] would help him, but he was better off before the kidney." As a result of the injuries he has sustained, Johnson has filed a suit seeking unspecified damages. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Small is seeking unspecified damages as well.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Smalls in the Circuit Court of Hinds County alleges that the kidney transplanted into Small came from a donor who had been diagnosed with encephalitis. Also according to lawsuit filed on Small's behalf, "Both defendants were aware that the kidney donor was infected with encephalitis before the subject kidney was transplanted into Ellecia Smith. And as a result, Ellecia Small, developed severe encephalitis, neurological damage and died." Although information regarding the specifics of Johnson's is not immediately available, it is likely that Johnson's lawsuit alleges similar instances of negligence.

Continue reading "Lawsuit against Jackson, MS Hospital Alleges Hospital Negligent In Transplanting Infected Organs" »

In Mississippi, medical malpractice attorneys are finding that the legislature can use its powers to dictate the terms of civil litigation - or at least that's what a recent study seems to indicate. The study, published in the current issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, found that caps placed on pain and suffering awards and other reforms by the legislature led to a marked decrease in the amount of medical malpractice cases making an appearance in court. It examined the number of lawsuits filed against doctors insured by the state's largest med-mal insurer, the Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi and, according to Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Behrens discovered that "once the legislature made it harder to sue and win big bucks, lawyers responded by filing fewer suits."

The comparisons were made by year, from 1986 to 2010. The most noticeable increase came after Mississippi's legislature enacted medical negligence and other tort reform legislation that became effective for claims filed on or after January 1, 2003, and September 1, 2004. The Forbes article notes that prior to enactment of the new legislation, medical malpractice lawsuits increased at a rate of about 8.5% a year to around 250. That number increased to 630 in 2002, after legislators passed a law capping non-economic damages at $500,000 for suits filed after Jan. 1, 2003, but before the new rules went into effect.

More than likely, this sudden spike in claims is akin to "last-minute" lawsuits, filed in a last ditch effort to capitalize on the availability of larger awards before it was too late. The legislature, however, quickly put a stop to that. In response to the increase in lawsuits, the legislature made it mandatory that plaintiffs sue in the county where they received their injury (effectively ending forum shopping) and eradicated the any increases in the cap on pain and suffering.

Once the legislation actually became effective, lawsuits fell to 132 in 2003, and have since averaged only about 150 annually. The Institute for Legal Reform has said that the 2004 tort reform package led to "measurable improvements." Before the changes, Mississippi had been known as the "lawsuit capital" of the world, reports Legal Newsline. ILR still ranks Mississippi near the bottom of its survey, saying it remains difficult for defendants due to the state's plaintiff-friendly judges and juries.

Continue reading "Mississippi Medical Malpractice Cases Decrease with Award Caps" »