Archive for the ‘ Brain Injury ’ Category

Comments Off
4
May

District Court For Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Allows Amendment Of Medical Malpractice Complaint Finding That Language Barrier May Delay Discovery Of Medical Error

Following is the link to the recent memorandum decision of the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ramos v. Quien, 09D0403P (E.D. Pa. April 2, 2009, Baylson, J.)

The court allowed an amendment to Mr. Ramos’ Complaint, when his medical malpractice lawsuit may have been affected by a language barrier and poor drafting of the original Complaint by his attorney. The language barrier may have slowed his discovery of the medical error, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. The court determined the Defendant doctor was not prejudiced, because his Answer to the Complaint raised a defense based on the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ramos’ lawyer filed a Complaint in November 2007. He then filed an Amended Complaint which alleged he did not become aware that he had cancer until November 2005. After Defendant’s Answer and New Matter alleged the statute had run before the action was put into suit, Plaintiff replied that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until November of 2005, when he discovered he had cancer. The court found allegations in the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint to be very similar. Though there was evidence which showed Mr. Ramos may have known of his cancer before November 2005, what weight should be given the evidence was not to be determined as a matter of law. His original Complaint alleged he did not know about the cancer in January, 2006.

Where the defendant recognized a statute of limitations defense, and preserved it in their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, there is no prejudice in allowing an amendment which clarifies an allegation which was already in the original Complaint.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D0403P.pdf

D. Joseph Chapman

Attorney at Law

jchapman@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Bookmark and Share
Comments Off
5
Mar

NEW U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS STATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW IS NOT PREEMPTED WHEN DRUG WARNING WAS INSUFFICIENT; A WIN FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.

Below is a link to the opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court issued on March 4, 2009, in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. _____ (2009). One of the products liability or medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, can explain the application of the decision to your case.

Wyeth is a company that manufactures a drug called Phenergan. The drug is corrosive and causes irreversible gangrene if it enters a patient’s arteries. On April 7, 2000, the drug was introduced into Diane Levine’s body through the IV-push injection method. This is where the drug is injected directly into her vein, rather than being dripped in through a saline solution. During the injection, the drug somehow encountered an artery, causing gangrene and eventual amputation of her right forearm. This ended her career as a professional musician.

After settling her medical malpractice case, Ms. Levine’s product liability case against the manufacturer went to a jury in Vermont. She won, and was awarded compensation for medical bills, loss of income and future earning capacity, and pain and suffering in excess of six million dollars.

The case was appealed through Vermont’s high court, and was before the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the following issue: When the manufacturer’s label failed to provide adequate warning of the risks of using a particular method of introducing the drug into the body, should the judgment be overturned because the label was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, preempting a jury award based on state tort law? The court considered this narrow question, because the record in the lower courts was conclusive that had a stronger warning been present, the drug would not have been administered as it was, and that the warning for IV-Push administration was insufficient. The Supreme Court viewed these facts with the understanding that Congressional purpose determines preemption and federal law will only preempt the traditional police powers retained by the state when its purpose was clear and manifest.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided, the FDA’s approval of the label is not a complete defense to a state law tort claim. Wyeth was found to be able to comply with both duties imposed on it by the state tort law jury verdict and the federal labeling approvals. The court also found that subjecting Wyeth to a state tort law duty would not obstruct the purposes and objectives of federal drug labeling regulations. Ms. Levine’s claim was not preempted by federal law. The judgment from the jury in Vermont was allowed to stand.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1249.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law

Bookmark and Share
Comments Off
27
Feb

NEW PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE PRESENTS QUESTION FOR JURY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Below is a link to the opinion from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court decided on February 19, 2009, in Wilson v. El-Daief, ____ A.2d ____ (Pa. 2009). Please contact the medical malpractice attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC, in Harrisburg, PA, for an explanation. A lawyer will explain the application of the decision to your case.

Mary Elizabeth Wilson had an operation on her wrist. After the operation, her hand clinched into a fist, her elbow turned inward, and her shoulder drew upward. For these problems, she continued to see the physician who performed the operation. For more than one year, he told Ms. Wilson, she would be fine. She was referred to an orthopedic surgeon who, for more than a year, was unable to tell what was wrong or how it had happened. Finally, after bouncing back and forth between the two doctors Ms. Wilson said she knew something was wrong and that she had not been treated appropriately by her surgeon. She said this in September 2001.

The question before the court was only whether Ms. Wilson’s claim was barred by time limitations. She had two years from when her claim accrued to file a lawsuit. Ms. Wilson’s Writ of Summons and subsequent Complaint, alleging the doctor who performed her surgery had lacerated the radial nerve in her wrist, were not filed within two years of the surgery, nor within two years of the date she stated she knew something was wrong. Without more, her claim would not have been allowed to proceed. But here, whether the claim was time-barred, hinged on the court’s application of the discovery rule.

The court ruled there was potential for Ms. Wilson to be confused about whether she was injured and its cause, because her surgeon told her she would be fine, and the orthopedic surgeon did not explain all the possible diagnoses he was considering. The court stated that a person with a high school education, cannot be held to a higher standard of knowledge than two medical doctors – if the physicians were unable or unwilling to tell her what was wrong, then she may not have known. Her efforts to find out what was wrong were considered to present a genuine issue of material fact, when she continued to meet with her surgeon and the orthopedic surgeon, as well as seeking out the opinion of a third doctor. A definitive medical diagnosis was not needed to begin the running of the statute of limitations, but a mere loss of confidence in her doctor was not sufficient to begin the running of the time in which she had to file her lawsuit.

The posture of the case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant-doctor based on the claim being time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Pa. Supreme Court reversed, but did not state as a matter of law that the discovery rule allowed the claim to proceed. Against strong protests of the concurring/dissenting justices, the Supreme Court said a jury needed to decide whether Ms. Wilson had used reasonable diligence in discovering her injury and its cause.

http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-148-2008mo.pdf

Joe Chapman

Attorney at Law

Bookmark and Share
Comments Off
9
Feb

SURGICAL ERRORS AND MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION ERRORS ARE TOP REASONS PATIENTS NEED TO TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR OWN CARE.

Below is a link to an article, written by a medical doctor, which explains how dangerous it is to go to the hospital. In the February 8, 2009, article, the doctor highlights surgical errors and medication administration errors as areas of concern.

“Surgical Errors

The Risk: About 1300 times a year, surgeons operate on the wrong person or remove the wrong limb or organ. Also, doctors leave surgical instruments inside the body once in every 5000 surgeries. This is the stuff of headlines, but such incidents are rare, considering that more than 20 million surgeries occur every year. Far more common preventable problems are stitches coming loose, blood clots forming during or after surgery, and infections. These can lead to very serious outcomes.”

“Medication Errors

The Risk: Giving the wrong drug, administering the wrong dose, mixing drugs that interact badly, or giving a medication to which a patient is allergic—all can be deadly. Unfortunately, such mistakes are not rare. Adverse drug events cause one out of five injuries or deaths to hospital patients in the U.S.”

Pennsylvania injury lawyers at Schmidt Kramer PC have successfully prosecuted such obvious medical malpractice cases in the Harrisburg area. The attorneys at Schmidt Kramer PC have also benefitted their medical malpractice clients with very good results in more difficult medical negligence cases.

Click on the link below for the full article.
 
Attorney at Law
Bookmark and Share
Comments Off
30
Jan

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Affirms Holding On MCARE Expert Testimony

Below are the links to the opinions by Justices Saylor and Greenspan in the 3-3 decision (Justice McCaffery did not participate) issued January 29, 2009 in Gbur v. Golio. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirms the trial court and Superior Court opinions which allowed an expert in radiation oncology to testify in a medical malpractice case involving a urologist. The lowers courts opined that the expert and his background was in the same sub-specialty and qualified under Section 512(c) of the MCARE Act. The Supreme Court affirms but writes 2 opinions since the Court is split on the reasons for affirmation. Justice Saylor would affirm because the motion in limine and trial testimony did not fully develop the objection under Section 512 to disqualify the expert. Justice Greenspan would find that the record was developed but the expert had sufficient background and credentials to qualify to testify as an expert under Section 512 of the MCARE Act. Therefore, the Superior Court is affirmed and the issue that the Court was reviewing about a medical expert of a sub-specialty testifying is preserved for another day.

Justice Saylor Opinion Link
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-119-2008mo.pdf

Justice Greenspan Link
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-119-2008co.pdf

Scott B. Cooper
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
717-232-6300

Bookmark and Share
Comments Off
20
Jan

Pennsylvania Association For Justice Responds To George Will (Pocono Record – January 18, 2009)

‘Safety cult,’ or a constitutional right?
By

In his Jan. 11 column “Lawsuits and death of common sense,” George Will expressed anguish about a proliferation of rules, warnings and safety measures, ridiculing many of them and suggesting that this epidemic is prompted by purported lawsuit abuse.

It would be interesting to follow George Will through a morning in Washington, D.C., and think about the warnings and safety measures he would get rid of. Let’s say he gets to the Metro to go to work at the Washington Post and he sees the blinking lights as the train is coming to alert riders to stand back. Should they turn off the lights? Should other transit companies get rid of the bumpy tread along train tracks designed to stop people from falling over? If it was raining that day and the Post building managers put up plastic, yellow signs cautioning about wet floors, was that a waste of their time and money? Is it wise or necessary for the elevator at the Post to have communications systems and emergency bells?

George Will should know about the Constitution, which in its Seventh Amendment guarantees all of us a right to a jury trial. I know that because I used to work at the National Constitution Center, a new museum on Philadelphia’s Independence Mall dedicated to the history, meaning and evolution of the document created there. One day, I noticed George Will wandering around the lobby as he waited to see the opening show, “Freedom Rising.” Once you leave the theater, one of the first things you come across is a model jury box, paying homage to jury trials and the Seventh amendment to the Constitution.

You can learn a lot about the document there, but Will must have forgotten some of it, at least what it says about our right to jury trials. He includes an encyclopedia of stories which he portrays in no more than 12 words as frivolous lawsuits. Some of the cases involve children and schools, like a new rule at a South Florida school banning running at recess because of a child that got out of hand.

He probably obtained many of his anecdotes from think tanker Philip Howard. He quotes Howard in his anxiety about “a bubble wrap approach to child rearing” from a “cult of safety.” In other words, the argument goes, companies and institutions are so worried about lawsuits that they set rules by the bakers’ dozen and hang up warnings everywhere. Philip Howard is a genial man (whom I also met working at the Constitution Center) whose “think tank” has a genial name, “Common Good.” He works for a large law firm which represented the tobacco industry in its decades-long battle against people suing who were dying or dead because of the lethal nature of cigarettes. (The “safety cult” won a warning on cigarette boxes long ago.)

When are the warnings that Will and Howard dispute unwarranted? When is a safety measure justified or urged on by the “safety cult”? Is everything else a frivolous lawsuit until you get hurt and sue? What about the Supreme Court Justice who constantly railed against unjustified lawsuits, until he fell off a stage giving a speech at the Yale Club and sued? The Wills and the Howards of the world think it makes common sense to let the free market regulate industry, not the courts or government. This common sense deregulation and downsizing of civil justice brought us the meltdown on Wall Street, (alleged) Ponzi schemers like Bernard Madoff and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We’re headed for much more trouble if they want to extend it to the places where our children play and the lead painted toys they chew on.

It is the civil justice system embedded in the Seventh Amendment that keeps us safe, saves us from being cheated and provides us with fairness when others commit reckless conduct, especially at a time when government has turned its back from providing for the general welfare. The courts, brave plaintiffs seeking justice and their lawyers are the only ones filling the void. When corporations and institutions respond with rules, warnings and measures to make us safer, that, too, is the free market system at work.

Anthony Green formerly served as a vice president at the National Constitution Center and is presently Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice.

Bookmark and Share
0
19
Dec

Tainted toys – AS I SEE IT SCOTT B. COOPER (Harrisburg Patriot News Op Ed)

AS I SEE IT SCOTT B. COOPER

Tainted toys

Friday, December 19, 2008

In this holiday season, our children dream of toy trucks and dolls but never think what they hope for might hurt them. For parents, however, this possibility is all too real.

So far this year, 74 toys have been recalled for containing lead paint, choking hazards, and toxic chemicals. In 2007, some 25 million items were deemed hazardous. The recent efforts to step up toy oversight took place only because Congress pressured the Consumer Product Safety Commission to take stronger action.

But the number of tainted toys taken off the shelf is only the tip of the iceberg.

As if the CPSC were a bureaucratic version of Scrooge, it recently found a way to again side with the big toy companies against our kids. It ruled that manufacturers and retailers could continue selling children’s products made with a dangerous chemical, phthalates, that can damage a child’s reproductive system, especially in boys. Retailers can distribute the toys until they exhausted their supplies. The manufacturers don’t even have to label which products meet the new safety standards and which don’t. One expert said this loophole could allow these items to be on store shelves for years.

We must believe that the new administration will take a more aggressive role, but it was left with the gift of record deficits and some spending will have to be cut. But even as government takes a back seat when it comes to our safety, there is still one institution we have been able to depend on: the civil justice system.

For centuries, it has existed to ensure our safety. When a defective product harms someone, it is through the civil justice system, a brave consumer’s will to take on a powerful corporation, and an attorney willing to take a risk where justice can be delivered and the irresponsible businesses held responsible. These actions act as a deterrent to companies putting poison toys, untested drugs and dangerous products on store shelves. Notwithstanding the loose standards of the federal agency, some manufacturers are finally pulling toys out of delivery trucks and have stopped putting questionable products up for sale. But others may not be so responsible: will they mark down toys with high lead levels before they are required to pull them by law in February 2009? IN PENNSYLVANIA we are fortunate that we have a strong civil justice system that consumers can depend on. And we must keep it that way.

So many parents have their hands full worrying about pinching pennies in this economic crisis. Should they also have to worry that a stuffed pony or a plastic super car could be hazardous to their children’s health? The holiday season should be a time to indulge our children. We must be vigilant in making sure the gift of giving does not turn out to be a path to poison, choking and maybe even death.

SCOTT B. COOPER, Esq., is an attorney with SchmidtKramer, P.C., Harrisburg.

 

ON THE WEB

For more information on dangerous and recalled toys, visit www.toysafety.org/ worstToyList_index.html and www.parents.com/ baby/safety/toy-recalls/ biggest-toy-recalls-of-2008/

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/columnists/1229636410167720.xml&coll=1

©2008 Patriot-News© 2008 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.

Bookmark and Share
0
3
Apr

Pottsville brain injury may change outcome for a man charged with criminal homicide

April 3, 2008

According to The Republic Herald, defense attorneys for a Pottsville man say a brain injury the man incurred years earlier could lessen the charges of criminal homicide he is currently facing.

The Pottsville man is allegedly responsible for fatally shooting two men at his apartment, but because the man suffers from blackouts, seizures, and rage attacks, the charges may be lightened.

The man’s sister said the Pottsville brain injury occurred in 1990 when the man was hit in the head with a brick during a fight.

If the man’s brain injury is determined a factor in the homicide, the defense attorneys will have to prove the man’s brain has diminished capacity that affects his decision-making ability.

Police are still investigating the case.

Read More:
http://www.republicanherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19423779&BRD=2626&PAG=461&dept_id=532624&rfi=15

Bookmark and Share