If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Tragically, just 40 minutes can make the difference between a healthy baby and a little girl who will never walk, never talk, never feed herself, never have a boyfriend, never get married…

In this case handled by Elmira medical malpractice attorney Jim Reed, the Labor and Delivery nurses hooked the Mom up to an electronic fetal monitor and then left the Mom unattended for 40+ minutes. Unfortunately, fetal monitors are absolutely no good if no one is there to read the results….

That’s why the standard of care for labor and delivery nurses requires nurses to review the monitor strips for the first 20 minutes that the mother is placed on the monitor. If all is OK after 20 minutes, the Mom can then be left unattended for short periods of time. If the strips are not OK, then the nurse is trained to immediately intervene and summon a doctor if necessary.

In this case, a careful review of the medical records revealed that the mother had been left totally unattended for the first 40+ minutes she was placed on the fetal monitor. As you might have guessed, the monitor strips were bad meaning that the baby was in trouble and needed immediate delivery. The problem is that no one was in the room to hear read the results and respond to the baby’s cries for help. As a result, the necessary C-section to rescue the baby was delayed by more than an hour causing the baby to suffer profound brain damage (Cerebral Palsy). The baby was rushed from the Corning Hospital to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, but the damage was already done. The baby had a permanent brain injury called Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) which means that the baby’s brain was deprived of oxygen at birth. Read the rest…

The Elmira Star-Gazette recently published a letter written by my cousin Pat O’Donnell. Although I agree with my cousin on many matters, there are a few on which we differ. One subject on which our opinions vary is tort reform and the cost of health care in America. First, let me share my cousin’s letter, then I’ll explain why I feel I must dispute his argument.

From the Elmira Star-Gazette, Feb. 19, 2010:

“Most Americans agree we need health care reform. What we do not want is for the government to take over the industry. Start with tort reform. Doctors are paying six-figure checks for malpractice insurance a year, and these figures increase yearly, as do all our premiums. The reason Washington does not want to address this problem is most of them are lawyers (with friends who are lawyers) getting rich on malpractice law suits.

The second problem to tackle is the sale of insurance across state lines (you can buy insurance only from a company within your own state). Open up the lines – its called competition – which in turn make you sharpen your pencil when you quote your goods.

Next – jobs. Unemployment’s hovering around 10 percent; we tried to spend our way out time and time again, but it does not work. Cut taxes across the board. If we Americans have more, we spend more. Consumer spending creates jobs. It’s time we stand up to the corruption once and for all. Maybe its time we elected some people that actually live the life the people now in Washington so want to control.”

- Pat O’Donnell

To counter Mr. O’Donnell assertions, I can begin with the results of a comprehensive study published by University of Connecticut Law Professor Tom Baker.  He revealed that the cost of all malpractice claims in the United States – including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts – amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. health care spending.

I’d also like to share this CNN clip of Senator Richard J. Durbin making a strong, compelling argument against the Republican push for malpractice reform:

Simply put, lawsuits are not to blame for our health care system’s deficiencies – they are simply political scapegoats.

Malpractice claims actually decrease spending by encouraging doctors to perform properly, avoiding costs associated with caring for people injured by their mistakes.

Moreover, tort reformists want to shift responsibility from private insurance companies to taxpayers.

According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die from malpractice each year.  Currently, victims are compensated by negligent doctors’ insurance companies.  By limiting doctors’ exposure to lawsuits, victims will have to look to public entities to cover future medical treatment, lost wages and physical and occupational rehabilitation.

Yes, that’s right– if you limit recoveries in lawsuits, the medical costs will be borne by YOU the taxpayer rather than the medical malpractice insurance carrier!

Although tort reform has the potential to save money – by allowing doctors to save negligible amounts of money in insurance premiums – it is much more likely to lead to increased costs for the rest of us.

As I mentioned, my cousin and I have many opinions in common, but this is a subject on which we diverge. I’m sure Mr. O’Connell will agree with me in an appreciation of a healthy debate!

Thank you,

Christina
________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

When will these drug manufacturers learn that it is NOT acceptable to keep distributing a drug they KNOW is causing injury and death?

Haven’t they learned anything from the asbestos cases, the Vioxx cases, the Levaquin cases? The bottom line is that they will NOT be able to conceal damaging information forever. In today’s age of free exchange of information, it is becoming more difficult than ever for any manufacturer to keep a lid on problems with their products. In the old days, a heart attack victim in Pennsylvania might know nothing about a heart attack victim in New York, but those days are over. Online communities of patients, doctors and medical researchers can now share their experience with people around the world with just a click of a button.

If this is so obvious to me, why isn’t it obvious to these drug manufacturers who mistakenly believe they can hide the damaging information from the public? Hmmmm, perhaps it is the lure of BIG DOLLARS. The longer you wait to recall a drug can mean millions if not billions of dollars of drug sales.

Heck, why not try to make as much money as possible on a drug before you pull the plug on it? It sure makes business sense but it totally forgets that you are injuring or killing innocent people in exchange for a few more $. Sadly, big business often cares more about profits than people.

A recommendation to manufacturers

Here’s what I would like to tell the companies who have learned that a product they thought was safe but has now been revealed as dangererous: IMMEDIATELY stop distribution of any suspected dangerous product BEFORE more people are permanently injured or killed. Toyota, are you listening?

It appears that Avandia is among the latest drugs to join the “dangerous drug concealed from the public” camp. Avandia, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, is a popular diabetes drug. Unfortunately, Avandia has a deadly side effect of drastically increasing the risk of heart attacks and causing liver damage.

A 2007 study in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine revealed the increased heart attack risks associated with Avandia. CNN did a great video report on the dangers of Avandia and how those dangers were well known to GlaxoSmithKline long before they publicly revealed any information:

Avandia Linked to Heart Attacks – CNN “American Morning”

More details about Avandia:

Avandia (rosiglitazone maleate) is a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) drug developed to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. First approved by the FDA in 1999, the agency reported 8 years later a significant increase in the risk of heart attack in those patients to whom Avandia had been prescribed. And many deaths have been linked to Avandia. More recently, two independent studies showed that bone fractures, particularly in female patients, have been associated with this popular diabetes drug, while a third study has found a link between Avandia and liver failure.

Safety concerns and side effects that have been associated with Avandia include the following:

• hypersensitivity
• cardiac failure
• hepatic impairment
• macular oedema
• bone fracture

In addition to these serious side effects, several other risk factors associated with consuming Avandia include: weight gain, cold, cough, headache, inflammation of sinuses, back pain, swelling, fluid retention and cardiac arrest.

If you or a family member have used Avandia and have suffered heart attack or liver damage after taking Avandia, please consult with an experienced malpractice lawyer ASAP so you can learn about your legal options. If you do not know an experienced malpractice lawyer, you can feel free to e-mail me at jreed@zifflaw.com.

Thanks, Jim

_________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

The Ziff Law Firm has planned an important seminar for legal professionals.

The firm will host Liens, Set-Asides and Special Needs Trusts, noon to 2 p.m. on Friday, March 5 at the Ziff offices, 303 William Street in Elmira.

The seminar will be presented by Brett Newman, managing partner of Lien Resolution Group, and Ziff Law’s Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

Participants earn two CLE credits and lunch will be provided. The cost is free for members of the Academy of Trial Lawyers and $100 for non-members. The $100 admission fee can be applied toward the cost of a one-year membership in the Academy. For more information, follow this link to the Seminar Brochure and/or check the Academy of Trial Lawyers Brochure.

The seminar will cover a variety of topics:

• Changes in state and federal laws affecting Medicare reimbursement claims
• Medicaid liens
• Private health insurance subrogation claims
• When Medicare set-asides are appropriate in liability and workers compensation cases
• Attorney and client liability for Medicare, Medicaid and ERISA claims
• Procedures to identify potential liens, initiate correspondence with the lien holder, audit and petition bills and payment summaries, and negotiate procurement offset
• The protection of client government benefits through special needs trusts

To register for the seminar, please visit the Academy of Trial Lawyers online or call the Academy at (518) 364-4044. Please contact me directly if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Christina
________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

Most people take it as a given that doctors are accountable for accurate, competent care of EVERY person whom they see in a professional capacity. It’s difficult to believe, but until just recently, there was a big exception to that standard.

It was VERY difficult to successfully sue doctors who conducted medical exams for the defense in no-fault, worker’s compensation and personal injury cases. Typically retained by insurance companies or patients’ employers, these physicians were protected from lawsuits because they did not have a “duty of care” to the patients they saw. This duty wasn’t established because these doctors have a fleeting interaction with patients – seeing them once to collect information for the defense.

That has all changed, however, due to a recent decision by the New York Appellate Court – a decision I found out about via attorney Eric Turkewitz’s New York Personal Injury Law Blog. In the post, “NY Appellate Court Says OK to Sue No-Fault, Workers’ Comp and DME Physicians,” Eric explains this important change – a set of court-established criteria that make these “Doctors for the Defense” accountable for any bad advice or poor care they give the patients they see.

As Eric  explains it, the New York’s Appellate Division First Department said that these doctors, can be sued if certain conditions exist. A court panel  unanimously set these rules, based on the case Badalto v. Rosenberg:

“In the context of a physical examination conducted for the purpose of rendering an evaluation for a third party, such as an employer or insurer, an implied physician-patient relationship may arise if the physician either affirmatively treats the examinee or affirmatively advises the examinee as to a course of treatment.”

The three conditions set forth by the court are:

1. that the advice was incorrect,

2. that it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would rely on the advice, and

3. that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the advice.

As an experienced personal injury attorney, Eric not only does a great job of explaining the qualifications demanded to make a case – but the consequences for personal injury law in general. This ruling gives a new protection to plaintiffs – and undermines the practice of quick, shallow medical exams for the defense.

To quote from Eric’s New York Personal Injury Blog posting on the subject:

“All those 5-10 minute quickie exams done by doctors on behalf of insurance companies may now subject those doctors to liability. If a doctor is going to cut off benefits, s/he will now have to write that the worker can go back to work, but also write that the worker shouldn’t actually rely on this opinion. The physicians will have to write, essentially, that their opinions are actually worthless and should not be relied upon. If an injured party shouldn’t rely on it, why should a judge or jury?”

Accountability. Standards. Informed opinions. Should anything less be expected of doctors – for any exam?

Thanks again to Eric Turkewitz for blogging about this and other important developments in personal injury law.

Sincerely,

Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com
E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

Utica’s Observer-Dispatch newspaper recently posted a Guest View column titled “Tort Reform: Make Negligence Behavior Focus.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this Guest View. Rather than blaming the lawyers for the fictitious “lawsuit crisis,” why don’t we blame the true culprit — the parties responsible for injuring innocent people.

The doctors and hospitals that commit malpractice injuring more than 98,000 people a year…

The nursing homes who neglect their elderly patients…

The drunk drivers who maim and kill hundreds of thousands people each year…

You get the picture. I’ve reposted a copy of the column below:

“Tort Reform: Make Negligence Behavior Focus”

(Observer-Dispatch, Utica, 12/13/09)

In Washington, President Obama has said he would be open to suggestions about constraining lawsuits by victims of medical malpractice – and insurance companies and medical organizations are making their case.

In Albany, buttressed by so-called “research,” business advocates are launching their own campaign to insulate negligent entities from having to compensate those they injure.

Lawyers and lawsuits have been attacked politically for years, but in reality, civil lawsuits shine a spotlight on wrongdoing, call the offenders to account, deter future misbehavior and provide justice for people who have been hurt.

Repeated studies have shown that approximately 100,000 people die each year due to medical malpractice in our nation’s hospitals. These are not simply bad outcomes that were unavoidable; they are instances where physicians or hospitals failed to meet the normal standard of care – where other physicians deemed the damage done to have been avoidable.

If a hospital, for example, allows an expectant mother to lie in one of its labor rooms, fails to notice for several hours that the fetal monitor shows the fetus in distress, and the child is born severely brain damaged, should that institution be protected from a lawsuit? How is that family going to pay for a lifetime of care for their child? What incentive is that hospital going to have to correct its procedures to prevent such an incident from ever happening again?

State authorities normally don’t have the power to impose more than minor sanctions in cases like this. The one avenue that leads to a fair outcome is a lawsuit. That family should not be told there is an arbitrary cap on the amount of damages they can receive. They should have the right to have their case heard and decided by a judge and jury in an open courtroom.

This is not a new debate. No one likes to be sued and companies, hospitals and insurers have argued for years that lawsuits should be curbed. They point to a few cases where courts awarded large sums to injured parties. But they ignore some key facts:

The “lawsuit explosion” is a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. The number of tort filings in New York state actually decreased by 30 percent from 1998 to 2008. The total number of tort cases filed was down from 81,952 to 57,023.

These cases often take years to come to a conclusion. Lawyers working for contingency fees don’t get paid unless they win. It would be ludicrous for someone in that position to file a frivolous lawsuit.

There are checks and balances in the system. If someone files a frivolous lawsuit, a judge can sanction the lawyer for doing so and dismiss the case. If a jury awards too large an amount, a judge can reduce it. If the losing side disagrees with the result, they can appeal.

It’s easy to see the benefits to the individuals involved and to our society of these lawsuits.

Companies that have polluted the environment have been deterred by members of communities who have filed lawsuits. Automakers that have sold unsafe cars have been deterred by lawsuits. Manufacturers of items ranging from garage door openers to children’s toys have adhered to higher safety standards after lawsuits showed their products to be defective.

Usually, the people who bring these lawsuits are not people of means. They have no way of fighting back except through our court system. And without lawyers who were willing to work on a contingency fee basis, they would never be able to sustain an action against these deep-pocketed entities.

Anyone who wants to reduce the number of lawsuits should focus on reducing the type of negligent behavior that harms people and causes them to sue. Ignoring the underlying causes and simply blaming the victims and their lawyers for suing undermines an important safeguard that our civil justice system provides to all our citizens.

- Michael E. Getnick, a founding member of the Utica law firm Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore LLP, is president of the New York State Bar Association.

Thanks for reading,

Jim

_________________________________
James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com

Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

For the past two years I have been litigating a medical malpractice case involving a woman who was catastrophically injured at a hospital in Northern Pennsylvania when her surgeon cut the wrong part of her anatomy during a routine procedure.  The case is seated in Federal Court in the Western District of New York because the woman is a resident of New York and the hospital is located in Pennsylvania.  Under the rules governing diversity jurisdiction — a situation where the parties reside or are domiciled in different states — the Federal Court is required to apply Pennsylvania law to the action.

The case is still being litigated, and therefore I will not divulge the details of the woman’s injuries or how the injury occurred.  In fact, the interesting part of the case for now does not involve the malpractice itself, but rather the defendants’ primary defense to it.

Throughout the litigation the defendants have relied upon a principle called the “Error in Judgment” rule.  Under this principle, a surgeon could be excused for his negligence by claiming that although in retrospect it appears he made errors during a procedure, he used his best judgment at the time and therefore did not violate the standard of care.  The main problem with the defense for injured people is that it theoretically excuses medical providers for all but intentional conduct, leaving plaintiffs with little recourse.

However, it appears the days when a surgeon can argue “I thought I did it right at the time and therefore am not to blame” are over, at least in Pennsylvania.  In August, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court handed down a ruling in Pringle v. Rapaport, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3267 (2009) where it held the “Error in Judgment” is inconstant with Pennsylvania law.

Pringle is a medical malpractice case involving a child who suffered extensive nerve damage in his neck as a result of shoulder dystocia, a condition in which an infant’s shoulder is stuck behind his mother’s pubic bone at the time of delivery.  The child’s parents sued the delivery physician, claiming the physician negligently executed a maneuver (the “corkscrew maneuver”) to dislodge the child’s shoulder, resulting in injury.  The parties agreed the physician correctly diagnosed the child with shoulder dystocia and appropriately chose to administer the corkscrew maneuver.  The only remaining issue was whether the physician properly executed the maneuver.  At trial, the Court instructed the jury, inter alia, physicians “are not liable for a mere mistake in judgment”.  Id. at 1-4.

On appeal, the Superior Court – after addressing several seminal Pennsylvania cases dealing with the “Error in Judgment” charge – held the question of whether a physician exercised sound judgment is not relevant to whether the surgeon committed malpractice.  Id. at 40-42.  Indeed, the Court further reasoned the “Error of Judgment” charge “is inherently confusing and has no place in medical malpractice cases” for at least two reasons:

• “[I]t wrongly suggests to the jury that a physician is not culpable for one type of negligence – the negligent exercise of his or her own judgment”; and

• “[I]t wrongly injects a subjective element into the jury’s deliberations”…and may lead the jury “to conclude that only judgments made in bad faith are culpable – even though a doctor’s subjective intentions while rendering treatment are likewise irrelevant to the issues placed before a jury in a medical malpractice action.”

This is very good news for people who suffer injuries due to medical malpractice in Pennsylvania, and will hopefully result in greater safety and caution in hospitals.

Thanks for reading!

Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

As a lawyer who has handled several multi-million dollar cases against the Ira Davenport Hospital (IDH) in Hammondsport, N.Y., I applaud the merger of that hospital and the Arnot-Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, N.Y.

WETM-TV recently posted an Associate Press report that this merger was going through – see the story, “Hospital Merger, WETM 18 Online” (a copy is pasted below).

Why do I care about this merger? Because I truly hope that IDH will finally get some long overdue help in upgrading the quality of its facilities and staff.

In my cases against IDH I was appalled to learn about the total lack of appropriate staff training at the hospital.

Let me give you just one example of what I learned and why I was so appalled.

My first case against Ira Davenport Hospital involved a prolonged delay in the delivery of a baby girl. In that case, the electronic fetal monitoring machine showed clear evidence that the baby was in distress for a prolonged period of time before either the nurses or the doctors did anything to deliver the baby. The whole purpose of putting a mother who is in labor on an electronic fetal monitoring machine is to be able to watch both the interaction between the baby’s heart rate and the mother’s contractions. There are certain patterns of heart rates that are reassuring—they show that the baby is doing well—and other patterns of heart rates that tell you the baby is in big trouble. Labor and delivery nurses, as well as obstetricians who deliver babies, are supposed to be trained to recognize both the good and bad heart-rate patterns. They are also taught what they are supposed to do when they see a bad heart rate on the electronic fetal monitoring machine.

The problem is that all of this presumes that the medical staff are properly trained and it presumes that they are actually paying attention to the printouts from the monitoring machine. Let’s face it, the machine is no go at all if people aren’t properly trained to interpret the information that the machine is printing out and the machine is totally worthless if no one is even bothering to regularly monitor what it is saying.

In my first case against the Ira Davenport Hospital, I was shocked to learn how little training the delivery nurses had received on the fetal monitoring machine. While the nurses were very nice ladies and truly cared about their patients, the only training the two nurses involved in the care of my client received was a very brief course offered via fax machine. Yes, that’s right, their ONLY training was via fax machine during a brief course.

When I questioned the nurses about their knowledge of the various heart-rate patterns, I was shocked to learn that they had no real understanding of the most dangerous patterns. In my client’s case, the ominous heart-rate patterns were there for a long time but the nurses totally failed to understand that the patterns were dangerous. The machine clearly showed that the baby was essentially being choked to death as her brain was being deprived of oxygen. The nurses simply didn’t understand the data that the machine was providing because they had not received adequate training in the use of the machine.

The insurance company for the Ira Davenport Hospital settled that case by paying their full policy limits of $2,000,000.

Now wouldn’t you think if you had to pay $2,000,000 because your nurses were inadequately trained, you would make darn sure that they got additional training so this kind of nightmare would never occur again?

Flash forward five years. I am now handling a second case against the Ira Davenport Hospital. The facts are eerily similar to the first case — a little boy who suffered cerebral palsy – permanent brain damage – due to a delay in delivery. In fact, in this second case, some of the same nurses involved in the first case, are involved in the this case. I am taking their deposition and I ask what I think is a simple question: In the last five years since case #1, what additional training have you received on the fetal monitoring machine? I am expecting to hear that the nurses have received all sorts of additional training.

What I heard shocked me:  “Nothing … we have received no additional training.”

You have got to be kidding me…you almost kill a baby……you leave her with permanent brain damage….you have to pay $2,000,000 to settle a lawsuit for the horrible injuries you caused…..and you haven’t done ANYTHING to fix the problem? Unbelievable.

The second case settled for $1,625,000.

Thankfully I haven’t had a third case so I don’t know what additional training the nurses may have received since that case but I can only hope that they received some real, in-depth training.

So this is a long way around saying why I applaud the merger between these two hospitals: I applaud it because I hope that the affiliation between these two hospitals will upgrade the quality of the facilities and the staff training at the Ira Davenport Hospital. As much as I make my living handling medical malpractice cases, I do NOT want to see people unnecessarily hurt by their medical providers so I embrace anything that can be done to improve the quality of the care provided by our local hospitals here in upstate New York.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
_________________________________
James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

Ira Davenport, Arnot Ogden Hospitals to Merge

(AP, Natario, 12/03)
URBANA – Patients that go to Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital will now have access to more doctors.
The hospital has officially agreed to merge with Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira.
At the Steuben County hospital there will be more surgical doctors on hand.
Ira Davenport will also be under the umbrella of Arnot Ogden, which officials say will help them pay off debts.
Without the merger, officials say there is little doubt the hospital could have remained open.
“Small hospitals across the state of New York are really struggling. Nursing homes in the state of New York are really struggling due to the economics of it all. All of the health care in upstate New York are really struggling. So we felt this was a necessary step”, said James Watson.
New York State is helping to fund the merger through hundreds of thousands of dollars in “Heal New York” grants.
The money helps larger hospitals keep open smaller, rural hospitals.
Besides more doctors, Ira Davenport hospital will also be receiving some structural work.

Despite what insurance companies and doctors may want us to believe, there is NOT a medical malpractice lawsuit “crisis.”

The fact is, 2008 marked the LOWEST number of malpractice payments by physicians since at least 1990 (when the records were first kept). It’s possible that last year saw the lowest number of payments EVER.

Who’s hiding the good news – and why?

I discovered this startling statistic via the Day On Torts blog by Tennessee injury attorney John Day. John does a great job of staying on top of the latest medical malpractice news. (I recently referred to his blog in another post; check out “Facts Confirm New York Medical Malpractice Takes Heavy Toll.”)

The figures on the medical malpractice payments come from the National Practitioner Data Bank , a government information service that tracks the performance of health professionals – doctors, dentists and other practitioners. Basically, it keeps tabs on the state of the U.S. health system and is meant to promote quality care.

The information it collects comes from government agencies, professional health groups – with peer reviews, and medical malpractice payers. Specific information isn’t available to the general public, but researchers can access statistical data from the NPDB – and here is what they discovered about malpractice claims in the United States:

• The number of payouts doctors made for malpractice claims was 11,037 in 2008. That is the smallest amount since the NPDB began tracking data in 1990.
• The total value of those 11,037 awards? It was $3.6 billion. Modified for inflation, that is the second-lowest amount on record.

What is happening? Are hospitals suddenly much safer? Have doctors discovered a way to never make mistakes? If only the statistics were caused by such breakthroughs.

The real causes behind the drop in medical malpractice payments? Changes to the medical liability laws, making it more difficult to bring a case. Another culprit: limits on the number of malpractice lawsuits. These hindrances mask the actual state of health care in the country. Trying to control or correct the outcome doesn’t change the root of the problem.

We can see from the reported figures that that the insurance companies and physicians’ lobbies are making progress, painting a rosy picture of American health care while keeping their costs down.

What really gets me is that they aren’t satisfied with bringing the malpractice awards to a record low. Or with paying out the second-lowest amount since 1990. They are still pushing the information that we are in a medical malpractice crisis, with the number of cases out of control and astronomical payouts.

The truth is in the numbers, however, about the true state of medical malpractice litigation. The “crisis” is a sham.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

The Institute of Medicine, a non-profit and non-partisan watchdog group, reports that 98,000 people die in the United States each year as a result of medical malpractice.

That converts to an average of 268 people dying daily. Can you imagine the news coverage if, every single day, a preventable disaster – a plane crash, a train wreck or a highway pile-up – caused that death toll?

Things would change, and change fast.

I recently came across a compelling breakdown of medical malpractice cases on the Day on Torts blog by Tennessee attorney John A. Day.

In the post “New Medical Malpractice Filing Numbers,” Day put a regional twist on national figures concerning medical malpractice cases, presenting statistics specific to Tennessee. I’m going to do the same for New York state – and the results are pretty scary.

In any state, too much loss of life

New York contains close to 19.5 million people; the USA’s total population is about 304 million. That means 15.5% of the U.S. population lives in New York.

Statistically, of the national 98,000 deaths a year from medical malpractice, New York sees about 14,700. Breaking it down further, there are about 40 deaths PER DAY in New York state caused by malpractice.

Some ways to consider the shocking number of preventable deaths from an even more local perspective:

• Every six weeks, you could more than fill the Clemens Center’s Powers Theater in Elmira with the number of people who lost their lives to medical mistakes or negligence, just in the state of New York.
• Imagine a full, 36-seat bus, plus a driver and three people standing in the center aisle. That many people lose their lives each day.
• The number of people killed medical malpractice deaths in New York annually would fill the First Arena to capacity close to 4 times.

Sometimes facts do not really come home to roost until you can think of them in close-to-home terms. I owe the idea of reworking the national statistics to John A. Day. I think it is an important way to rid yourself of two head-in-the-sand ideas: Malpractice doesn’t happen often (WRONG) and malpractice doesn’t happen in my area (WRONG AGAIN).

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com