Medical Malpractice

Maryland Appellate Court Denies Hospital’s Appeal in Glen Burnie Birth Injury Case

March 24, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, Maryland’s highest court rejected a final appeal by MedStar Harbor Hospital in a birth-injury case that resulted in a $20.6 million verdict against the hospital. According to a recent article by the Baltimore Sun, the family of a boy born with cerebral palsy and other severe disabilities will receive the $20.6 million figure plus interest since the original verdict was rendered back in 2012.

Evidently, the birth injury was caused when the young boy was deprived of oxygen at birth. Rather than perform a cesarean section, the delivering physician opted for a prolonged vaginal birth.

After his birth in 2002, the boy had to undergo a series of major surgeries in order to regain movement in his limbs. Even after those surgeries, he still only has limited use of his limbs. His parents have been forced to work opposite shifts so that one of them can always remain home with their son.

Vile Conditions in DC Hospital Leads to Jury Verdict for Former Employee

August 14, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a truly disgusting and alarming story out of DC, a former employee of a local DC hospital has received a jury verdict for $237,000 for the emotional distress she suffered when she was bitten by a rat while working with cadavers. According to a report by the Huffington Post, the woman was working at Providence Hospital in Washington DC when the events took place.

Evidently, the woman was working as a contract employee with the hospital and was responsible for working with cadavers in some capacity. While employed at the hospital, she recalls seeing rats chew through body bags and enter bodies through the anus and vagina.

At some point during her employment, she was preparing a cadaver when she thought she saw a feminine product in one of the bodies. As she tried to remove it, it became evident that it was actually a rat. The rat, startled from having its tail pulled, bit the woman, sending her to the hospital. The woman claims that these conditions have been going on for years but had been effectively covered up by hospital administration.

Widow Sues Healthcare Company After Her Husband Dies Due to Malfunctioning Medical Equipment

July 17, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month in Louisiana, a woman filed a lawsuit against a local healthcare company alleging that the company provided her husband with faulty medical equipment leading to his death. According to a report by a local Louisiana news source, the woman’s husband was undergoing home dialysis for a kidney condition. Da Vita, Inc. was providing the equipment for the treatments.

One day, the man called Da Vita, explaining that he could not stop the machine’s cycler and the procedure lasted almost two hours longer than it should have. The company did not offer any assistance to the man.

The next day the man left for a fishing trip and collapsed within 15 minutes of leaving home. He eventually died. Doctors determined that the man had low levels of vital nutrients in his blood.

Recently Filed Lawsuit Likely to Address the Effects of ADHD Drugs and the Wisdom of Their Use

May 13, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a lawsuit that was filed earlier this month in Virginia, a family is suing several doctors for the misdiagnosis of their son, who eventually killed himself several years after being given—and becoming addicted to—various ADHD medications by a number of doctors. The case involved the Fees, the Virginia family who lost their 24-year-old son, and two doctors who repeatedly prescribed dangerous stimulants to their son despite knowing that he had other mental issues.

The Fees allege that the doctors misdiagnosed their son with ADHD years ago and sent him down a path of unnecessary and harmful drug use—and eventually drug abuse—for a condition for which he never exhibited symptoms. They also claim that the two doctors failed to communicate with each other, and that their failure allowed their son to continue to abuse the medication even after one of the doctors stopped prescribing the drug to their son due to his other mental health issues.

Back in November of 2011, the Fees tried to contact their son, who was living in an apartment they were paying for, with no luck. When they showed up at his home, they found that he had hung himself from his closet. Although the family did not initially bring a suit against the doctors, they reconsidered that decision after an article was published in the New York Times detailing their story. Evidently, many people reached out to the family to share similar stories. After that communication, the Fees wanted to enact some sort of change in the way that doctors go about diagnosing ADHD, as well as how they readily prescribe dangerous and addictive medication to treat the disorder.

Family of Woman Found Dead in Hospital Stairwell Files Notice of Legal Claim with City

April 16, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The family of a woman whose body was found in the stairwell of a San Francisco hospital weeks after she went missing from her hospital bed has filed a legal claim with the city, indicating their intention to file a lawsuit. The claim is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit against city and county agencies. The family’s claim alleges medical malpractice, negligence, dangerous property conditions, and violations of the state elder abuse and adult dependency statute. Hospital workers have accused the hospital of serious understaffing, to the point that it compromises patient safety. The hospital has announced two rounds of changes to its security procedures as a result of the incident, including access controls, patient checks, and a missing patient policy.

The decedent, 57 year-old Lynn Spalding Ford, checked into San Francisco General Hospital on September 19, 2013. On September 21, a hospital worker reported her missing. The worker allegedly described Spalding, who is white, as a black woman, and some hospital paperwork described her as Asian. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD), which handles hospital security, searched the hospital perimeter but did not classify Spalding as missing. Surveillance footage was not available to authorities until October 4. The hospital did not ask SFSD to search the entire 24-acre hospital campus until September 30, after Spalding had been missing for nine days. The search did not include all of the stairwells.

On October 4, a hospital employee reported a person lying on the 3rd- or 4th-floor stairwell of Stairwell 8. A fifth-floor employee reported hearing banging from Stairwell 8 the same day. There is no indication that anyone searched that stairwell in response to these reports. An employee with the hospital’s engineering department finally found Spalding’s body during a routine check of an exterior stairwell on October 8. Spalding had been missing for seventeen days. Both the hospital and SFSD said that the stairwell is alarmed, only exits to the first floor, and is only used as a fire exit. The medical examiner listed her cause of death as dehydration and alcoholism complications, but could not say for certain when she died.

Supreme Court Sides with Plaintiff in Armed Forces Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

December 17, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision potentially relevant in any lawsuit dealing with medical malpractice committed by doctors within the Armed Forces.

The case, Levin v. US, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013), dealt with a veteran who suffered injuries as a result of cataract surgery performed at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Guam. Just prior to the surgery, the plaintiff revoked his consent to the surgery, due to his concerns with equipment in the operating room. The surgery went ahead anyway, which resulted in his injury. He thus filed suit under the FTCA; however, as an intentional act, rather than a negligent one, the ninth circuit ruled that this case did not fall within the FTCA’s parameters, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court engaged in an extensive discussion regarding Congress’s history of enacting agency-specific causes of action, and then reverting back to a general schema for the FTCA. Regarding medical claims, Congress passed the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act in 1976, which is commonly known as the Gonzalez Act. That Act, which is controlling in this case, makes claims against the United States under the FTCA the “exclusive” remedy for injuries resulting from malpractice committed by medical personnel of the armed forces and other specified agencies, and was thus the controlling statute for this lawsuit.

Medical Malpractice Suit Dismissed by Washington DC Court for Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement

January 26, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a medical malpractice suit without prejudice for non-compliance with the notice requirement in the DC Official Code. The court held in Carmichael v. West, No. 11-1513, slip op. (D.D.C., Jul. 27, 2012), that the plaintiff’s failure to give notice to the defendant deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. It also held that the plaintiff did not prove that she made a good-faith effort to comply with the notice requirement, nor that the “interests of justice” merited a waiver of the requirement.

Sheila Moody was admitted to D.C. General Hospital for obstetric care on August 30, 1998. She received treatment from the defendant, Dr. Threvia West, M.D. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, West knew that Moody was HIV positive, and that a vaginal delivery would expose the unborn fetus to a serious risk of infection. The plaintiff alleged that West still performed a vaginal delivery, resulting in the child, identified as John Doe, becoming infected with HIV. The child has suffered from HIV encephalopathy, a condition that resulted in severe pain and brain damage. Moody later died, and the child came into the care of the plaintiff, Nora Carmichael.

Carmichael filed suit against West for medical malpractice on August 22, 2011. She claimed that three actions by West directly contributed to the child’s injuries: performing a vaginal delivery instead of a caesarean section, delaying delivery until the child was exposed to ruptured membranes in the womb, and using a fetal scalp electrode that broke the skin and exposed the child directly to the HIV virus. The lawsuit claimed $80 million in damages. On September 21, 2011, the plaintiff sent the defendant a “Notice of Intention to File Suit” in accordance with DC Code § 16-2802. The defendant, with representation provided by the District of Columbia, moved to dismiss the lawsuit, or for summary judgment, based on lack of notice. The DC Code requires a plaintiff to send notice to a defendant at least ninety days before filing a lawsuit, unless the plaintiff can show a “good faith effort” to give notice.

Washington DC Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Hospital in Medical Malpractice Case, Based on Statute of Limitations

August 30, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The court based its decision in Atiba v. Washington Hospital Center, et al on a missed deadline under both DC’s statute of limitations and notice requirements for medical malpractice claims. The issue before the court concerned an alleged conflict between the deadline to file suit under the statute of limitations and the time period in which notice must be given.

The plaintiff, Kwaco Atiba, sought medical treatment from the defendants, Michelle Grant-Ervin, M.D. and Washington Hospital Center, between October 27 and November 2, 2006. Washington DC law requires a plaintiff to give “not less than” ninety days’ notice to a defendant before filing a medical malpractice suit. It also imposes a three-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, including medical malpractice. In the event that the required notice is given within the ninety-day period immediately prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the time to file suit is extended ninety days from the date the notice is served. Atiba served notice of the intended suit on the defendants on October 27, 2009, and filed suit on January 26, 2010. The filing date of the lawsuit was the ninety-first day after the date the notice was served.

The hospital moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff failed to file within the statute of limitations, and the trial court granted the motion. The trial court ruled that the ninety-first day after service of the required notice was “one day too late.” The plaintiff argued on appeal that the notice requirement and the statute of limitations conflicted, making it impossible to provide “not less than” ninety days’ notice and file suit within the ninety-day extended limitations period. The plaintiff interpreted the notice requirement as only permitting suit after ninety days had passed.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Medical Negligence and Intentional Torts Against Doctor

August 16, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A husband’s wrongful death lawsuit alleges that his wife’s doctor caused her death last year by prescribing a wide array of psychotropic medications. The suit further claims that the doctor defrauded her of nearly half a million dollars, which she contributed towards his research funding while under the influence of these medications. The two types of claims, brought in a single lawsuit, raise uncomfortable questions about the doctor/patient relationship.

Phyllis Harvey, described as a philanthropist who formed a foundation with her husband, Brian Harvey, to fund scholarships and engage in other charitable activities, died last year at the age of 59. She reportedly had a history of mental illness and alcoholism, and was diagnosed in 1999 with possible bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or early dementia. She sought treatment from Dr. Alexander Bystritsky, a physician at the University of California, Los Angeles, beginning in 2004. Dr. Bystritsky allegedly put her on a regimen of multiple psychotropic medications, even though the 1999 diagnoses were never fully confirmed. Her prescribed medications included the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel and the anti-anxiety sedative Ativan.

Proposed Unique Identifier System for Medical Devices Could Improve Patient Safety

August 8, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A new rule proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would require most medical devices in the country to include a unique device identifier (UDI). This is a unique code system assigned to medical devices that, according to the FDA, would allow the agency to track problems with devices and develop more effective regulations to protect patient safety. Congress passed legislation, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, that requires the FDA to promulgate regulations to implement a nationwide UDI system. The proposed rule will be open to public comment until November 7, 2012.

The FDA describes a UDI as a “unique numeric or alphanumeric code” assigned to a device. The UDI includes identifiers for the specific device and the device model, as well as production information including the serial number, the lot or batch number, and, if applicable, the device’s expiration date. The FDA is reportedly developing a database of “basic identifying elements” in UDIs that the public can access and review. A device’s UDI, the FDA says, will not include any personal identifying information about the person using the device.