Tag: medical malpractice

Yasmin Birth Control is a Money Maker but is it truly Safe?

Every one might remember the catchy “We’re Not Gonna Take it” and “balloons” commercials for the Yasmin or Yaz Birth Control pill. We may even remember all the benefits the pill was said to provide the consumer with, but what we may not remember is the listing of the dangerous side effects the Yasmin or Yaz pill could cause. This is because the commercials for Yaz overstated the pill’s effectiveness and understated the serious side effects that go along with it. This violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as well as the Food and Drug Administration’s guidelines.

The marketing by Bayer Healthcare for Yaz or Yasmin was great. It brought in millions of dollars for the company and it may have been some of the company’s best marketing. What the company failed to market or to take into consideration is that all birth control pills including this one have serious side effects including: blood clots, stroke, heart attack, and even death. These commercials failed to let consumers know the seriousness of these side effects and now the company may pay in a big way.

For more information on Yasmin or Yaz you may click on this link.

More info

If you or someone you love may have experienced a serious side effect from taking Yaz or Yasmin, please contact a medical malpractice lawyer right away. They will make sure you get the care you deserve and that your voice is heard.

Should a Price Tag be put on Good Medical Care?

There has been much debate about health care over the last few months. One of the issues that is being brought up over and over again is whether or not tort reform and limits on malpractice suits actually will save money. Some people say it does because doctors will not have to spend so much money ordering special tests and treatments for patients when it may not be needed. Should a price tag really be put on good medical care? What if a doctor did not order a test or treatment because they thought it was not needed and then later discovered that it could have helped? For situations like these that happen every day in millions of hospitals, doctor’s offices, and nursing homes in every state, we still need our malpractice rights. It is still possible that even with universal coverage those doctors may make a medical error either because they want to cut a cost or because they just did not pay enough attention. States that have medical malpractice caps and tort reform are not actually saving any more money than those who do not have them. So why should we deny patients the right to good medical care and treatment when we are not really saving any money by doing so? Everyone, even the doctors that see patients every day, should have the right to speak up if their medical care is inadequate or if there is a problem. This should be a basic right as a person and an American. Malpractice caps do not save money on health insurance so why take away a person’s right to good medical care and treatment and the right to sue if they do not receive it? The logic just does not make sense.

People in this country have the right to free speech as well as many other rights and that should always include the right to speak up about medical errors and malpractice. These rights should be totally different than the health insurance debate because there should not be a price tag on person’s right to good proper medical care.

If you would like more information on the health care debate and malpractice rights, you may visit this link.

If you or a loved one has been injured or abused due to improper medical care, contact a medical malpractice lawyer right away. They will help you advocate for your right to be heard and receive the care you deserve.

Health Care Reform versus Medical Malpractice Rights

There continues to be much debate about health care reform and how to achieve it for everyone. There have been people talking about and trying to push aside medical malpractice rights in favor of other medical rights and reform. The truth is that is two different topics and should be given two seperate debates. Health care reforms main goals are to make sure every person in this country has affordable health care coverage. That is great and even wonderful if it can happen, but it should not come at the expense of taking away other much needed rights of the same Americans we are trying to get medical coverage. If we get medical coverage for every person, but then take away their rights to file a complaint if injured while receiving  that medical care what are we as a country saying? Are we saying you can go to any hospital or doctor you want now because you are covered with insurance but we do not care if you are injured or we do not care how good that medical care is? This country needs medical coverage for everyone, we really do, but we also need to keep protecting the rights of those injured by medical errors and malpractice every year. Thousands of people with medical coverage still not receive proper medical care, due to errors, injuries, malpractice, and abuse. We as a country need good medical care, but we also need to protect our rights to voice our opinions and let them be heard if we are injured by a medical error. If health care reform pushes aside medical malpractice rights then we will just have yet another crisis on our hands. We need to think of people first and foremost and profits second. Medical coverage will not matter if the medical care is not good. This is why medical malpractice rights are still very important and cannot be pushed aside.

If you want to do your part to protect medical malpractice rights, write a letter to your congressmen or your editor and get the word out about how we still need these rights and they should not be taken away.

For more information on the health care reform and medical malpractice rights you may visit: www.peopleoverprofits.org

Don’t Let Them Fool You – Health Systems can be Held Liable for Incidents at their Hospitals

Here’s an interesting legal tactic for you: In a negligence case brought against the system, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is apparently asserting that it doesn’t run hospitals, despite describing itself as an “integrated global health enterprise” in its own press releases. – Anne Ziegler, FierceHealthCare.com

Central to what might be the most interesting negligence trial in quite some time is the untimely death of Rose Lee Diggs. Ms. Diggs, an 89 year-old woman was being treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Without any hospital staff noticing, and without any proper means to prevent her from doing so, Ms. Diggs got out of her bed, wondered down the hall, up the stairs, and to the roof of the hospital, where she would later be found dead. The suit, which contends that hospital staff delayed in reporting Mrs. Diggs missing and tried to remove evidence from the scene, names both UPMC Health System, and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside as defendants.

However, in what might be one of the most interesting defense tactics I have seen yet, attorneys for the University of Pittsburgh Health System have asserted that even if there was a wrongdoing in the case of Mrs. Diggs, that the system would not be responsible. Its attorneys have taken the position that each hospital and healthcare facility within its system are independent, not-for-profit corporations which are solely liable for the negligence that occurs at their facility.

Although clever, this argument does not hold under law. In any lawsuit in which the hospital is held liable for malpractice and/or negligence, the Health System which funds, organizes, and operates that facility is also held liable. Of course, the final decision in this case regarding whether or not University of Pittsburgh Health System can be held liable will be up to the Judge hearing the case. Lets just hope she sides with the legal precedent, and common sense.

Supreme Court Decision Allows for Compensation

A March 4th Supreme Court decision has allowed juries to award damages for the harmful side effects of drugs, even if the drug had the proper FDA approved warning labels. This ruling comes in the wake of recent discovery that many drugs widely used on the market over the past decade were the result of falsified medical research.Thousands of cases against the makers of drugs like Vioxx, will now have a higher probabilty of settling, after the drug has been shown to cause serious heart related problems, as well as hinder bone growth.

If you or a loved one has had their quality of life decline due to the harmful side effects of a prescription medicine, then they may be entitled to compensation. Please contact an attorney immediately.

Contact an Attorney in PA
Contact an Attorney in NJ

New Jersey Senator Lends an Ear to the Victims of Insurance Company Tactics

“As far as Kia Moore is concerned, the health insurance system miserably failed her and her 20-month-old son. Xavier Hylton was born at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden with two malfunctioning kidneys and requires daily dialysis treatments as he awaits a transplant. He had grown enough to medically qualify for that transplant by March, but Moore said the procedure was delayed at least six months by a struggle over insurance coverage. Today, she said, her son should already have a functioning kidney and be on his way to living a near-normal life.” (Maryann Spoto, The Star-Ledger)

Last week, citizens of New Jersey who have fallen victim to the ruthless tactics of insurance companies were given time to fume their anger to US Senator Bob Menendez. The stories Senator Menendez would hear would appall him, and only add to his arsenal to bring to Washington with the hopes of sparking health care reform. Although invited, no representatives from the insurance agencies were present for the meeting.

“It’s no secret to anyone that our health care system is badly in need of reform,” Menendez said. “There are few things more important to the families in this state than fixing it, making sure in this great nation of ours that no one goes to sleep without health coverage, that no one has to choose between paying for heat in the winter and paying for medication that keeps them alive.”

Senator Menendez called the meeting in light of a new health care system proposal authored by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Central to the Baucus proposal is the creation of a Health Care Exchange composed of a nationwide group of private insurance companies that would be prohibited from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.

Currently, under the existing set up, patients who visit emergency rooms due to lack of coverage end up being burdens of the tax payer. In Camden alone, more tha $460 million has been spent over the past five years on charity cases. Because the proposal would require every resident to obtain health insurance, it also provides for federal subsidies for families and small businesses unable to afford coverage through the exchange.

This new proposal has received the plaudits of Jeffery Brenner, a local Camden physician. Brenner advocates a system that brings those emergency room patients into the system for follow-ups so they can receive the appropriate care and are less of a financial drain on the system.

“Somehow we lost sight of the fact that the purpose of the home-care delivery system is to heal the sick, care for wounded and prevent illness,” he said. “It’s not to make physicians wealthy or pharmaceutical representatives wealthy or stockholders or insurance companies wealthy. The patient should be at the center of the system and indeed should be our top priority.”

Until serious reform has occurred however, the best ally a patient can have when dealing with their insurance carrier is an experienced attorney.

Contact an attorney in NJ
Contact an attorney in PA

THE RESEARCH RECESSION: 12 years of Anesthesiology progress in question

Over the past 12 years, anesthesiologist Scott Reuben revolutionized the way physicians provide pain relief to patients undergoing orthopedic surgery for everything from torn ligaments to worn-out hips. (Brendan Borrell, Scientific American)

Rueben’s drug studies were responsible for convincing orthopedic surgeons to move away from the first generation of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs to a new method, known as COX2 inhibitors. He claimed that these new drugs, made popular under the names Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra, in combination with anticonvulsants could be effective in decreasing postoperative pain and reduce the use of addictive pain killers, such as morphine, after surgery. What seemed to be a break through, Reuben’s findings were hailed as a great step forward in redesigning anesthesiology.

12 years later however, the profession is in a state of crisis after an investigation by the Baystate Medical Center revealed that at least 21 of Reuben’s papers were entirely made up, faking the beneficial results and in some cases, masking possible dangers. The investigation found that the data in these 21 studies had been partially doctored, and in some cases, entirely fabricated by Dr. Rueben.

Although this most recent investigation has brought the wall tumbling down for Dr. Rueben, signs of cracks had leaks had begun to rear their ugly head over the past five years. In the early part of the decade, orthopedic surgeons began to distrust Rueben’s COX2 inhibitors, when animal testing found that the drugs might actually hinder bone healing. Soon there after, in 2004, Vioxx and Bextra, and Celebrex were pulled from the market because of their link to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. All the mean time, Dr. Rueben continued to present positive “findings” for the use of these COX2 inhibitors in his research.

So, even with the public at risk, what motivated Dr. Rueben continue his campaign for these drugs? Simple. Money. It was discovered during the course of the Baystate investigation that Dr. Rueben’s research was entirely funded by Pfizer; the maker of both Celebrex, and the anticonvulsants lauded by Dr. Rueben’s study to be used in conjunction with the COX2 inhibitors. Baystate however could not find any records of the payments, suggesting that the payments were made not to Dr. Rueben’s research group, but instead directly to Dr. Rueben.

Although we may think of doctor’s as always having the best intentions, one must always remember the power of money. Pharmaceutical corporations are some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, and they need doctors on their side. It is much easier today for these drug companies to pay off a doctor to get the results they need rather than go back to the drawing table and leave behind an unsuccessful product. Because of this, remember to always remain informed when consulting with your doctor about possible medication options. An informed patient is always the safest patient.

Contact an Attorney in NJ
Contact an Attorney in PA

Chrysler Removes Body from Funeral

A graveside subpoena has kept a New Jersey man from his final resting place, and now members of his family are venting their outrage. Unfortunately, the family of the late Harold St. John is the most recent victim of the corporate legal machine.

In a desperate attempt to gain some ground in an ongoing lawsuit, the Chrysler Automobile Company demanded the body of Harold St. John be removed from his funeral service so additional tests could be performed. His remains have unfortunately become part of the legal tug of war surrounding a lawsuit Harold St. John’s exposure to asbestos while working for his father’s auto shop.

Harold St. John was diagnosed with Mesothelioma, a rare disease that is most commonly linked to asbestos exposure. While installing brake liners in his youth, Harold was constantly exposed to the dangerous chemical. As a result of his illness, he sued both Chrysler and Honeywell.

According to the family, the removal of the body was completely unwarranted. Chrysler’s claim was that the body needed to be removed in order to attain tissue samples, and discover the cause of death. However, Harold had undergone several extremely painful biopsy procedures to provide sufficient tissue samples while he was still alive.

Thus, the family has been left confused, only able to speculate why the Chrysler Corporation would get a court order for the remains of their father the day of his service.

“They waited until we all left, I don’t get it,” stated his son.

“The have all the evidence they need,” reports his late wife. “It’s a stall tactic. They’re ruthless.”

(WCBS-2, Cranbury, New Jersey)

Indeed, it would seem that respect for the dead and mourning don’t apply when it comes to Chrysler’s corporate agenda.

AIG – Arrogant, Ignorant, and Grossly Immoral

We have all read the headlines over the past months worthy of making an individual sick. Constantly we are told of how drastically irresponsible some insurance and financial institutions have been with the bailout money they have received from the Federal Government. At the top of that list sits AIG.

You may remember this, from an article in the Washington Post, dated October 8th, 2008:

Only one day after it was revealed that AIG had sprung for a $440,000 spa vacation shortly after getting an $84 billion government-loan bailout comes this report: The government is loaning AIG another $38 billion.

If that wasn’t enough to make you gag, wait until you hear this. While spending exorbitant amounts of taxpayer dollars on pedicures and vacations, AIG has been simultaneously dragging a suffering family through the mud for over a decade. After a fatal fire killed two Brooklyn firefighters in a, “fireproof,” building insured by AIG, the families of Lt. Joseph Cavalieri and Christopher Bopp were awarded several million dollars in damages by a unanimous jury decision.

AIG however, has continued to refuse to pay. By exploiting the appeals system of the courts, AIG has dodged payment for over 10 years.

“How do you possibly appeal something like this?” Mother of Christopher Bopp, Deloris Bopp recalled saying when she first heard of the appeal. Indeed, it seems hard to find grounds on which to appeal when the jury only needed an hour to award the families with $10 million dollars.

As the appeal was moving forward, the wheels began to fall off the oversized AIG corporate machine. When Ms. Bopp found out that AIG would be receiving $85 billion in bailout money, she became furious, and rightfully so.

How can a company pay millions of dollars in bonuses and all expenses paid vacations for its employees, while denying payment of the $10 million dollars that is rightfully owed to the victims under their policy? Easy: by taking massive amounts of taxpayer’s dollars and ignoring all moral responsibility to the public.

Supreme Court Overrules Public Safety

A Supreme Court ruling last year has begun to show its true colors, as many federal cases against Medical Technology Corporations will go unheard. In February of 2008, the high court decided to restrict the legal options for patients who claim they have been injured by a defective device. If the Food and Drug Administration has approved the device after, “rigorous review,” than a suit cannot be filed under state laws.

This unjust ruling will prevent many individuals who have been subject to hard due to faulty design from collecting the compensation they need to maintain a reasonable quality of life.

Devices that are not properly engineered can have catastrophic effects when implanted in a patient. Janet Moore, of the Star Tribune, provides us with an example:

“Make it stop,” Liz Fossum remembers thinking.

For about an hour early that November morning two years ago, Fossum’s implanted defibrillator repeatedly shocked her heart — 54 times all told. It felt like a horse was kicking her in the chest.

The 68-year-old grandmother from Golden Valley now knows that part of her heart device, an insulated wire made by Medtronic Inc., had been recalled by federal regulators because a small number had malfunctioned, occasionally causing unnecessary shocks.

Unfortunately for people like Ms. Fossum, there is little she can now do under the new law. Several Hundred cases had been filed against Sprint Fidelis, all of which were subsequently dismissed as a result of the Supreme Court decision. Obviously, all those affected by the faulty product were outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to protect corporate interests over the interests of the public.

This new decision has left consumers without any means to remedy the harmful situation they were put in by a lack of vigilance on the part of the FDA. Henry Waxman, a Representative from California, believes that the Supreme Court puts too much faith in the FDA testing process. He stated that, “The Supreme Court assumed that FDA approval ensures medical devices are safe, but many recent stories of patients harmed by faulty devices have proven those assumptions false.”

Waxman along with New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone plan to introduce legislation that would circumvent the Supreme Court ruling and protect Americans from dangerous medical devices. Until that time however, citizens must remain vigilant. If you are in need of or considering the possible use of a medical device, please research all companies and available options fully. Until the government decides to protect consumers again, self-education is the best defense.

If you have been subject to a faulty medical device, please contact an attorney immediately. There are several possible options, which may allow you the compensation you deserve.

Contact an Attorney in New Jersey
Contact an Attorney in Pennsylvania