The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that a doctor was not immune from being sued simply because a medical student was observing on the day of the alleged malpractice. The lower court ruled against Dr. Marek Skoskiewicz, who argued that he was acting as an “arm of the state” because a medical student from a public school, University of Toledo College of Medicine, was present in the room. Medical malpractice attorneys say that Skoskiewicz is a private doctor who was performing surgery in a private hospital, Henry County Hospital, on a private patient, Larry Engel, Jr.
Supreme Court Says Doctor can not Hide Simply Because he was a Volunteer
Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote in his opinion, “Dr. Skoskiewicz and many other volunteer clinical faculty in Ohio provide an important service. But that service, however commendable, does not transform the volunteers behind it into an arm of the state.” Lawyers believe that this ruling ensures that the medical school is not legally liable for the doctor’s medical negligence. There was no contract of employment between the doctor and the school and medical malpractice attorneys say that this program simply allowed students to rotate through one-month clerk-ships. It is very important that young men and women entering the medical field get an opportunity to train with and study under doctors who have been in the operating room for a number of years. However, the doctor was still in control of the procedure and he was still the one who in the end was responsible for the medical malpractice injury to Mr. Engel. Doctors who commit malpractice should not be able to hide behind a medical school merely because students are sitting in on an operation.
Medical Malpractice Attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or a family member has recently been the victim of medical negligence, it is possible that you would like to speak with our professionals. Please contact the Mininno Law Office for a free case evaluation, or call for a free consultation at (856) 833-0600 in New Jersey, or (215) 567-2380 in Philadelphia.
Following a car accident, Wyoming Newman went to visit Dr. Chavis, a neurosurgeon. The woman had an initial MRI and attorneys say that she was then sent to Dr. Erwin Lo, who performed spinal surgery on Newman in early 2009. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the doctor failed to interpret the MRI results properly and instead of following Chavis’ recommendations, he performed a corpectomy. That procedure involves the removal of a portion of the vertebral body. When Newman woke up, she had no feeling in her legs and her arms felt extremely weak. A woman who sought medical attention for a car accident years earlier was left a quadriplegic about two years later. Newman is a tragic victim whose life will be forever changed due to medical negligence. Professionals say that these sorts of devastating cases occur far too often in operating rooms around the country. Although liability will be decided in a courtroom by a jury of these parties’ peers, Newman will not be able to walk out of that courtroom.
There are different reasons that children with certain birth defects may begin to develop speech problems. Professionals say that some of these problems are a direct result of the anatomical differences that are seen in people with cleft lip or cleft palate. On the other hand, attorneys say that it is also possible for children with birth defects to develop speech problems in different ways.
In the early development of a fetus (the first three months of pregnancy), the lips and palate develop separately. Since the development is not simultaneous, babies may be born with only a cleft lip, a cleft palate, or in some cases both. When parts of the lip or palate do not completely come together, the orofacial problems begin to develop. There can also be many variations in the different types of clefts. A cleft can occur only on one side of the mouth, known as a unilateral cleft, or on both sides of the mouth, known as a bilateral cleft. Young girls are more likely to have a cleft palate that occurs alone. On the other hand, an oral cleft, regardless of whether it is lip or palate, is generally more common in boys.
Wilson strongly argued that these medical malpractice caps are blatantly favoring a special class of society over the general public. This special class includes medical professionals, corporations, insurance companies, and special interests groups. Malpractice victims may suffer many non-economic damages that will no longer be fully compensated for in states such as West Virginia. Someone who is permanently disfigured, maimed, or handicapped will certainty be owed compensation that exceeds mere medical expenses and future costs. An avid golfer or swimmer who can no longer enjoy these activities, a young child who will never walk or talk, or a woman who can never bear a child are only some of the instances where non-economic damages that exceed a cap may be necessary. Medical malpractice attorneys also have fears that were pointed out by Judge Wilson. He stated, 
Lawyers say that Ms. Burke underwent an abdominal hysterectomy on March 22, 2005. The medical negligence occurred when a pre-operative nurse left a cleaning sponge inside the woman’s vagina which was not noticed during the procedure. They say that Burke had raised her concerns to her physician over the next two months and she went in for medical assistance no less than six times. In the months following the procedure, the woman was in significant pain and she experienced a discolored vaginal discharge. Medical malpractice attorneys also say that her vagina had an offensive odor which Ms. Burke describes as “so embarrassing“. Finally, on May 23, 2005, her doctor elected to perform a vaginal exam where he discovered the sponge. Proffesionals note that a second surgery was necessary to fix the problem and following the surgery, Burke remained weak and in pain.
Dr. Anthony Pickett, who was dismissed as a defendant, performed the circumcision on January 3, 2003 at Maternity Center of Vermont. The doctor was using a Militex Mogen clamp which removed eighty five percent of the top of the boy’s penis. The young boy’s medical malpractice attorneys said, “because of the defective design of the circumcision clamp, there was no protection for the head of the penis and Dr. Pickett was unable to visualize the head when excising the foreskin.” The lawyers working the case earned the plaintiffs $3.07 million in the settlement after fees and costs were deducted. Although the boy needs to regularly visit a physician and may need additional surgery in the future, they believe this is a great victory for the boy and a way to secure his financial future. Although medical malpractice statutes appeared as though they may limit the available recovery in this case, the lawyers were able to earn a just result for the young boy.