New Hampshire Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Doctor's Failure to Admit Medical Errors - Who is to Blame?

Rob Curtiss — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:40:34 GMT

In the past several years, many articles have been written about the overwhelming failure of medical professionals to admit errors made in the course of their practice. Many people blame trial lawyers for this phenomenon. The assumption that underlies this position is that doctors would be forthright about their mistakes if they weren't faced with the specter of being sued.

I can think of at least three other reasons that doctors won't admit errors to their patients. One is that physicians are just people and there are a certain percentage of people in all professions who can't accept responsibility for errors. This particular character flaw is certainly not unique to doctors but neither are they immune from it.

Another reason is that the medical profession is still invested in having young doctors work ungodly hours, often one hundred hours a week and more. It is common sense that anyone working under these conditions will make mental and/or physical mistakes. Yet some doctors seem to believe that being honest about medical errors would be an indictment of the system they all came up through.

Finally, hospital risk management departments and insurance companies obviously play a role in this phenomenon. These entities have an interest in avoiding litigation as well as patient complaints. So it is not surprising that they discourage doctors from admitting negligence. For more on this topic see: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51414

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

You May Be Entitled To Benefits, Under Your Employers Auto Insurance Policy

Rob Curtiss — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:37:14 GMT

Most people realize that their own automobile insurance policies protect them if they are injured through the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured driver. What they may not realize is that these same type of benefits may be available to them if they are injured while in their employer's vehicle.

Recently, we have handled a couple of cases for people who were operating vehicles owned by their employers when they were injured through someone else's negligence. After helping obtain workers compensation benefits, and collecting all the coverage available from the negligent driver, we then focused on underinsured benefits available under the employer's policy. So if you are in an accident while operating your employer's vehicle you may be entitled to benefits you are unaware of. For more on uninsured or underinsured insurance coverage.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob Curtiss

New Hampshire Teen Killed in Car Crash

Ed Van Dorn — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:35:37 GMT

New Hampshire teen killed in car crash was not wearing seatbelt. It is especially important that young drivers and their passengers take all proper safety precautions.

Last Sunday morning a high schoool student from Claremont, New Hampshire was killed in a car crash. Police say 17-year-old Aaron Branch was pronounced dead at the scene. The car he was riding in, driven by 17-year-old Eric Simino, hit a tree on East Green Mountain Road. Branch was not wearing a seat belt.

Our heart goes out to the family of this young man. Tragedies like this demonstrate several impportant facts about road safety. First, wearing seatbelts saves lives. There is no way to tell whether this young man would have survived if he were wearing a seatbelt, but it would have certainly increased the odds of his survival if he was wearing one. Second, young drivers must understand that their lack of experience makes it especially important that they exercise all safe driving methods at all times when on the road. Staying within the speed limit is especially important.

The holiday season is upon us. Along with the festivities come the stories of the needless tragedies that occur on our roadways. Death and serious personal injury can be avoided by careful driving. Please make every effort to ensure that you don't become a statistic this year. The New Hampshire Department of Safety website has information regarding driver safety.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Van Dorn

Manufacturer of Failed Hernia Repair Patch being Sued

Christina Cole — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:49:49 GMT

Davol, Inc. a Rhode Island based manufacturer of the Composix Kugel Mesh Patch, a medical device that is used in hernia repair surgeries, is being sued by Motley Rice with co-counsel Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP. The suit was filed in Rhode Island Superior Court on behalf of plaintiff Jimmy Warren of St. Charles County.

Warren, who's inserted Kugel Mesh Patch failed to work following a product recall that caused severe abdominal pain, which resulted in necessary bowel dissection surgery to remove the failed patch. Additional defendants involved in the case include New Jersey based C.R. Bard, Inc. parent company of Davol, Inc.

Mr. Warren had hernia surgery repair on January 6, 2004 when he received a Kugel Mesh Patch developed by Davol, Inc. The coming year, Davol recalled many Kugel Mesh Patches under an FDA Class I recall. In 2006, the recall expanded to include the patch that was inserted in Mr. Warren. After surgery, Mr. Warren developed abdominal pain and according to the complaints, another hernia developed in April 2006.

During surgery to repair the second hernia, a piece of the failed Kugel Mesh patch was discovered adhered to Mr. Warren's bowel. Mr. Warren was subjected to a prolonged bowel dissection to release the mesh from his bowel, leaving him with chronically inflamed bowels, as well as ongoing physical pain and mental anguish. It is alleged that the manufacturers of the Kugel Mesh Patch were aware of the high degree of complication and failure rate of the product.
"It is tragic that medical device manufacturers rush their products to market without adequately testing their safety," stated Motley Rice attorney Rhett Klok. "Our client, Mr. Warren, is one of many who will now spend the rest of their life in pain because of the Kugel Mesh patch. We hope, with this lawsuit, that we will raise awareness of this issue and help bring justice to those harmed."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Medical Malpractice in New Hampshire

Ed Van Dorn — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:44:08 GMT

Two years ago, under pressure from the medical and insurance industries and despite efforts by consumer groups, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law requiring all medical malpractice claims to be screened by an allegedly "neutral panel" before the claim could be heard in court. The insurance and medical groups argued that it would provide an efficient, time and cost saving method of disposing of claims. After two years the opposite has proven true.

On Sunday the Maine Sunday Telegram ran an article by the Associated Press reporting that a study of the 131 medical malpractice cases in New Hampshire since passage of the law shows that only 8 of therm have actually gone through the screening process. How can this in any way be fair to medical malpractice victims? Supporters of the law, namely the medical and insurance industries say that the problems are due to "growing pains". Yet one third of the 31 other states that have passed similar laws have since repealed them, according to an independent Pew Charitable Trust study. According to the Sunday Telegram article:

New Hampshire and Maine are among perhaps 16 states with similar screening-panel laws, according to research by the American Medical Association. But a 2003 study found the laws had been repealed or invalidated in roughly one-third of the 31 states that had adopted them. The study, by University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Catherine Struve, was part of the Pew Charitable Trusts's project on medical liability.

Notice that the New Hampshire law was passed after it was repealed by one third of the states that already tried it. Clearly, the unfair screening panel law was a grab by the medical and insurance industries to get some payback for the handsome campaign contributions they give to key New Hampshire legislators. No other explanation makes sense.

Well, enough is enough and its time that the pendulum start swinging back to restore the rights of aveage citizens against big business and the medical industry. I have been representing medical malpractice victims for over 25 years and I have seen first hand how negligence in the medical industry can destroy lives and families. This bogus law was designed simply to put even more obstacles in the way of the average person's ability to legally fight big medicine and big business and it ought to be repealed.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Van Dorn

Hydrox Labs Recalls Cardinal Health Alcohol-Free Mouthwash

Jenny Albano — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:46:14 GMT

Hydrox Labs, in conjunction with the FDA, is recalling Cardinal Health alcohol-free mouthwash because it has been tested positive for Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia). The CDC has confirmed one illness associated with the use of the mouthwash.

This mouthwash was distributed to hospitals, medical centers, and long term care facilities nationwide. The recall includes 4 oz. bottles of the Cardinal Health alcohol-free mouthwash with a reorder number of AG-210 and a lot number 26228 which us located on the side of the bottle. The recalled mouthwash can also be found in some Personal Hygiene Hospital Admission Kits.

B. cepacia poses little medical risk to healthy people. However, people who have certain health problems such as weakened immune systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic fibrosis (CF), may be more susceptible to infections with B. cepacia. B. cepacia is a known cause of infections in hospitalized patients. B. cepacia bacteria are often resistant to common antibiotics. The effects of B. cepacia on people vary widely, ranging from no symptoms at all, to serious respiratory infections, especially in patients with CF.

Cardinal Health is notifying their customers via overnight mail of the recall and is arranging for all of the mouthwash to be returned for credit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Summit Import Corp. Recalled Sum Cheong Lung Brand Dried Fish

Jenny Albano — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:17:29 GMT

Summit Import Corp., in conjunction with the FDA, is recalling all its packages of Sum Cheong Lung brand Dried Fish because it was discovered that the fish was not eviscerated before processing.

New York State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors during a routine inspection and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel confirming that the fish had not been eviscerated prior to processing. This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially fatal food-borne illness.

Uneviscerated fish have been linked to outbreaks of botulism poisoning in the past. The sale of this type of fish is strictly prohibited by the New York State Agriculture and Markets regulations. For symptoms of botulism click here.

The recalled product s packaged in a 12 oz. plastic bag and was produced in China. The Sum Cheong Lung brand was only sol in New York State. So far there have not been any illnesses reported to the company.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Hyundai Sonatas Recalled

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:42:00 GMT

Hyundai Sonatas from the 2002-03 model years are being recalled to fix a problem with the interior door handle.

The company said some door handles may have thin chrome plating, which may wear away with use. That could result in a crack in the handle, possibly forming a sharp edge that could cause laceration injuries to anyone using the handle.

Consumers can bring their car to the nearest Hyundai dealer for a free repair when the recall officially begins in June.

For more information, owners can contact Hyundai about Recall No. 093 at 1-800-633-5151.

Consumers may contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153) or at www.safercar.gov.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Woman Suing Lot Owner for Slip-and-Fall

Christina Cole — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:32:04 GMT

A woman has filed suit against owners of a parking lot where she slipped and fell on a pile of ice and snow. On January 18, Connie Taylor, filed a lawsuit against Jim Smith and O.V. Smith and Sons. According to the suit, Taylor slipped and fell on the ice in the parking lot owned by O.V. Smith and Sons.

The lawsuit states Taylor sustained injuries of a sacrum/coccygeal fracture, right wrist injury and a mil anterior subluxation on her vertebrae. Due to her injuries, she has also had to sustain medical expenses.

The suit claims earlier that day, O.V. Smith and Sons had piled snow and ice up against the sidewalk in a mound so high that the customers were forced to step around the huge pile of ice to get to their vehicles.

The suit claims the company failed to properly clear the lot of ice and snow and it failed to warn the customers of the "large ice blocking the entrance to their vehicles."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Court Limits Slip-and-Fall Cases

Christina Cole — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:04:32 GMT

A business cannot be sued in a slip-and-fall case unless the injured patron is able to prove that the store employees were aware or should have known about the condition, ruled the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The judges threw out a claim by David Contreras Sr., an employee of a liquor distributing company.

In 2005, Contreras sued after he said he slimed on a slimy blue substance while on delivery to Walgreens. He said the store managers knew or should have known about the poor conditions.

However, appellate Judge William Brammer, writing for the unanimous court, said Contreras needed proof to have his case heard in front of the jury. Brammer argues that the businesses have a duty to keep the premises "reasonably save for customers."

That rule, the judge said, looks to a business' choice of a particular mode of operation, rather than the incident itself. That means a patron is not required to prove that the business knew of the spill or other condition if the owner "could reasonably anticipate that hazardous conditions would regularly arise."
Brammer said regularly means "customary, usual or normal." In this case, store manager James McDougall testified that a couple of liquid spills occur within a week. Based on that, Contreras argued that it fits the definition of "regularly." That's not the case, Brammer wrote.
"It is insufficient, however, to demonstrate that spills of some kind regularly occur," the judge said. "The business must be able to reasonably anticipate that a condition hazardous to customers will regularly occur." Here, the judge said, Contreras did not prove that the spills reached the floor or that they were in areas accessible to customers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole