Wife Sues Doctors after Husband Contracts Cancer from Organ Donor

Kimberly Liew filed a medical malpractice claim against the NYU doctors who gave her husband a cancer-ridden kidney in 2002. The case went all the way to a jury trial, but on May 28, 2010, the jury ultimately found the doctors were not at fault in Mr. Liew's death, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Liew, a 37-year-old man, received the kidney in early 2002 from a 50-year-old woman who died after having a stroke. Weeks after the transplant, his doctors learned that the donor had uterine cancer when she died. They then allegedly informed Mr. Liew that although the safest plan of action would be to remove the kidney, there was a "slim" chance that he would actually catch cancer from the organ if he kept it. Mr. Liew, who had hated dialysis treatments, chose to keep the kidney. Sadly, Mr. Liew in fact did get cancer and, although the kidney was later removed, the disease had already spread through his body. He died in September 2002. In the lawsuit, his wife argued that doctors should have removed the kidney when they learned the donor had cancer.

In the end, jurors apparently sided with NYU's doctors, who claimed that the chance of Mr. Liew developing cancer from the transplant truly was small, and that Mr. Liew had fought hard to keep his kidney, despite being warned of the potential consequences.

Organ transplants can be life-saving. However, these procedures can sometimes cause new health problems for the individual receiving the transplant. Despite screening for infectious diseases that is required prior to organ donations, cases of undiagnosed malignancies being transmitted do occur.

If you or someone you know may have been the victim of medical malpractice or medical negligence, contact Paulsen & Armitage, LLC for assistance. Our attorneys fight for the rights of the injured and seek the maximum monetary damages available to compensate our clients for the harm they have suffered at the hands of careless or incompetent doctors, hospitals, and health care providers.

Emergency Room Medical Malpractice

No one ever wants to visit the hospital, but sometimes health circumstances require a trip to the emergency room. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 119 million people visited emergency rooms nationwide in 2006. That figure amounts to approximately 40 visits per year for every 100 people. The Journal of the American Medical Association also reported that 225,000 people die every year due to medical malpractice, caused by unnecessary surgery, medication errors, infections, negative effects of drugs, and other errors. A portion of those deaths resulted from malpractice in an emergency room setting.

Emergency Room Malpractice
Emergency rooms are typically extremely busy, demanding environments. Patients often wait hours for treatment. The CDC reports that patients nationwide wait more than two hours for treatment (at the median). The CDC also notes that between 40-50% of hospitals emergency departments experience patient overcrowding. Furthermore, emergency room doctors and nurses typically work long hours and must treat a variety of medical issues, with limited support and resources. The CDC even reports that 64.7% of emergency departments use outside contractors to provide physicians. Under these challenging circumstances, medical professionals might commit one of the following forms of medical malpractice:

• Delay of important treatment because of overcrowding
• Failure to diagnose a life threatening infection or disease
• Failure to immediately treat life a threatening condition (such as stroke or heart attack)
• Misdiagnosis
• Errors in medication dosage
• Negligence
• Misreading of medical chart or test results
• Failure to conduct all necessary diagnostic tests
• Failure to consult appropriate specialists.

Example of Possible Emergency Room Malpractice
On September 14, 2008, Tabitha Mullings went to a New York emergency room suffering from what she thought was a kidney stone. After being examined, she left the hospital that day with pain killers. Mullings, however, returned to the hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a sepsis infection. This infection had blocked circulation to her hands, feet, and an eye. Doctors eventually had to amputate her hands and feet, and she lost sight in her right eye. As a result of this unfortunate turn of events, the New York Daily News reports that Mullings has filed a malpractice lawsuit, arguing that she was not properly screened when she first visited the hospital.

Responding to Malpractice
Victims of emergency room malpractice may be able to recover costs for:

• Rehabilitation
• Current and future medical bills
• Lost wages
• Long-term care
• Pain and suffering
• Loss of quality of life
• Loss of companionship (for the survivors of victim)

Victims of medical malpractice also must keep in mind the statute of limitations. Victims have two years from the date of the injury or from when the injury should have been discovered. No medical malpractice claim can be filed more than three years after the act that caused the injury.

Medical Malpractice Representation from Paulsen & Armitage Thank you for reading our blog. If you suspect that a loved one has passed away as a result of the negligence of a doctor, hospital, or other health care provider, please contact us for immediate assistance. Please note that our postings do not constitute legal advice and your comments will not be treated as confidential. If you wish to discuss your legal matter with us, please contact our office for a consultation.

Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act

The Colorado Board of Medical Examiners (the “Board”) has implemented the requirements of the Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act (the “Act”), which was enacted in 2007 by the Colorado General Assembly. The Act requires all physicians who submit an application for an initial license to practice medicine on or after January 1, 2008 to disclose certain information that is accessible to the public. Physicians who make an application to reinstate or reactivate an existing license are also subject to the Act’s requirements. Physicians who hold an active or inactive license issued by the Board or who applied for a license prior to January 1, 2008 are not required to comply with the Act until the May 31, 2009 license renewal period.

Information Available Under the Act
The Act requires basic personal information such as name, aliases, address and telephone number. The Act also requires the following information from the physician:

• Information on all medical licenses ever held
• Affiliations with hospitals and health care facilities
• Board certifications and specialties
• Current employment contracts
• Current ownership interests in businesses related to health services

In addition, the Act requires the following information about prior disciplinary proceedings, malpractice claims or loss of privileges or insurance:

• Public disciplinary actions against a medical license
• Agreements and Stipulations to temporarily cease medical practice
• Involuntary hospital or health care facility privileging actions
• Involuntary surrender of a DEA registration
• Criminal convictions or plea arrangements for felonies and crimes of moral turpitude
• Judgments, settlements and arbitration awards for medical malpractice claims
• Refusal by an insurance carrier to issue medical liability insurance

The Act also requires physicians to report a conviction for a crime within 30 days of the entry of the judgment and sentence for the crime, even if the conviction is subject to an appeal.

History Behind the Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act
The Act is named after Michael Skolnik, a 22 year-old who suffered brain trauma. A surgeon performed surgery on Skolnik, and Skolnik’s family alleged in their malpractice lawsuit that the surgeon jostled Skolnik’s brain during surgery. Skolnik required constant care, and died two years later, with $4.8 million in medical bills. Skolnik’s family later learned that the surgeon had only performed the procedure once before, and had a prior malpractice claim against him. Skolnik’s family contended that they would never have selected this surgeon had they known about his lack of experience and the prior malpractice claim.

Colorado is the 16th state to allow for the publicizing of malpractice claims against doctors. The Act extends beyond merely publicizing malpractice claims to provide consumers with information relevant to making an informed choice in selecting a physician. Please note that as of the date of this blog entry, only a limited number of physician’s profiles are available under the Act. Eventually, all physicians will have their profiles listed in compliance with the Act.

Medical Malpractice Claims Require Experienced Legal Counsel
Thank you for reading our blog. If you or a loved one have suffered a serious injury or death due to medical malpractice, contact us for immediate assistance. Please note that our postings do not constitute legal advice and your comments will not be treated as confidential. If you wish to discuss your legal matter with us, please contact our office for a consultation.

Colorado Governor Signs Two Important Bills Concerning Insurance

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed two important bills last month impacting consumers. Senate Bill 11 requires insurance companies to offer $5,000 of auto insurance medical payments for bodily injury, sickness or disease resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of motor vehicles. Medical payment coverage or “med pay coverage” is a type of insurance provides coverage for the insured driver and his or her passengers for payment for injuries sustained, regardless of the fault of the driver. This type of coverage is also sometimes referred to “personal injury protection (PIP).” The amount of med-pay benefits is determined by the policy limits stated in the insurance policy declarations sheet for the person who purchased the coverage.

Insurance policies may be issued without medical payments coverage only if the insured rejects medical payments coverage in writing or using the same medium in which the application for the policy was taken (such as an online application over the internet). Insurance companies are required to maintain proof that the named insured rejected the medical payments coverage for at least three years after the insured declined the med pay coverage. The rejection will be deemed valid for all insureds under the policy, including resident relatives of the named insured and permitted drivers of the vehicle.

The new legislation limits the ability of an insurance company to be reimbursed out of a settlement or award for the med pay benefits it has paid. The law will become effective on January 1, 2009 and will apply to auto insurance policies issued, delivered or renewed after this date.

Governor Ritter also signed HB 1407, Concerning Strengthening Penalties for the Unreasonable Conduct of an Insurance Carrier, which is designed to protect consumers from insurance carriers who fail to honor their obligations to the policy holder, such as wrongfully delaying or denying claims. HB1407 increases the penalties the insurance commissioner may impose for a violation of any law, rule or order to up to $5,000 per act, or up to $50,000 aggregate annually, unless the carrier knew it was violating a law, rule or commissioner order, in which case the penalties increase to $50,000 per act, or $750,000 aggregate annually. The bill prohibits an insurer from unreasonably delaying or denying a claim for payment of benefits. The bill also creates a cause of action for a claimant who is unreasonably denied insurance benefits, and allows a claimant to recover two times the actual damages sustained and recovery of attorneys’ fees. The new law becomes effective for certain types of insurance disputes arising after August 5, 2008.

Thanks for reading our blog. If you have a comment or question, feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your posting will not be confidential. If you have been seriously injured and have questions concerning insurance coverage, contact our office for assistance.