Colorado Crush Team Physician Accused of Malpractice

Former Colorado Crush arena football team player Clay Rush has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against team physician Dr. Saurabh Mangalik and his employer, HealthONE Clinic Services, for failing to properly treat his concussions. Rush was the kicker for the Colorado Crush in 2008, and alleges that he sustained several blows to the head during various games. Rush alleges that his concussions were mistreated, resulting in permanent injuries. The lawsuit did not disclose the nature or extent of Rush’s injuries, but concussions are a form of brain injury.

The lawsuit contends that the doctor treated Rush for headaches and sent him back on the field so that the doctor could “properly evaluate and observe him.” The doctor disputes this claim, asserting that “his records indicated that he had repeatedly told Rush and team trainers that Rush should not play or practice until his symptoms, like headaches and dizziness, cleared. The modern standard of care for sport-related concussions is to forbid physical activity until all symptoms subside because sustaining another head injury too soon can cause far greater damage.”

Concussions

Concussions may be mild to severe. A person may not necessarily lose consciousness from a concussion, and symptoms may not appear for several days or weeks. Signs to watch out for include:

• Headache or neck pain that persists
• Light-headedness, balance problems, or dizziness
• Nausea
• Increased sensitivity to light and sound
• Double or fuzzy, blurred vision or tired eyes
• Loss of sense of smell or taste
• Ringing in the ears
• Difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions
• Slowness in thinking, speaking, acting, or reading
• Getting lost or easily confused
• Feeling sluggish, tired, listless, or unmotivated all of the time
• Inexplicable mood changes
• Changes in sleep patterns

Cases involving medical malpractice or traumatic brain injuries require an attorney with the right combination of legal experience and medical knowledge. If you believe that you or someone you love has been the victim of medical negligence or medical malpractice, contact our office for help.

Medical Malpractice Placed In, Pulled Out, of the Health Care Debate

In 1945, The United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to regulate the insurance industry. Rather than doing so, Congress passed a law known as McCarran-Ferguson, giving states the sole authority to regulate insurance companies. Since that time, insurance companies have been exempted from federal anti-trust laws, which are designed to promote competition by prohibiting monopolies and other practices in restraint of trade.

The insurance industry may soon find itself brought under federal regulation as part of national health care reform, which in various incarnations seeks to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. However, questions about whether medical malpractice insurance will be included in the repeal have raised strong opposition from the property-casualty insurance industry.

The main thrust of repealing McCarran-Ferguson as part of health care reform is to bring health insurance companies under federal jurisdiction. But medical malpractice is not health insurance, as the property-casualty industry is quick to point out.

It may be argued that states already prohibit trust-like activity among both health insurance and medical malpractice insurers. Activities such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations are all illegal under most state laws, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a legislative agency providing objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget. Each state's power, however, is limited in its scope, and federal action could possibly be more comprehensive.

Ironically, federal regulation of medical malpractice could actually decrease competition, increase costs, and result in smaller companies merging into larger ones, all perceived ills that anti-trust laws are aimed at preventing. This information comes from the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan agency within the Library of Congress which provides policy and legal analysis to committees and members in both houses of Congress.

The latest word from the Hill is a move led by Democrats to keep the exemption from federal regulation in place for companies that offer malpractice insurance.

No matter what the politicians decide, our firm will continue to fight for the rights of the injured and seek the maximum allowable compensation necessary to compensate our clients for the harm they have suffered at the hands of negligent or incompetent doctors, hospitals, and health care providers. If you believe that you or someone you love has been the victim of medical negligence or medical malpractice, contact our office for help.

Would Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Really Help?

In October, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report to Congress about the potential costs and benefits of instituting national tort reform in medical malpractice cases. While the CBO findings do suggest that tort reform might reduce health care spending and malpractice insurance premiums, the report also questions the impact this reform would have on patients' actual health.

The CBO estimates that the cost of medical malpractice claims, including insurance premiums, amounts to approximately $35 billion, or two percent of total health care spending. It further went on to estimate that if a group of tort reform proposals were adopted, total reductions around .5 percent of current total health care expenditures, or about $11 billion could be saved.

Few would argue with the appeal of saving billions of dollars in potentially unnecessary spending. However, the CBO rightly questions the other impact of medical malpractice tort reform, namely the outcome on actual medical patient health. In its report, it expressed concern about the broader impact these reforms might have on the public in the way of health outcomes. The problem is that many studies inquiring into the impact of medical malpractice reform only study the economic concerns and largely ignore the impact on people's actual health.

Unfortunately, the few studies that have considered the impact on people's health have lead to inconclusive results. The CBO report cites one startling 2009 study that suggests "a 10 percent reduction in costs related to medical malpractice liability would increase the nation's overall mortality rate by 0.2 percent." However, it cites two other studies that suggest there is no connection between tort reform and an adverse effect on patient health. Clearly, before Congress passes national medical malpractice reform, more research must be done to better determine the impact such reform would have on patients nationwide.

Paulsen & Armitage is always apprised of changes in medical malpractice laws both at the state and national levels. We have an in-depth understanding of medical malpractice laws, issues, and litigation, and we are committed to staying current on all of the fast-moving developments in the area of medical malpractice tort reform. If you or someone you know is a victim of medical malpractice or medical negligence, contact us for assistance.

Obama Administration Offers Grants to Curb Medical Malpractice Suits

The debate between trial lawyers and doctors concerning medical malpractice reform appears to be continuing not only on a statewide level in Colorado, but also on a national level as well. Recently, the Obama administration, in an effort to discourage frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, offered $25 million in grants that would identify ways to reduce medical errors, reduce malpractice insurance premiums, and prevent nuisance litigation.

The White House's proposals have already been met with opposition. Republicans and consumer groups have stated that Obama's plans at medical malpractice reform lack substance. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that Obama's proposals do not get rid of enough frivolous lawsuits on doctors and hospitals. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing business interests, stated that the amount of money offered by the administration is insufficient to make any significant progress in medical malpractice reform.

Contrary to what most people believe, however, an article in The New York Times stated that the direct costs of medical malpractice suits, including jury awards and settlements, constitute only a small fraction of health care spending according to economists. In actuality, according to a Harvard economist, Amitabh Chandra, who conducted research on medical malpractice costs, noticed that doctors conducted a noticeable amount of wasteful treatment because doctors feared getting sued by their patients. Chandra found that as much as $60 billion annually or approximately three percent of overall medical spending was attributable to doctors requesting unnecessary treatments.

Additionally, although many people perceive that large medical malpractice settlements and jury awards are commonplace, this is not factually true. In reality, medical researchers have found that after reviewing patient records that numbered in the thousands, only two to three percent of incidents of medical negligence actually led to medical malpractice lawsuits. According to a member of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, only a small share of victims receive compensation for their medical injuries, and the award amounts vary widely, ranging from the minimal to the very high jury award amounts.

As the debate over medical malpractice reform continues, the laws regarding medical malpractice, including medical malpractice caps, may change over time. It is apparent though that high costs for medical care are not necessarily due to high medical malpractice jury awards. A combination of different factors is perpetuating high healthcare costs.

Our firm is always apprised of changes in medical malpractice laws both at the state and national levels. We have an in-depth understanding of medical malpractice laws, issues, and litigation. If you or someone you know is a victim of medical malpractice or medical negligence, contact us for assistance.

World's Largest Drug Company Hit With Record Criminal Fine

Pharmaceutical company Pfizer, currently the largest drug company in the world, has been fined $1.3 billion for mispromoting Bextra, a once-popular painkiller that was taken off the market in 2004. Pfizer has agreed to pay an additional $1 billion in civil settlements to Medicare and Medicaid as reimbursement for improper prescriptions.

The federal investigation was sparked by the filing of a whistleblower lawsuit by a Pfizer sales representative who accused the drug company of marketing Bextra for unapproved, or “off-label” uses. Bextra (Veldecoxib) is a painkiller approved for relief of arthritis and menstrual pain. According to the whistleblowing employee - who will personally receive over $50 million in the settlement pursuant to whistleblower provisions in the federal False Claims Act - Pfizer promoted Bextra for uses and in doses that far exceeded the scope of the FDA approval.

A related settlement was also reached regarding kickbacks made by Pfizer to doctors for prescribing Bextra and several other drugs, often for off-label uses.

On the same day that Pfizer disclosed the cost of the settlement, it also announced the takeover of pharmaceutical giant Wyeth at a cost of $68 billion. The news of the merger overshadowed the news of the Bextra problem, which was understandably not highlighted by the drug company.

Doctors who prescribe drugs for a purpose or at a dosage not approved by the FDA may be committing malpractice and exposing themselves to liability. Although off-label use is quite common, it can be malpractice to prescribe drugs for off-label uses when there is no medical basis for doing so, or if safer, more established drugs are available that could accomplish the same purpose. Bextra, for instance, is an NSAID painkiller in the same class as aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen, all of which are widely available in differing forms and dosages, and are currently used to fight the type of pain for which Bextra was approved.

The use of defective or dangerous drugs, or the off-label use of otherwise safe drugs, can cause illness or injury, long-term damage, and even death. If you believe that you may have been injured by the prescription of a drug for an off-label purpose, contact our office for a consultation.

Do Damages Caps Make Sense?

In Colorado, total damages in medical malpractice cases may not exceed one million dollars. Within that total cap, state law also places a $300,000 cap on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. About half the states in the nation have placed a cap on non-economic damages in civil litigation, with the caps ranging from $250,000 to $750,000. Most of these caps apply specifically to instances of medical malpractice.

The argument for capping damages is mainly an economic one; doctors argue that the potential for larger malpractice damage awards causes them to have to pay higher rates for malpractice insurance. Higher rates, in turn, will either cut into doctors' profits or be passed on to patients in the form of higher bills for office visits and procedures.

While capping damages may seem to make economic sense in the abstract, how do they stack up in individual cases where the cost inflicted by malpractice exceeds the statutory cap? Take, for instance, the recent case where around 21 patients at Rose Medical Center in Denver were exposed to hepatitis C at the hands of a surgical technician employed by the facility, who knew about her condition.

Hepatitis C is an incurable disease that can lead to cirrhosis of the liver or liver cancer. Certain drug therapies are effective at removing large quantities of the disease from the blood stream… at a cost of around $10,000 per treatment. While cost containment is a laudable objective for government policy, is it right for the state to set the price tag for being infected with a life-long, debilitating and potentially fatal condition? Does $300,000 sound like a fair exchange for the emotional pain and suffering these patients must endure, due to actions over which they had no control? Should the state enact a blanket cap without regard to individual circumstances, or should it be up to the judicial system to determine what is appropriate in a given instance?

Recent attempts to increase the $300,000 cap to $460,000 merely to adjust for inflation have been defeated in the legislature. The $300,000 non-economic and $1 million total damages caps still stand, although a judge does have discretion to exceed the total cap when it is shown that future medical expenses and lost wages will exceed the million dollar limit. For an individual infected with hepatitis C in the prime of life, it is more than conceivable that a million dollars will be inadequate to compensate for the loss.

Thank you for reading our blog. If you or someone you know has been injured due to medical malpractice, or someone you love has unfortunately died due to another's medical negligence, please contact us for assistance.

Colorado Patients Exposed to Hepatitis C from Former Hospital Employee

Approximately 21 patients of Rose Medical Center in Denver, Colorado and Audubon Surgery Center in Colorado Springs have tested positive for hepatitis C. Preliminary investigations and tests link the patients' hepatitis C to Kristen Diane Parker's hepatitis C. Parker is a former surgical technician at both Rose and Audubon.

On July 23, 2009, Parker was indicted on 21 counts of tampering with a consumer product and 21 counts of obtaining a controlled substance by deceit or attempt by a federal grand jury. According to the criminal complaint, Parker, who is a former heroin addict and has hepatitis C, allegedly swapped her own dirty syringes that were filled with saline for syringes that were filled with Fentanyl, a narcotic that is 80 to 100 times stronger than morphine, and is often used to help patients after surgery manage pain.

Allegedly, Parker injected herself with Fentanyl, while patients unknowingly were infected with Parker's dirty needles. Out of the 4,700 Rose patients and 1,000 Audobon patients who were potentially exposed to Parker's hepatitis C, there are presently 21 hepatitis-infected patients who are preliminarily linked to Parker's hepatitis C. Authorities have advised all patients, who may have been exposed, to be tested.

Even though Parker is not a nurse, nor holds a medical degree, she received surgical technician training. Additionally, before she was hired at Rose, Parker's pre-employment blood test showed that she had hepatitis C. Despite her condition, Rose Medical Center allowed her to work in its operating rooms after it counseled her about her condition and exposure risks.

Hepatitis C
"Hepatitis" means inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis C is a contagious liver disease that arises after a person has been infected with the hepatitis C virus. Symptoms can range from mild illness lasting a few weeks to serious illness that attacks the liver. However, some individuals who are infected never develop any symptoms.

About 75 to 85 percent of people infected with hepatitis C develop chronic hepatitis C, which is a long-term illness, leading to major liver problems, such as cirrhosis--scarring of the liver--or liver cancer. Often, most people who have acute hepatitis, which is a short-term illness arising within the first six months of exposure to hepatitis C, will lead to chronic hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C is generally spread when blood from a person infected with hepatitis C enters the body of a person who is not infected. Common ways of transmission of hepatitis C include:

• Sharing needles or syringes
• Needlestick injuries in healthcare environments
• Children who are born to mothers with hepatitis C

Some individuals, who have tested positive for hepatitis C, have sued Rose Medical Center for medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is an area of law where if a medical practitioner or medical facility fails to exercise adequate care or skill in treating the patient, doctors or hospitals may be liable for any injuries that are caused to the patient.

If you have suffered a medical malpractice injury due to the negligence of a doctor, hospital, or health care provider, you should contact us immediately for legal assistance. If you would like to discuss your matter with us, please contact our office for a confidential consultation.