Posts Tagged ‘Medical Malpractice’

New Study Reveals Significant Increase in Pregnancy-Related Strokes

Monday, August 8th, 2011

A new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association this month reveals that pregnant women have a significantly high risk of developing a stroke. According to the lead author of the study,  Dr. Elena V. Kuklina (senior service fellow and epidemiologist at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), “the overall rate of women having strokes while they are expecting a baby and in the three months after birth went up 54% in the 12 years leading up to 2006-07.”

This is a significant finding! To put it in context, consider the following facts about stroke:

  • Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Over 143,579 people die each year from stroke in the United States.
  • Stroke is the leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States.
  • Each year, about 795,000 people suffer a stroke. About 600,000 of these are first attacks, and 185,000 are recurrent attacks.
  • Nearly three-quarters of all strokes occur in people over the age of 65. The risk of having a stroke more than doubles each decade after the age of 55.
  • Strokes can – and do – occur at ANY age. Nearly one quarter of strokes occur in people under the age of 65.
  • Stroke death rates are higher for African Americans than for whites, even at younger ages.
  • Among adults age 20 and older, the prevalence of stroke in 2005 was 6,500,000 (about 2,600,000 males and 3,900,000 females).
  • On average, every 40 seconds someone in the United States has a stroke.
  • Each year, about 55,000 more women than men have a stroke.

“A stroke is an interruption of the blood supply to any part of the brain. A stroke is sometimes called a ‘brain attack.’” The following are well-recognized stroke risk factors: high blood pressures (hypertension), atrial fibrillation, diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, increasing age, and a family history of strokes.  Being pregnant is a risk factor in and of itself.

As part of the study, Dr. Kuklina and colleagues used information from 5 to 8 million discharge records from about 1000 hospitals. According to Dr. Kuklina, the increase in the stroke rate during pregnancy and in the 3 months after birth was mainly attributable to high blood pressure and obesity. The study enumerates these specific findings:

  • Pregnancy-related stroke hospitalizations went up by 54%, from 4,085 to 6,293 over the 12 years leading up to 2006- 07.
  • Strokes in pregnancy went up by 47% (from 0.15 to 0.22 per 1,000 deliveries).
  • Strokes recently after giving birth went up by 83% (from 0.12 to 0.22 per 1,000 deliveries).
  • Strokes during delivery did not change (they stayed at 0.27 per 1,000 deliveries).
  • In 2006-07, about 32% and 53% of women who were hospitalized after having strokes in pregnancy and shortly after giving birth respectively had either high blood pressure or heart disease.
  • Increased prevalence of these two conditions over the 12 years up to 2006-07 accounted for almost all the increase in stroke hospitalization after giving birth that occurred in the same period.

It appears that an increasingly larger number of women enter pregnancy with one or more stroke risk factors. This is particularly true with respect to hypertension and obesity. According to Dr. Kuklina, “[s]ince pregnancy by itself is a risk factor, if you have one of these other stroke risk factors, it doubles the risk.” For this reason, it is particularly important to enter pregnancy in relatively good cardiovascular health and to reduce other risk factors, if possible. If you are pregnant or plan on becoming pregnant, talk to your OB/GYN about your stroke risk factors. In collaboration with your physician, implement a plan to manage and reduce your stroke risks before, during, and after pregnancy.

Read these related blogs:

Stroke Warnings: Most People Who Experience Minor Strokes Do Not Recognize Its Symptoms

Strokes – Family History a Significant Risk Factor

Spinal Stroke: An atypical cause of back pain

Brother, will you help me? If you don’t this stroke might kill me.

Landmark NIH Clinical Trial Comparing Two Stroke Prevention Procedures Shows Surgery and Stenting Equally Safe and Effective

Parents – be aware and read this article: Children Don’t Have Strokes? Just Ask Jared About His, at Age 7 – NYTimes.com

To view our collection of educational videos about stroke, visit us at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nashlawatty#g/c/BDCB5099E7C9F6C4

FIVE TIPS TO GETTING READY FOR YOUR FIRST CONSULTATION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY

Monday, July 18th, 2011

No one ever wishes to be injured as a result of medical negligence. Nonetheless, the lives of thousands are affected every year as direct result of medical errors. How would you handle such a situation? Where would you go for answers?  How do you cope? And most of all, how do you move on with your life when your life, as you know it, has changed because of a medical mistake?  For some people, consulting with a medical malpractice attorney is a prudent choice. If you have come to this conclusion, you might want to call an attorney. Let’s say you already have a scheduled appointment. How do you prepare for this meeting? What do you need to consider before you even step foot into a lawyer’s office?  The purpose of this blog is to give you some guidance.  Here are five (5) tips to get you ready for your initial consultation:

Consider your purpose.  First and foremost, make sure that you know why you are considering an action against a health care provider. Perhaps, this determination is the most important one you will have to make in the entire litigation process.  Invariably, the reason why a person decides to sue will dictate the nature of the litigation process and even its eventual outcome. Medical malpractice cases should only involve medical negligence that results in injury.  Ask yourself: Do I have a good faith basis for contacting a lawyer?  If the answer is “yes,” you are on the right track.  You don’t have to be a medical expert or an attorney to have a gut feeling about the case.   The important thing here is to avoid litigation for the purpose of revenge or annoyance. Such cases are doomed to fail.

Do you have an injury? As you prepare for your initial meeting with a lawyer, consider if the case has some cognizable injury.  Remember – it isn’t enough that a health care provider did something wrong, the negligent act must result in injury.  All medical malpractice actions are fundamentally cases of negligence. Generally speaking, in order to prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that 1) the health care provider breached an applicable standard of care (i.e., a wrongful act took place), 2) the breach of the applicable standard of care directly and proximately (lawyers are still fighting about the meaning of “proximate”) caused injury to plaintiff, and 3) the plaintiff sustained a discernible and identifiable damage(s).

So, ask yourself: Do I have an injury that was caused by the action or inaction of a health care provider? If the answer is “yes,” you are on the right track. Remember, absent an injury, a Plaintiff will not be able to prevail against a health care provider even if the health care provider breached an applicable standard of care.  Here is an example, let’s say that you or a loved one needed a CT scan to confirm a ruptured appendix, which the physician failed to order. But, around the same time, another physician ordered the CT scan, which revealed the ruptured appendix. Assume further that the first physician’s failure to order the CT scan did not result in any meaningful delay in treatment. Under such circumstances, one could hardly argue that the first physician’s conduct, even if negligent, caused any injury. The lesson here is to simply make sure that you have an injury as you contemplate bringing a lawsuit against a health care provider.

Examine your damages.  Once you have determined that a tangible injury exists, be prepared to discuss the full extent of your injury(s) during the initial consultation.  Your initial consultation is not a time to be shy about your experience, your injuries, and your suffering.  I know; it is counter-intuitive. After all, there are better things to brag about than your suffering. I recommend that you come up with a complete list of all injuries suffered as a result of the medical error. As you brainstorm, keep in mind that your injuries can be both economic and non-economic. Economic damages are financial damages sustained in the past, present, and future. Such damages will generally include the cost of any medical treatment for injuries related to the alleged negligence (even if your insurance is covering these expenses). They may include further medical costs as well as other costs arising from your injuries (e.g., if you have developed a disability, you may need house modifications, a new car, nursing assistance, and assistance with household activities, among other things).  Economic damages can also include lost earnings (both past and future), loss of retirement benefits, and even loss of earning capacity among many other things. Non-economic damages will generally include damages for pain and suffering caused by the negligent conduct of the health care provider.  Make sure that you consider all of your damages thoroughly before meeting with an attorney.

What is your gut feeling? Oftentimes, your gut feeling about what went wrong, is in fact what went wrong. Medical malpractice cases will often involve very complex medical issues, spanning multiple specialties.  It can be a daunting task to get to the bottom of things in medical malpractice cases. Sometimes, it takes months of medical reviews before the negligent conduct and causation are determined. As such, clients are sometimes understandably reluctant to share what they think constituted the act(s) of negligence.   Still, even after months of investigation, the lawyer’s theory of liability will invariably  end up being the same or similar to that of the client. For this reason, it is again important to be complete and willing to share as much information as possible during your first interview. It may help the lawyer narrow down the issues in order to expedite the review and investigation of your case.  If you already have some or all of your medical records, it is a good idea to bring them with you. Any other documentation, which reflects the events surrounding your care, may be very helpful as well. Also, make sure to provide the lawyer with a chronology of any and all care rendered to you around the time of your injury and subsequently.

Rely on your loved ones. You don’t have to come to the initial interview alone.  Injuries resulting from medical negligence can be quite severe and life changing. Sometimes, it is simply easier to try to forget the events surrounding the injury. Other times, because of the medical condition (e.g., coma), the patient has little or no relevant information to convey. However, it is not uncommon to have family members or friends who may have direct or indirect familiarity with the medical care or the events surrounding your injury. Such friends and family members are an invaluable source of information. Ask them to talk to your attorney as well. Additionally, it is not easy to relive a traumatic experience alone. If you can, why not rely on someone who loves and cares about you?

I hope that these tips are helpful.  I  invite all of our lawyer friends to contribute to this discussion. What else can a perspective client do to prepare for an initial meeting with an attorney? If you are a patient, what do you expect from the attorney at the time of your initial consultation?

Don’t underestimate jurors. They really do get it – most of the time!

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

I just finished a two week trial that was probably one of the most complex medical cases of my 37 year career. Since the “resolution” of the case is the subject of a confidentiality agreement, I’m not at liberty to discuss the details of the case or its “resolution.” Nevertheless, what I am free to tell you is that having tried hundreds of jury trials over my career, it amazes me just how often jurors “get it” when it comes to doing their very best to understand the evidence thrown at them and to do “the right thing.”

The case involved about 8,000 pages of medical records. Jurors heard from 8 medical witnesses ranging from surgery, to infectious disease, to radiology to pathology. This was not a case involving “Anatomy 101″; it was an advanced course in the biomechanics of the spine, neural element compression, biofilms on hardware, pulmonary hypertension, deep vein thrombosis – well, you get the picture.

After nine grueling, long days of evidence, sitting in hard, non-cushioned chairs and having to endure seemingly endless bench conferences dealing with evidentiary issues and objections that the jury was not allowed to follow, our panel patiently waited for over two hours on their final day of service while the parties to the lawsuit worked out “a resolution” of the case. The trial was to end the next day (today). They, the jurors, would finally get to speak to us, rather than having us speak to them for over two weeks.

Once the details of the “resolution” were hammered out, the judge had the courtroom clerk bring the jury into the courtroom to take their “luxurious” wooden seats. The Court announced that the parties had “resolved” the case and that the jurors’ service was now completed. Nine plus days and countless hours of sitting and listening – and now – no chance to deliberate and tell the parties who they – the jurors - thought was right in this legal battle. The judge then advised them that they had served a most important function because many times (this being one of them) the parties could not reach agreement – uh “resolution” – without them. It was further announced by the Court that if they cared to do so, they were now free to speak with the lawyers.

Rather than gather up their belongings and hustle out the door, each and every one of them remained in the courtroom to share their thoughts and observations of the trial. Once again, as has happened so many times in my career, I was pleasantly surprised  and amazed by what they had to say. Peppered with questions by the lawyers to see if they “got it,” our jurors shared their observations about key issues in the case. The told us about their “take” on the evidence involving T1 versus T2 weighted MRI’s. They accurately recounted the evidence regarding the issues of “sub-clinical infection.” They shared their individual thoughts and reflections on what role the decedent’s underlying, complicated co-morbidities played in their analysis of causation.

We’re not talking about a panel of medical experts here. We’re talking about everyday folks, who brought their common sense and varying levels of education and life-experiences to the litigation table. They “got it”!

None of the parties will ever know what the jury’s eventual verdict would have been. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty of that verdict, the opposing sides in this lawsuit worked their way through a morass of emotion, righteousness, principles – you name it – to get the case “resolved.”

I hear so often from “professionals” that the jury system is broken. They rant endlessly that we need “professional” finders of fact to arrive at just results. Oh really! If that’s the case, then why is it that each side can have highly qualified experts, who can’t agree on the interpretation of medical evidence? Maybe – just maybe – it takes people of plain common sense, goodwill and a sense of justice to get it right.

Have jurors arrived at verdicts in my career that make you want to retire from the practice of law? They have – but on very rare occasions. When you put aside the self-righteousness of bias and advocacy and reflect on verdicts, many lawyers – I for one – appreciate that juries really do “get it” and really try to do “the right thing.”

To all the cynics out there, don’t be so unwilling to appreciate what these citizens do to advance our system of justice. Is the system perfect? Far from it, but not as far from it as many would have you believe.

Let me end by simply saying – THANKS to our citizens who made-up our jury. Your patience, attentiveness, endurance and willingness to serve is very much appreciated. You could easily have dreamed-up a way to avoid service on the jury during the selection (voir dire) process (as so many do in so many pathetic ways), but you didn’t do that. Kudos to each and every one of you. You did advance the cause of justice. You made the parties to this lawsuit take note of the fact that maybe, just maybe, their view of the case was about to be tested in the crucible of the jury room. That knowledge and the reality of an impending verdict made them step back, take a deep breath and come to a “resolution” of their dispute. Well done, Citizens! I for one applaud you.

July 1 – New Residents, New Rules……Again!

Monday, June 13th, 2011

Last year, I wrote a blog on “The July Effect”, a long-observed phenomenon of increased hospital deaths during the month of July that was substantiated by medical data and statistics just last year. These data seemed to specifically relate these deaths to the influx of new medical school graduates into teaching hospitals as first-year residents of those institutions. The conclusions of the study seemed well-substantiated. I further elaborated on some of the potential causes of errors being made that could result in harm to patients; what I didn’t elaborate upon was the rigorous and demanding schedule that residents assume.

In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) instituted new policies regarding the time limitations of ALL residents, but specifically focused on the first year resident. These limitations were placed on the number of hours that residents could and should work in any given week or rotation in an effort to safeguard the health of the resident but more so to ensure the safety and well-being of patients being treated by these residents.

It is now 2011, and the ACGME is instituting even stricter limitations affecting both first year and mid-level residents; Nixon Peabody does a great job of delineating the changes in the guidelines. Much information has been published in the last year regarding the continued occurrence of medical errors despite protocols and safety mechanisms in place to protect patients (click on related blogs below). It seems that the ACGME is attempting to address some of these errors by addressing the fatigue factor of medical and surgical residents in training. The overall maximum hours per week will not change; it remains at 80 hours.  Yes, twice that of “normal” jobs. One big change is the limit on the maximum continuous duty period for first year residents; this will be decreased from 24 to 16 hours.  It will remain 24 hours for residents after their first year, but recommendations include “strategic napping.” Another change is the additional duty time, previously allotted as 6 extra hours to perform clinic duty, transfer of care, didactic training, etc.; for first year residents, these duties are to be included in the overall 80-hour work week, but after the first year, the residents will be allowed 4 additional hours. A third big change is the minimum time off between duty periods. Previously, it was noted that all residents “should have” 10 hours between shifts; year 1′s are still recommended to have 10  hours off, but they MUST HAVE AT LEAST 8! Intermediate-level residents should also have 10 hours off, but they also must have at least 8 hours off with a mandatory 14 hours off if they just completed a 24-hour shift. Final year residents are recommended to receive 8 hours off, but this is still being reviewed.  One thing that has not changed is the mandatory 1 day off in 7, averaged over 4 weeks.

Many of us watch the medical TV shows, but none of these shows really paint the true picture of medical residency training. As a Physician Assistant student, I trained alongside medical residents and medical students, alike. My training mirrored theirs in the hospital setting, and it happened well before the 2003 ACGME recommendations. There were times during my surgery rotation in a trauma center during which I worked 36 hours straight, followed by 10 hours off, then back to 10- and 12-hour days. The working hours entailed clinic time, managing daily in-patient care, many hours in the operating room, admitting patients during the overnight hours from the emergency room and emergency surgery for trauma victims, hours and hours at a time, in the overnight hours and during the day.  By the end of 36 hours, the exhaustion was indescribable. It is easy to understand how and why mistakes happen. After these crazy shifts, no one ever looked so glamorous as those who are depicted on television shows…..TRUST ME!

July 1, 2011, marks the date when over 100,000 medical residents across the USA from ACGME-accredited training programs start their training in teaching hospitals/institutions across this great nation. We should applaud the ACGME for looking at the data, analyzing studies regarding sleep deprivation, and putting forth these guidelines, not only to aid in patient safety but also to protect the health and well-being of these doctors in training. The pressures of residency are incredible. It is interesting that there was and still is opposition to the duty-hour limitations, citing oppositional rationale such as the residents do not learn enough in 16 hours, and small institutions do not have the support staff to treat all of the patients without the addition of medical resident hours.

So, who is going to fill those gaps created by the resident-hour restrictions placed by the ACGME come July 1st? Each institution will have to look at its own hospital model and decide according to current standards. In 2003, many of these gaps were filled by Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners; I suspect this will again be the case.  These mid-level practitioners are quite capable of providing many of the services necessary in hospital settings; they are a growing and well-respected addition to the healthcare team, and I suspect that their usefulness and potential will be more fully appreciated with the institution of healthcare reform!

For more information and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the ACGME guidelines, please go to the website and click on the links!

And, no matter who is caring for you or your loved one, never be afraid to ask questions about therapies and medications being ordered. Be informed!

Related Posts:

“The July Effect”: Where To Seek Medical Care When The Heat Is On

Medical Malpractice – Serious Medical Errors: Failure of the System or Just Plain Ignorance

Study Finds Regional Hospitals Often Are Better At Preventing Medical Errors Than Academic Centers – Kaiser Health News

Tort Reform or Just Plain Medical Care Reform: the debate continues as thousands are injured annually in US hospitals

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Much is Your Marriage Worth?

Friday, June 10th, 2011

When you’re injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, it’s easy to see why you have a legal claim. You are entitled to recover for the injuries that you suffered, including economic damages (lost wages, medical bills, etc.) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering). However, if you’re married, there is another category of damages that you may be able to recover – damage to your marriage. It’s called Loss of Consortium and is an important element of damages in the right circumstances. It is a legal recognition that the marital relationship itself – separate and apart from the injury to the individual – is a protected interest that is deserving of compensation if it has been harmed by the negligence of another person.

Loss of consortium has an interesting history. Under Common Law (which roughly translates to “the olden days” in this circumstance) a woman had no right to sue for loss of consortium. It was only the man who had the right. That was because the woman was essentially seen as the man’s property. If she was injured and unable to provide her usual domestic or bedroom duties as a result of someone else’s negligence, the man could recover for the loss of such services. He had basically lost some of the value of his property so he was entitled to compensation. Eventually, the courts (most courts, at least) recognized the unfairness of such a one-sided system and ruled that women could also make such a claim if their husband suffered an injury. However, there are still some states (Virginia, for example) that do not recognize loss of consortium at all, no matter who tries to bring it.

Back to the present day. A loss of consortium claim arises when one spouse suffers a serious injury that impairs the marital relationship. An easy example is if a husband suffers a traumatic brain injury as a result of a doctor’s negligence. In that circumstance, the man would be able to file a claim for his own damages, of course, but he and his wife could also allege loss of consortium because the brain injury impacts the marriage. The couple will now find it more difficult to do the things they use to do together as man and wife – going out together, caring for their children, taking vacations, intimacy, and the day-to-day marital difficulties that arise because the husband now has a brain injury. In Maryland, a jury can award monetary damages for the couples’ loss of companionship, affection, assistance and yes, sexual relations. It is notoriously difficult to put a dollar figure on such injuries, but the law recognizes the right of a husband and wife to recover financially if their marriage has been damaged. How much money to award for such injury is for the jury to decide. Like other damages, it is always the plaintiffs’ burden to prove that the marriage has been injured, which is usually done through the testimony of the husband and wife.

Speaking of intimacy, some pundits say that loss of consortium is just a code-word for damage to the couples’ sex life. This is not entirely true as the marital relationship entails far more than just sex, but these pundits have a point. A loss of consortium claim usually does include an allegation that the couples’ sex life has been impacted. If you are bringing a lawsuit, you have to understand that when you allege loss of consortium, you are opening up the door on the most intimate parts of your life. Defense attorneys will often ask highly personal questions – how often did you have sex before the injury, how often do you have sex now, how exactly does the injury make sex more difficult, have either of you ever strayed from the marriage, etc. Some couples are understandably reluctant to discuss such things. Thankfully, most defense attorneys are just as uncomfortable asking these questions as the plaintiffs are answering them, so the questions tend to be over with relatively quickly. Be aware, though, that if you do file a loss of consortium claim, your sex life may become an issue in open court.

In the District of Columbia, a loss of consortium claim is for similar damages, but with a slight difference. While in Maryland the claim belongs to both the husband and the wife and is brought by them jointly, in the District of Columbia the claim belongs solely to the non-injured spouse. Any money awarded by the jury for loss of consortium goes to the non-injured spouse rather than to the couple jointly.

Lastly, Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages applies to claims for loss of consortium. There is no separate cap for this claim. In other words, there is a single cap that applies to all allegations of injuries, whether it’s an injury to the individual or an injury to the marriage.  The Maryland Legislature does not allow a couple to receive more money for injury to the marriage above and beyond the cap, even if a jury decides that that money should be given. Just another example of how Maryland’s cap punishes plaintiffs.

Have you ever suffered an injury that impacted your marriage? Did you file a loss of consortium claim? What was the result?

Related Nash and Associates Links

Maryland’s alleged healthcare “crisis”

Insurance and Traumatic Brain Injury

Acquired Brain Injuries

 

 

Legal Boot Camp (Class Three): Sean and Kristy’s Story – Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

From the Editor – Please see ourdisclaimer at the end of this blog for a better understanding of the limitations of this series and our mission statement.

Last month, Sean turned 24.  He and Kristy are married. Their daughter, Kira, is 2-years old.  Sean just entered medical school. Kristy’s parents support them, while Sean is in school.  Sean has never held a job.  Kristy is a stay at home mom. A month ago, Sean was driving home when a drunk driver pushed him off the road. In the accident, Sean broke his sternum. He also sustained a number of vascular injuries, which caused internal bleeding. He was rushed to the nearest hospital. Soon after his arrival, Sean underwent surgery to stop the bleeding.

Sean was recovering beautifully. Unfortunately, on his third day in the hospital, he developed rapid breathing, shortness of breath, and his chest pain got worse. A CT scan of the chest revealed that Sean had a pulmonary embolism. He was immediately ordered anticoagulation medication. The physician ordered 100 mg of anticoagulation medication to be split into two doses a day. The nurse misread the order and mistakenly administered 1000mg all at once. The overdose caused Sean to have extensive bleeding. Sean was scheduled for discharge within the next 3 days. Instead, he died within a few hours.

Now, think about this: Sean died prematurely at the young age of 24. Kira, lost her father. Kristy lost her husband. She now has a child to support all by herself. She has no income of her own, and she can’t rely on her parents indefinitely. After careful consideration, Kristy decided to sue the nurse (and her employer, the hospital) who overdosed her husband.

In Maryland, what will she be able to recover against the nurse in a medical malpractice suit if the jury finds the nurse (and/or her employer the hospital) negligent?

Recovery in a Maryland Survival Action

The answer to that question depends on the type of action brought against the nurse and/or hospital . Kristy, as the Personal Representative of Sean’s Estate, can sue the nurse  (i.e. a survival action). In a survival action, Kristy is essentially bringing a claim on behalf of her deceased husband for damages that he would have been entitled to claim against the nurse had he lived (i.e. had he survived – thus the name “survival action”).  In such an action, the monetary award would go to Sean’s Estate, and it would be distributed according to his will or, if he died without a will, according to Maryland’s Intestate Statute. In a survival action, Kristy can recover the medical expenses incurred by Sean as a result of the nurse’s negligence. This amount would be insignificant because Sean died within a couple of hours from the time the medication was administered.

Kristy may also recover any of Sean’s lost earnings from the time of his injury to the time of his death. Well, there are no such damages here because Sean was unemployed. Kristy could recover Sean’s funeral expenses up to five thousand dollars. She could also recover non-economic damages associated with Sean’s pain and suffering from the time of his injury to the time of his death.  In Maryland, however, these damages are limited in Maryland to about  $650,000.  Therefore, the most Kristy could recover in a survival action would be limited to about $655,000.

Recovery in a Wrongful Death Action

Kristy could also bring an action for wrongful death. In this action, Kristy could recover economic damages that she personally sustained as a result of Sean’s death. She is also entitled to recover economic damages equal to the financial support that she would have had from Sean had he lived.  In this case, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make such a determination. Sean was unemployed at the time of his death. He had no employment history.  Sean was not supporting his family financially. Kristy’s parents supported both of them.

So, how does one calculate the financial support that Kristy’s could reasonably have expected to receive from Sean in the future had he lived? One could argue, pursuant to a number of Maryland cases, that Kristy is not entitled to recover any of Sean’s future lost wages because he never worked and because he never supported Kristy financially.

Theoretically, Kristy could make a claim for loss of household services (cooking, cleaning, babysitting, etc.). In this case, however, Sean was a busy medical student, and Kristy was in charge of the household.  Therefore, it is unlikely that she would recover any such damages.

Wrongful Death – Solatium (non-economic damages)

Since her case would be in Maryland, Kristy could claim damages for her mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, loss of companionship, comfort, protection, marital care, attention, advice and counsel associated with Sean’s death. Here again, these damages are limited to about $650,000 notwithstanding the severity of Kristy’s pain and suffering.

Total Recovery in a Survival and a Wrongful Death Action

If Kristy were to bring a survival action and a wrongful death action in Maryland, her damages for pain and suffering under both actions would be overall capped somewhere between $812,000 and $868,000 (the “cap” on such damages is determined by the year the “cause of action accrues). It is possible that this is all she would be able to reocover against the nurse if she brought claims for wrongful death and survival.

Sean’s daughter, Kira, has a wrongful death claim against the nurse as well.  She would be entitled to recover the value of the support, which Sean would have provided to her had he survived.  Again, because Sean never actually supported Kira financially and because he never worked, that may be something very difficult to prove.  Kira, just like her mother, will be able to claim damages for her pain and suffering resulting from her father’s death. However this recovery would also  be limited to about $650,000. This cap is imposed on both Kira and Kristy’s recovery. That is, if a jury were to award Kristy $650,000 for pain and suffering and another  amount  of $650,000  to Kristy for pain and suffering, both Kira and Kristy would recover an overall amount of $650,000 (not $1,300,000).

Keep in mind, these “possible recoveries” are reduced by the costs and fees associated with litigation.

Justice or Injustice?

Now, think about this for a second… Sean’s normal life expectancy was going to be approximately another 50 years. All things being equal, he would have had a normal working life expectancy. Kristy’s life expectancy is about the same. Kira has another 16 years before she reaches the age of 18. The average cost of living in Maryland is about $3400/month, and in some places it is a lot more. Generally speaking,  college tuitions can be anywhere between $8,000/year and 35,000/year. The average cost for family health insurance is about $13,300/year.

So, you do the math: How long is Kristy’s recovery going to last?  How are Kristy and Kira’s lives going to be affected by the Sean’s death? Is Kristy’s recovery sufficient compensation for her loss?  The principle of compensatory damages is to put a litigant in the same position that she/he would have been in had the loss not occurred. I, for one, think that this is hardly achieved in this case.

If in a survival action the Estate can bring an action that Sean himself could have brought had he survived, why should his Estate not recover all of his lost future income as a doctor? After all, Sean was expected to earn income as a physician for many years. Why should Kristy be precluded from recovering some of Sean’s future lost wages under the wrongful death action simply because Sean was not employed or contributing financially to his family at the time of his death? Surely, it is reasonable to assume that Sean would have contributed some or most of his income to his family. Finally, why should the State dictate what the value of Sean and Kristy’s pain and suffering is? Shouldn’t this be decided by a jury of their peers? What are your thoughts?

Related Posts:

Malpractice Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Couple Falsely Accused of Abusing Their Child Filed Against Children’s Hospital

Maryland’s Cap and a Message from the former MAJ President re the Goings-On in Annapolis

Legal Boot Camp (First Class): The Story of Pam – Maryland’s Law on Earning Capacity

“Wrongful Death and Survival Actions”

Disclaimer: As is the case with all of our blogs and the writings posted on our website, we are not offering legal advice to our readers. This information in our series,Legal Boot Camp, is being presented in the hope that we can provide some education about the law in Maryland and the District of Columbia. The law in the field of personal injury (and particularly in our sub-specialty of medical malpractice) can be complex and confusing at times. Even in these two jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice, the laws and their interpretation by the courts can vary significantly. It is simply our hope that by presenting this series – Legal Boot Camp - that we can provide a better understanding of some legal principles that can come into play when bringing a civil claim or lawsuit for damages as a result of the wrongdoing of others.
For those who do not live in either Maryland or the Washington, D.C., we hope that we can at least raise some issues for you to consider when you speak with an attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you live. Many times the basic concepts of law are similar. We hope that by raising some of these issues applicable to Maryland and the District of Columbia, you will at least have a basic understanding of some terms and principles that may apply to your situation. Don’t be afraid to raise these issues with your attorney. Education – be it in law or medicine – is our main goal.
Finally, please see our introductory blog for Legal Boot Camp for a better understanding of our mission in presenting this series.


 

 

Why early settlement is a win-win for all

Friday, May 20th, 2011

There is an old adage in the law that cases settle on the courthouse steps. There is a reason for that. When the parties are actually walking into court to try their case, they seem to suddenly recognize that there are significant risks to going to trial, and that there is serious money at stake. When you go to trial, only one side can win. The other side goes home a loser. Faced with such a stark outcome, both sides tend to become more reasonable in their assessment of their case and more willing to talk settlement. After all, despite all the years of experience that trial attorneys amass, no one can ever predict what a jury is going to do in any specific case. As one mediator I know likes to tell the litigants, going to court is like going to Vegas:  you roll the dice and you take your chances. So often times, the closer a case gets to the trial date the more motivated the two sides are to talk settlement. But is there a better way?

A couple of recent cases made me start to think about settlements and how they come about. (If you missed it, Brian Nash wrote an excellent piece on the frustrations of mediation and trying to settle cases). I’ve recently handled two cases that illustrate how settlements work and how two cases can go down dramatically different routes to ultimately get to the same place. Both of these cases are subject to confidentiality agreements so I can’t divulge the names of the parties or the settlement amounts, but they were both seven-figure cases with significant injury.

In the first case, the patient alleged that her doctor failed to timely diagnose stomach cancer over a period of several years. By the time the patient was properly evaluated by another physician, the cancer had progressed to the point that there was virtually no chance of a cure, and the young woman was likely going to die in the next few years. In the second case, the patient alleged that he suffered serious neurological complications (motor and nerve dysfunction in his arms and legs) as a result of post-operative complications that were not treated quickly enough. In both cases, a lawsuit was filed in court.  At that point, the two cases diverged.

Case Example #1 – Getting it done early

In the cancer case, before any depositions had taken place, the defense attorney called and asked if we might be able to talk about resolving the case. That’s always a great call to get as a plaintiff’s lawyer because it means there is a good chance that you will be able to get a nice result for your client, which is always the ultimate goal. Within a matter of weeks, we had reached an agreeable number and the case was over.

Case Example #2 – Grinding it out to the courthouse steps

In the second case, there was no early talk of resolution. The case proceeded through the normal course of litigation, which in the District of Columbia usually means about eighteen months of discovery, depositions, expert meetings, etc. Twenty-five experts were hired to review records and testify. Twenty-seven depositions ended up being taken. The case got all the way up to the Thursday before trial was scheduled to start on the following Monday morning. At that point, the parties finally reached agreement on a number and the case was settled.

Why the difference in approach?

So we have two cases, both with significant injury and both with questionable care. One case settled right away, and one dragged on for almost two years before settling. Is there a simple reason why? Not that I’ve been able to figure out. After years of doing this, I, like every other attorney, get a gut feeling as to what cases are worth, which ones will likely settle, which ones will go to trial. But it’s still a gut feeling; there’s no science involved.

It’s usually a combination of factors – the quality of the medical care, the severity of the injury, the likeability of the plaintiff and the defendant (more important than most people realize), the specific jurisdiction you’re in, etc. On top of these factors you have a myriad of psychological reactions that pop-up in lawsuits and there is no predicting those. Sometimes people get entrenched in fighting for no other reason than to fight. Some people get a number in their head for what a case is worth and don’t want to budge. So even though I can’t sit here and explain why certain cases settle early and some settle late, I do want to talk about the value of early settlements to all sides.

Common Sense and good economics say “get it done early”

It is easy to see why early resolution of cases benefits everyone, and it comes down to the costs of litigation. In today’s world, it can easily cost $75,000 to $100,000 (if not more in many instances) just in expenses to take a case to trial; it can easily be much higher in complex cases. (I know of one attorney who spent $300,000 on a case that he took to trial; he lost the case). These expenses consist primarily of expert fees paid to doctors to review records and testify. Expert doctors routinely charge at least $400 per hour and oftentimes more for their time. For trial testimony, doctors usually charge around $5,000 per day (some substantially more). If it runs into two days, that’s $10,000 just for one witness. It’s not unusual to spend tens of thousands of dollars for expert fees alone.

On top of that there is the cost of court reporters for each deposition, copying charges, obtaining medical records, long-distance calls, travel expenses, etc. Going through litigation is an expensive undertaking, and the longer the case goes on the more expensive it is. On the plaintiff side, all of those expenses are usually advanced by the attorney (in jurisdictions where this is permitted), but they all get paid back by the client at the end of the case (assuming the plaintiff wins; if there is no recovery, the plaintiff’s attorney “eats” those costs). So every dollar spent on litigation comes straight out of the client’s portion of the recovery.

On the defense side, insurers and self-insured institutions (like hospitals) have those same expenses, but on top of that, they also have to pay legal fees to their attorneys. Defense attorneys charge by the hour for everything they do on a file from reviewing records to meeting with clients to talking to experts to taking depositions. The complexity of medical negligence cases means long hours of work on each file, generating substantial legal fees. Those fees get paid to the defense lawyer whether the case is won, lost or settled at the last minute. The longer the litigation lasts, the higher the legal fees.

Of course it always costs money to investigate a case. There is no avoiding that.  Records need to be obtained and reviewed. Experts need to be retained for an initial opinion. But instead of spending $75,000 or $100,000 (or more) on a case, it may cost only several thousand dollars to work-up a case to get it ready to file – that is, to be in a position where early resolution can be discussed with the defendant. If a case can be settled early on, all of those thousands of dollars that would have gone to litigation costs go straight to the client. That is a huge benefit to the client.

The defendant benefits too. No hospital or insurance company wants to spend money needlessly. Early resolution means that the defendant doesn’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in expenses and tens of thousands more in legal fees. The only way it makes sense to spend that money is if, at the end of the day, the “defendant” (read insurer/hospital) believes it can either win the case or settle it for less down the road. But here’s the thing – a case can usually settle early on for less than the case would be worth had the case gotten closer to trial. This isn’t always true, of course, but as a general rule, a good case does not become less valuable over time.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys don’t undersell their cases to get an early settlement, but in practical terms, attorneys and clients are usually willing to consider some discount because they know that an early settlement is to their mutual benefit.The plaintiff gets a guaranteed financial payment now rather than waiting eighteen months for a trial and then a possible appeal that may drag the case out another two years. In that circumstance, the plaintiff is usually willing to take a little less money now because it is certain. It’s the age-old question: would you rather have X amount of money now, or wait eighteen months for the chance of getting more? For most plaintiffs, it’s an easy answer. Also the defense can pay less on a case than it would have ended up paying anyway and save thousands in expenses and legal fees by doing so. It’s a win-win for all parties.

Just do the math!

The big secret with early settlements (and which can sometimes be difficult to explain to a client) is that even though an early settlement might be for less than what a jury might award, the client can actually put more money in his or her pocket with a lower settlement amount. Again, we’re back to the issue of litigation costs. If a firm spends $10,000 to investigate a case and get it ready to file rather than $100,000 to take a case to trial, that is an extra $90,000 that goes straight to the client. Also, some law firms will have a contingent fee agreement in which the fee is higher (usually from 1/3 to 40%) when the case goes to trial, which serves to compensate for the additional time,  risk and expense of going to trial. When you consider the higher legal fees and the increased costs of litigation that have to be paid back, it can actually take a substantially larger jury verdict to put the same amount of money in the client’s pocket as he or she would get with a smaller early resolution.

Some cases may just need to be tried

I don’t mean to imply that every case that gets filed should be settled early. Far from it. Some lawyers undoubtedly file cases that are simply without merit and should be defended vigorously. Other cases – while they may be defensible – fall into a middle category where the care may not be the best but the plaintiff has problems with his/her case too. Some cases can be difficult to evaluate without further investigation and discovery to gauge the strength of the case. In those cases, it is entirely appropriate to proceed with litigation – even on a somewhat limited scale through discovery. No doubt there are instances where insurance companies do need to protect the interest of their doctors, and sometimes that means vigorously defending a case all the way through trial.

Some cases, however, – the cases where the medical care is truly egregious and the damages are clear – need to be looked at early on to see if the two sides can be reasonable and find some middle ground. If a case is going to ultimately settle (and believe me, experienced attorneys and claims adjusters can usually identify those cases early on), it makes sense to talk sooner rather than later. It requires compromise on everyone’s part, but the value to both sides is so great that it makes sense to talk early and get it done.

What has been your experience?

I’d be curious to know the experience of our readers. Has anyone been involved in a lawsuit that settled? Did it resolve early on or did it stretch out for years? Do you think the time involved had any impact on the amount of the settlement? Any tips or tricks you might suggest? Let’s hear from you – maybe we can all learn how to get these cases resolved earlier and stop wasting time, resources and money.

You may also want to read these related posts:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

A View from the Shady Side – The Defense Perspective

Every bad outcome does NOT a malpractice case make! Some practical advice

 

Week in Review (April 23 – 29, 2011): The Eye Opener Health and Law Blog

Saturday, April 30th, 2011

From the Editor:

Last week was a busy but productive week for our firm’s blawgers – 6 posts – and we actually practiced law a lot! My personal thanks to our writers for taking the time to post some important pieces on health, safety, medicine and law. To our readers, my continued and sincere thanks as well. While it’s great to pull-out our soapbox and write about stuff we do and are passionate about, it’s incredibly rewarding to have you, our readers, take the time to read what we write. To those who left comments, a special thanks. We really enjoy interacting with you!

Now on to the business at hand. What did we write about that you may find interesting? Here you go.

My Pet Peeves About the New Age Mediation Process

Having been inspired by a fellow blawger from New York, Scott Greenfield, who chided legal bloggers (thus the name “blawgers”) for simply rehashing news and not taking a stand on issues, I wrote a piece called Mediation of Lawsuits: The 5 Top Things that Tick Me Off!

Having recently been through a number of mediations that were enough to pull your hair out because of the silliness that people engage in when they claim they are mediating to get cases resolved, I decided that it was time to take a stand and post a personal rant. While perhaps best understood by lawyers, claims adjusters and mediators, this blawg was not intended just for them. I’ve seen what impact foolish approaches and conduct by the participants to mediation can have on my clients, the injured parties. It was time to sound-off; so that’s what I did. I once again invite anyone who has been a party to a lawsuit mediation to do your own personal sound-off and tell us what it was like for you. It’s your turn to tell us just how much you enjoyed the process and what can be done to make it better. Read the horror story told in our Comments section by one of our Canada readers when she went through a domestic mediation process. Share your thoughts and stories as well.

Health Care: Who’s “Voiceless” When It Comes to Being Heard on Capitol Hill

Guess I had too much time on my hands at the beginning of this week (not really!). I couldn’t help but be inspired by a piece Jason Penn had done last week about how families were so adversely affected by the budget cuts that were made when the government shutdown was looming a few weeks ago. As I was going through my Google Reader early this past week, I came across an Op Ed by a doctor, who was complaining or at least suggesting that the president and congress need to hear more what doctors had to say about health care reform. Having read that, Jason’s piece jumped into my mind and the result was my blawg entitled Health Reform: What voice does the patient have in the debate.

The post brings to light the amount of money being spent by the healthcare industry in its lobbying efforts on health care reform. ObamaCare‘s raison d’etre is explored as well since it is ironic, if not sad, how the story behind all this money, lobbying and legislation seems to have been lost in the rhetoric. More affordable, better and available health care for our citizens? Then why were the most needy among us the victims of back room wheeling and dealing when the time came for budget cuts to save the federal government from closing its doors? I ask the question – who’s voice is being heard – but more important – who’s is not?

FDA approves use of “meningitis drug,” Menactra, for younger children

Hopefully you’ll never need to use this information, but if you do, Jason Penn reported on a condition – meningitis – that can affect not only adults and older children, but infants and toddlers as well. Meningitis is generally defined as an inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord. Prior to a recent change in position by the FDA, there wasn’t a vaccine available for children under the age of 2. Now, with the FDA’s recent approval, Menactra can be used to vaccinate children from the age of 9 months to age 2.

In addition to this news release, Jason tells parents about the signs and symptoms they should be aware of to spot this condition.

The classic symptoms of meningitis are a high fever, headache and stiff neck. Detection of these symptoms, particularly headache and stiff neck are certainly difficult to detect in infants and toddlers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infants with meningitis may appear slow or inactive, have vomiting, be irritable, or be feeding poorly. Seizures are also a possibility.

To learn more about this important topic, read his piece Meningitis & Your Baby: Three Things to Think About.

Why are children still dying because of venetian blinds?

Sarah Keogh wrote what I believe is a very important piece for parents, grandparents or anyone who has a baby in the house. Years ago we all heard about the horror of parents finding their babies dead from strangulation when their necks became entangled in venetian blinds. Years have passed since those stories made the front page. Well, an update on just how well manufacturers and parents have been doing to avoid such tragedies was recently posted in The New York Times.

In her blawg entitled Window Blinds: Why are Children Still Dying, Sarah tells us the sad truth that these deaths and injuries still continue in our country. Find out what you as a caregiver of a young child need to realize about this product. Maybe you’ve put the cords up high and out-of-reach for your baby. Maybe you’ve taken other steps to avoid such a nightmarish event ever happening in your home and in your life. Unfortunately, many who have done so have still suffered this tragedy. Why? What is being done by manufacturers and the government to prevent these injuries and deaths ? Read Sarah’s piece for the answers and some practical advice you can take to make your home safer for your child.

Hospitals Reporting Methods for “Adverse Events”

We all know by now that if you want to look good to the public, all you have to do is “play with the numbers.” Well, it seems like hospitals have a penchant for doing just that. One of the key “numbers” that advocates of patient health and safety look at is how many “adverse events” take place in any given hospital. An “adverse event,” as you may already know, is – simply put – any harm to a patient as a result of medical care.

In his post this past week, Jason Penn compares some interesting adverse event bookkeeping by hospitals throughout our country. His blawg, The New Enron? Are Hospitals Cooking the Books?, brings to light serious flaws in the way that our medical institutions “count” the number of so-called adverse events taking place within their walls. His research for this piece reveals…

[M]edical errors occur 10 times more than previously thought.Maybe that wasn’t hard hitting enough. Let me try again. How about this: mistakes occur in one out of every three hospital admissions!

Frankly, that strikes me as an astounding and very concerning number. Are the numbers being reported reflecting this? The simple answer is no. Why not? Read Jason’s post and see what reporting systems are in place – or not in place as the case may be. We all remember Enron. Is this the medical version of “making the numbers look good” when they simply are not!

Surgeons and Booze – an Obvious Bad Combination – Who’s Protecting Us?

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that surgeons should not be under the influence when we as patients are “under the knife” What’s not so obvious is just how prevalent this may be in the operating rooms of our country (and throughout the world).

Wondering what the studies have been done by the medical profession to examine this problem? Have any idea what regulations are in place by hospitals to guard against the problem of “hungover surgeons”?

Wonder no more. Jon Stefanuca’s blog this past week, Hungover Surgeons: Watch Out! There’s Nothing Between You and Their Scalpel!,will tell you all you need to know. Jon queries: “Should hospitals regulate for patient safety?” What do you think? Share your comments.

A “Sneak Peak” of the week ahead

Some more good advice is on the way for parents of special needs children. We all know about what a wonderful aide dogs are for the blind. Mike Sanders will share what he’s learned how these canine wonders are being used for kids in need. Suffering from asthma or know someone who is? Jon Stefanuca will be sharing with  you some valuable information on this topic next week. A number of our clients or their now-deceased family members have suffered from this condition. Jon will share a story or two (without revealing protected confidential information) to bring to light just how this medical condition needs to be better recognized and treated by our health care providers before its too late. We all know what a difficult job nursing can be. That being said, Sarah Keogh will be telling us about some very concerning “trends” that are coming to light in this wonderful profession. Stay tuned for this important piece.

We’ll start next week off with a new blawg by our in-house medical specialist, Theresa Neumann. Her post on how important it can be to get a second opinion before you sign-up for a surgery, procedure or test is sitting in the queue just waiting to hit the pages of The Eye Opener – Views and Opinions from the Nash Community.

One Final Note: I wrote in last weekend’s Week In Review that we intended to post a new White Paper by Marian Hogan on a very important topic relating to Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA). It didn’t happen – because of “my Bad.” I fouled-up and sent the wrong draft of Marian’ s piece to our graphic designer. He did a wonderful job – as usual – of getting it ready – it just wasn’t the right version. The problem is fixed, but my mistake will delay the posting of this important White Paper for another week. Public apology: Sorry, Marian! We’ll make it right soon.


Hungover Surgeons: Watch Out! There Is Nothing Between You and Their Scalpel!

Friday, April 29th, 2011

If you need surgery, you might want to ask your physician not to drink the night before the surgery. According to a recent study, surgeons are a lot more error-prone when operating after a night of drinking.  Sixteen medical student (residents) and eight surgeons participated in the study. They were each asked to perform simulated laparoscopic surgeries without any drinking the night before. Then, they were all invited out to dinner and were asked to drink alcohol as they pleased until they felt intoxicated.  The next day, each participant was asked to perform the same simulated surgeries, and the results were quite surprising.

Each medical student had made an average of 19 errors during surgery.  Their sober counterparts made an average of eight errors. On a side note, the fact that so many errors were made even without any drinking is not making me feel warm and fuzzy at all.  It can take one error, not eight or 19, to seriously injure a patient.

The licensed surgeons did not do much better. The ones who drank had about a 50 % spike in the error rate. Wow!  So, if you see your surgeon ordering yet another Brain Hemorrhage ( 1 part peach schnapps, splash of Irish cream, and a dash of Grenadine) the day before your surgery, you might want to buy him a Virgin Bloody Mary.

Just how prevalent is alcohol abuse among surgeons?

What is the practical importance of this information?  If alcohol impairs surgical performance and alcohol abuse is common among physicians, how safe are we as patients? A number of studies seem to support the conclusion that physicians are more likely to abuse alcohol than other professionals. For example, a study published in the Journal of Addiction, examined trends of alcoholism among male doctors in Scotland. Apparently, as many as 50% of the doctors found to have health problems liable to affect their professional competence were also found to have a drinking problem. According to the same study, the higher rate of liver cirrhosis among doctors suggests that doctors are at a higher risk for alcoholism.  Maybe it has something to do with the wide availability of quality scotch.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed the rate of substance abuse among U.S. physicians. Apparently, they are not that different from their Scottish counterparts.  According to this study, U.S. physicians are more likely to consume alcohol than other professionals. I guess one good piece of news for us patients is that, although physicians were as likely to have used illicit drugs in the past, illicit drug consumption was found to be less among practicing physicians. That conclusion, however, may depend on your definition of illicit drug use. According to the same study, physicians are more likely to self-medicate with various drugs that can be just as addictive and impairing as some of the illicit drugs. By the way, it appears that physicians prefer opiates and benzodiazepine tranquilizers to “self-medicate.”

With this in mind, consider the number of surgeries that a surgeon performs a week. While the number may differ depending on the specialty, location, and other factors, many perform multiple surgeries. I have personally met orthopedic surgeons, for example, who perform as many as 5-6 surgeries a day.  If you accept the proposition that surgeons like their booze and that the average surgeon operates multiple times a week, how frequently does a surgeon end operate after a night of intoxicating frivolity?

Should hospitals regulate for patient safety?

This seems to be the ultimate inquiry. Additional research may be necessary to correlate these two variables. After all, no one wants to be operated by a surgeon whose lifestyle makes him 50% more likely to make a mistake. Nevertheless, even absent such information, hospitals and surgeons should take to heart the results of the study.  It might even be prudent for hospitals to enact regulations to prohibit surgeons from drinking the night before scheduled surgeries.

I am unaware of a single hospital that has enacted such a regulation.   Are you aware of hospital regulations designed to prohibit surgeons from drinking the night before scheduled surgeries?  Do you know of any proposed legislation in this regard?  More importantly, if you advocate for such regulations, tell our readers how to get involved. Patients Against Drunk Surgeons (PADS) may be a cause worth fighting for.

 

Image from thegospelcoalition

Laughing Gas Making Its Way Back Into The Labor And Deliver Department

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

According to a recent article published by MSNBC, laughing gas or nitrous oxide is making its way back into labor and delivery units in American hospitals. Although laughing gas has long been used as a pain relief in various countries, including Canada and the U.K., it has lost its popularity in the U.S. Well, maybe not for much longer.

It appears that a number of hospitals are now considering making laughing gas available as a pain relief measure for women in labor. A hospital in San Francisco and another in Seattle have been using laughing gas in their labor and delivery units for a while. Hospitals like Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center plan to offer laughing gas to laboring mothers in the immediate future. Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s plan is currently being reviewed by the federal government, and arrangements are presently being made for the procurement of delivery equipment for laughing gas. Vanderbilt University Medical Center may begin offering laughing gas as well later this year.

History

Laughing gas is not a new pain relief method. Its use had become very common in hospitals when Joseph Thomas Clover invented the gas-ether inhaler in 1876. Particularly, its use in the labor and delivery setting had been very common before the introduction of epidural and spinal anesthesia. Because laughing gas is unable to eliminate pain to the same degree as epidural or spinal anesthesia, it simply could not compete with the more sophisticated pain relief alternatives, which entered the marker in the 30s and 40s.

What is laughing gas?

Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or sweet air, is a chemical compound with the formula N2O. It is an oxide of nitrogen. At room temperature, it is a colorless non-flammable gas, with a slightly sweet odor and taste. It is used in surgery and dentistry for its anesthetic and analgesic effects. It is known as “laughing gas” due to the euphoric effects of inhaling it, a property that has led to its recreational use as a dissociative anesthetic.

Laughing gas as an important pain relief alternative

Although laughing gas can only take the edge off pain, it just might be an important alternative to other more conventional pain relief methods. The patient does not have to rely on an anesthesiologist to administer the gas. The patient can herself choose how much gas to administer at any time. The effects of the gas are not long-lasting. Therefore, the patient does not have to recover in a post anesthesia care unit. Importantly, there is no associated loss of sensation and motor function during the delivery process. As such, the gas does not interfere with the woman’s ability to breath and push during labor. Laughing gas is also not known to have any adverse effects on the baby in utero.

The administration of laughing gas does not require any invasive medical procedures. By contrast, consider epidural anesthesia: An epidural requires that an epidural catheter be threaded into the epidural space, which is only about 2 mm wide. Any mistake and the consequences can be catastrophic. Epidurals have been known to cause spinal cord injury secondary t0 toxicity, spinal cord infarcts, severe hypotension, paraplegia, epidural bleeding, and even death. None of these complications are associated with the use of laughing gas.

: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TO4sOgiIeU]

According to Suzanne Serat, a nurse midwife at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center:

We have a number of people who don’t want to feel the pain of labor, and nitrous oxide would not be a good option for them. They really need an epidural, and that’s perfect for them. […] Then we have a number of people who are going to wait and see what happens, and when they’re in labor, decide they’d like something and then the only option for them is an epidural but they don’t need something that strong. So they would choose to use something in the middle, but we just don’t have anything in the middle.

Nitrous oxide may just prove to be that middle option for many women who prefer to give birth without the use of powerful and potentially dangerous analgesic/anesthetic agents. If you are an expectant mother, ask your obstetrician if nitrous oxide is a pain relief option that may be available to you during labor.

Image from cartoonstock.com

For more information about epidural anesthesia and epidural complications, you may want to read these posts too:

Having an epidural when you deliver your baby? 3 Questions to ask the doctor!

5 Questions to Ask Your Obstetrician Before You Go to the Hospital

Epidural Analgesia – What Should an Expectant Mother Consider? What are the risks?