A recent New Jersey case addressed a statute of limitations issue pertaining to claims arising from a physician’s disclosure of a patient’s HIV-positive status to a third party without his consent.

Plaintiff was a patient of the defendant physician, a board-certified nephrologist. He was being treated for acute kidney failure. During an emergency consultation in plaintiff’s private hospital room, defendant discussed his medical condition and disclosed plaintiff’s HIV-positive status in the presence of a third party without plaintiff’s consent.


Continue Reading

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 83.6 percent of adults and 93 percent of children had contact with a health care professional in 2015. Hospital visits numbered 125.7 million while physician office visits numbered 922.6 million.

While the vast majority of medical procedures go smoothly, errors do occur and cause injury to patients. Surgery errors are the most common basis for an inpatient medical malpractice claim. As for outpatients, errors in diagnosis are the most common basis for a claim.

If a person suspects medical malpractice due to an adverse outcome from a medical diagnosis or procedure, he or she may decide to reach out to the physician, medical care provider, or hospital for some explanation or recourse. As a recent case illustrates, that may NOT be the best course of action to take.


Continue Reading

Heart surgery patients failed to prove that they were injured after Intuitive Surgical Inc.’s da Vinci surgical robot left metal fragments in their brains, said the Eleventh Circuit in upholding a District Court decision dismissing their case. The plaintiffs alleged that MRIs showed that metal fragments discharged from the robot’s surgical instruments, entered their bloodstreams and ended up in their brains. The complaint in Gabriel Fernando Nassar Cure v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. asserted that Intuitive designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold defective medical instruments that were used during surgeries at hospitals across the country.

In dismissing the case, the district court cited to Boyd v. Orkin Exterminating Co. The district court found that the injuries allegedly caused when Intuitive’s da Vinci surgical robot inadvertently sent bits of metal debris into the brains of patients were speculative, similar to injuries claimed due to toxic chemical exposure. The patients, however, argued the injury is similar to foreign object claims where objects left in the body constitute an injury. The plaintiffs asserted that their injuries are not speculative and that Intuitive designed and manufactured a defective instrument or instruments which caused them injury by improperly shedding metal fragments into their bodies during surgery. The patients alleged they have suffered physical, neurological, and mental impairments as a result of the metal shavings left in their brains following surgery.


Continue Reading

Many people are taking advantage of technology to monitor their health and vital signs. But should you monitor your heart with a smartphone? Is this technology approved or regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration? Entering the market in increasing numbers are heart-monitoring apps that are intended to be used as medical devices, which – unlike fitness trackers – must be approved by the FDA. Some are designed for home use, while others are for health care providers.

Digital health technology has revolutionized health care, empowering consumers to make better-informed decisions about their health. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is reevaluating its oversight of digital health technology. The FDA seeks to ensure patients’ timely access to high-quality, safe, and effective digital health products.


Continue Reading

In 2015, prompted by outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections linked to duodenoscopes, the FDA issued a Safety Communication, indicating that the complex design of duodenoscopes may impede effective reprocessing. From January 2013 through December 2014, the FDA received 75 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) involving approximately 135 patients relating to possible microbial transmission from reprocessed duodenoscopes. Duodenoscopes are used to visualize the duodenum and upper digestive tract, for the observation, diagnosis, and endoscopic treatment of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. Reprocessing involves a detailed, multistep process to clean and disinfect or sterilize the reusable devices.

The FDA reports that more than 500,000 Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures using duodenoscopes are performed in the United States each year. The procedure is the least invasive way of draining fluids from pancreatic and biliary ducts blocked by cancerous tumors, gallstones, or other conditions. The complex design of duodenoscopes improves the efficiency and effectiveness of ERCP. However, that design creates challenges for cleaning and disinfection because some parts of the scopes may be difficult to access. Residual body fluids and organic debris may remain in crevices after cleaning and disinfection. If these fluids contain microbial contamination, subsequent patients may be exposed to serious infections.


Continue Reading

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently joined courts in Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Washington in finding that caps on noneconomic medical malpractice damages are unconstitutional.

The appeals court found that Wisconsin’s cap on noneconomic medical malpractice damages always reduces noneconomic damages only for the class of the most severely injured victims who have been awarded damages exceeding the cap. Yet, the cap always allows full damages to the less severely injured malpractice victims. The court therefore concluded that the cap denies equal protection to that class of malpractice victims whose noneconomic damages are determined by the factfinder to be in excess of the cap. The court therefore concluded the statutory cap is facially unconstitutional.


Continue Reading

In Pennsylvania, a medical malpractice lawsuit must be filed in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred.

The Superior Court in Pennsylvania recently reversed a trial court decision in a medical malpractice case that transferred venue from Philadelphia County to Berks County, sending the case back to Philadelphia County.

The case involved a premature infant who was being treated in the neonatal intensive care unit in a Berks County hospital. The infant underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram in Berks County, which was interpreted by a pediatric cardiologist working in a hospital in Philadelphia County. The Philadelphia cardiologist wrote a report of her findings, including her diagnosis and treatment plan. The diagnosis of the Philadelphia doctor was pulmonary hypertension requiring immediate treatment or intervention, which was to be forwarded to plaintiff’s treating providers in Berks County.


Continue Reading

Endo Pharmaceutical’s recent decision to halt sales of Opana ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride) quickly followed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) request that it remove the abuse-linked opioid pain medication from the market. This is the first time the agency sought to remove a currently marketed opioid pain medication from sale due to the public health crisis of opioid abuse.

In 2015, more than 33,000 people died from opioid overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Almost half of the deaths involved a prescription medication.


Continue Reading

A physician cannot perform a surgery or other medical procedure on a patient without first obtaining the patient’s informed consent. Informed consent means that the patient was advised of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure and, knowing these, made the decision to undergo the procedure. A physician can be legally liable where he or she fails to obtain a patient’s informed consent before performing a medical procedure.

In a recent medical malpractice action, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a physician’s duty to provide information to a patient sufficient to obtain her informed consent is non-delegable. Thus, conversations between the patient and members of the physician’s staff will not suffice. The duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent for a major medical procedure belongs to the physician, who must inform the patient about the risks, benefits, likelihood of success, and alternatives.


Continue Reading