Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

$11.7 Million Verdict For Paralyzed Teenager After Botched Surgery

M. Brandon Smith — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:27:43 GMT

Imagine you are a 19-year-old teenager in your freshman year of college and you are experiencing chronic back pain. Imagine that you are told you should have a rather normal back surgery in order to correct the problem. You are reluctant to have the surgery at first, after all no one likes surgery, but get convinced by your doctors that it is a good idea. You walk into the surgery but you never walk out. No you did not die as a result, but due to numerous errors made by your doctors during the surgery, you are now paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of your life. You are told you will NEVER walk again. Ponder that for a minute....

This unfortunate scenario is exactly what happened to Joshua Coleman. Fortunately for Joshua, however, a Fulton County jury (Atlanta, Georgia) realized the seriousness of this situation and awarded him $11.7 million yesterday after a two week medical malpractice trial in which they found a doctor and the responsible hospital accountable for their life changing mistakes.

Coleman's attorneys blame his paralysis on a mistake by his Cumming-based spine surgeon, Dr. Stephen B. James, and a team of doctors at North Fulton Medical Center. James and his employer, Resurgens, P.C., agreed to an out-of-court settlement in January.
But the neurologist, Dr. Frank Puhalovich, insisted he was blameless and he, and co-defendant North Fulton Neurology P.C., took their chances at trial, where they were found negligent by the jury.
The monitor sounded an alarm during the surgery, which Coleman's lawyers say should have prompted his doctors to remove screws and rods installed during the operation. The doctors should also have performed a standard "wake-up test," which involves cutting back anesthesia so the patient can be asked to wiggle his toes to indicate his nerves are undamaged, Coleman's attorneys say.
The rods and screws were removed within six hours, but by that time, the damage was done, according to Coleman's attorneys who say the devices were pressing against his spinal cord and should have been removed within minutes Ã¢â‚¬" not hours.

Tort reformers most likely will use this as a prime example of another runaway jury verdict in the medical malpractice context. They will not tell you these doctors deviated from the standard of care most any other doctors would have used in this case. They will not tell you this doctor should have done a wake up test when an alarm went off in the operating room to ensure nothing like this would happen to the young man in the prime of his life. They will not tell you that the medal rods and pins should have been removed as soon as possible instead of waiting hours and hours later to do so. There are many other factors and considerations to this unfortunate incident as well, but you will not hear about those or see a photo of Joshua in his wheelchair for the rest of his natural life. Instead, you will hear something to the effect of: See, these juries just award huge amounts of money for no real reason at all and something must be done to prevent it. That unquestionably will be easy for them to say but ask Joshua if he feels the same way. Ask yourself, if this happened to you, would you think such a result was justified?

I for one do not buy into it. There are cases out there where real mistakes have been made and redress for those life changing mistakes is appropriate. Others that lack substantial merit get weeded out by judges in our judicial system long before they ever reach a jury. If you were on the panel of 12 for Joshua's case, I have no doubt you too would have found it to be one deserving of a just verdict against those who caused Joshua's life to detrimentally change forever.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Georgia Statute Of Limitations-Know It Or Suffer The Consequences

M. Brandon Smith — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:26:27 GMT

Jack Landskroner, a Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer and our InjuryBoard partner from Ohio, recently posted a blog about a very important topic to keep in mind when dealing with personal injury claims: the statute of limitations. As Jack correctly points out, there is generally a very limited time frame for some who has been injured to file a claim in all states.

For instance, in Georgia, a person generally has two years from the date of an auto accident to either settle their claim completely or to have filed a valid lawsuit in order to protect their rights. If this time frame is not complicity complied with the claim will be lost forever and barred from being brought no matter how serious the injuries or egregious the conduct. Other areas of law such as medical malpractice, breach of contracts, and claims involving minors have varying statute of limitations in Georgia. If you have a question about a claim you may have, do not assume you know the statute of limitations, ask one of our personal injury attorneys to be sure and avoid your claim from being forever barred due to inaccurate information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Stonger Warnings Demanded For Trasylol (Open Heart Surgery Medication)

M. Brandon Smith — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:02:16 GMT

The Food and Drug Administration has said that the manufacturer of Trasylol (aprotinin) needs to use a stronger warning associated with the drug to address the overwhelming number of risks associated with kidney damage. Bayer is being asked by the FDA to promote the use of Trasylol, a drug which is used to help reduce blood loss during coronary artery bypass surgeries, only in patients who are at elevated risks for blood loss during such procedures due to its serious health risks.

According to pharmatimes.com :

FDA began reassessing the safety of the drug earlier this year, when two separate studies suggested links to heart attack, stroke and kidney problems. In September, Bayer submitted new data to the FDA about risks of Trasylol but crucially this came days after advisory panel meeting was held to review the drug's labelling and found it to be safe and effective when used to prevent blood loss in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
Bayer admitted that it should have disclosed the results earlier and suspended two senior staff members as a result of the incident. A US lawyer has been called in to examine the case.

If you or a loved one has had a coronary artery bypass surgery in the past five years chances are you were given Trasylol whether you know it or not. As a result many who had this procedure and subsequently had complications as a result including but limited to kidney failure with or without the need for dialysis, heart attack and/or stroke are just now discovering that Trasylol might be to blame for these otherwise unexplained events.

For more information on the dangers associated with Trasylol read some of my other posts on this dangerous drug or send me a question via the Ask An Attorney feature. As always your consultation and information will be free of charge and kept completely confidential.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Sufferer To Have Sight Restored

M. Brandon Smith — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:22:17 GMT

The Federal Government recently broadened the eligibility criteria for its overseas medical treatment program by allowing a woman who developed toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) to seek treatment in Singapore for her sight related injuries. The deadly allergic reaction is commonly associated with causing vision problems in those who contract it and until recently those dealing with it have been limited to treatment only in the United States. Michelle Wylie, however, who has been completely blind since developing TEN, is set to have her first surgery in Singapore early next month to repair her vision. This is great news for those who have developed TEN and the related allergic reaction Steven Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) . It marks awareness by the Federal Government and others in positions of authority as to the tragic implications associated with TEN and SJS. Those who suffer from TEN and SJS often feel they are in a world all by themselves and no one can help them in their greatest time of need. This however does not have to be the case. Speaking with an experienced TEN or SJS attorney about their situation could help more now than ever before. From helping with the expensive medical bills to helping the patient find the proper treatment to deal with their debilitating complications, an experienced TEN or SJS attorney can help. Ask to find out how.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Medical Board Puts Physicans Over Patients

M. Brandon Smith — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:01:54 GMT

In Florida, the state medical licensing board has decided against stricter discipline for surgeons who operate on the wrong body part or the wrong patient. Wait, did you read that right? Yes unfortunately you did. Does that seem right? Without question, this writer can hardly imagine how. A through review of a medical chart or a through patient evaluation should eliminate this type of mistakes based on common sense alone. Based on the findings, I guess the Florida state medical board thinks that might be to much to ask from highly trained and educated physicians that our lives depend on. Maybe public outcry in the near future over this issue will help them see what an opportunity they missed in this unfortunate decision to put physicans over patients.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Unnecessary Hysterectomy Costs Woman Opportunity Of Larger Family

M. Brandon Smith — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:42:25 GMT

A Seattle jury awarded $1.75 million to a woman after Dr. Jeffrey Gabel, an osteopathic physician, performed a hysterectomy on her without informed consent in 2003. The jury found that Dr. Gable failed to suggest alternative, less invasive, treatments to the 22 year old before she signed a consent form allowing the operation. A hysterectomy involves the removal of the uterus and is most often done on older women. The presiding judge later reduced the verdict to $1.575 million after off setting the hospital's attributed fault.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Doctor Says To Patient: "Sue Me"

M. Brandon Smith — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:25:07 GMT

What is a 61-year-old woman's right parotid gland worth? That is the question in a medical malpractice case before a Fulton County jury after a doctor and his hospital conducted 13 different radiation treatments on the wrong side of Dariel Hurt's face. The parotid gland, which helps produce silva, is located on the side of the face just below the ear and was permanently damaged as a result of these treatments. Hunt now endures a mouth that is constantly dry and has a loss of taste.

According to the AJC.com:

"I know that y'all know nobody is perfect," Slover said during his closing arguments Wednesday.
"That holds true for physicians as with any other person."
He suggested a figure close to $150,000.
Hunt's attorney described Schwaibold as a good doctor who, in this case, acted negligently. He lobbied for $1 million or more.

It should be very interesting to see what the jurors in the case are going to do. In a jurisdiction that has had numerous defense verdicts in relation to medical malpractice claims here recently, this one is sure to be in the Plaintiff's favor. Stay tuned to find out what this jury finds to be appropriate.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

LASIK Medical Malpractice Suit Results In $3 Million Verdict

M. Brandon Smith — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:53:00 GMT

Lowell Larson filed suit against Dr. Jeffery R. Weis and Northern Reflective Surgery Center of Hermantown after alleging they failed to warn him of the risks associated with LASIK surgery and caused "significant and permanent disturbances to his vision". The eight person jury selected in the case agreed and awarded Larson $3,002,950.

According to DuluthNewsTribune.com

The 10th and final question on the special verdict form asked jurors how much money would fairly and adequately compensate Larson for future pain, disability, embarrassment and emotional distress reasonably certain to occur in the future directly caused by the LASIK surgery.
Jury foreman Steffan M. Johnson wrote in the figure "$2,687,500 or $62,500 a year for 43 years."
Jurors determined that $312,500 would compensate Larson for pain, disability, embarrassment and emotional distress up to the time of trial and $2,950 for medical expenses up to the time of trial.

For more information on the LASIK VERDICT click here.....

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith