Avery Law Firm

Does the 2 yr statue of limitations apply to misleading advice from a physician and hospital?

admin — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:38:22 +0000

Medical Malpractice Question

I had a premature live birth at 22 weeks in indiana seventeen years ago. I was told by the physician and hosital staff that it could not have been prevented and that it was one of those things that could not be explained. I recently by going to nursing school what the early signs of preterm labor. It has just come to light that the hospital and doctor lied and that they sent me home in the early stages of labor which resulted in my dughter’s death. Does the 2 year statute of limitations in IN apply here. Can the hospital and doctor benefit from their cover up?

Medical Malpractice Answer

Your question raises numerous issues. First, is there an exception to the statute of limitations for ‘fraud’? Answer, it depends on the facts and if the misleading statement was deliberate, which usually has to be proven based upon the physician’s records (verbal statements are tenuous when they come from a person with motivation to lie such as the person making the claim). The problem is that most lawyers will not venture to take a case with a statute of limitations issue, since it could result in dismissal and sanctions against the lawyer. The other issue is whether you were injured and the value of the claim…which isn’t as simple as it sounds since the issue revolves around you and not the fetus. This is an evolving area of law and the law at the time of the incident might be applied. Finally, you might consider reporting this to the medical review board for possible discipline, since the statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disciplinary actions. BTW, hospitals don’t practice medicine, only physicians and nurses do. A hospital cannot ‘lie,’ only its agents can do so and the person must be identified specifically.

Do I have a surgery malpractice case if my doctor didn’t sew me up correctly?

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:51:28 +0000

Medical Malpractice Question

I had gastric bypass almost two years ago and the surgeon didn’t sew me up all the way and I had a bile leak and had to cut me straight open. He did find leak but it was a longer recovery and very traumatic for me. A year later the same surgeon fixed a hernia (which was caused by the bypass) another 4 month recovery only a few months later I need to get my skin removed from my stomach and I go see a plastic surgeon and he tells it seems like I have a hernia to him Ugh!!!

When he opens me up he discovers that the hernia was not repaired all the way and there is string just laying there and my guts etc are exposed (which could of led to all sorts of problems ) I know have to have another hernia operation (again more down time and distress, depression etc). My husband went ahead and paid for tummy tuck because doctor didn’t think I should keep getting cut open. So this is second surgery he has screwed up causing me down time, stress, and not able to look for a job. What options do I have. My PS took pictures of the screwed up hernia operation. I am a fair person but enough is enough. I have sent for my records from both surgeries. Thank You for any advice Robin

Medical Malpractice Answer

There is a two year statute governing malpractice claims in Indiana, which could be extended based upon the ‘discovery rule’ in some cases; however, the best approach is to initiate a claim before the two year anniversary of the malpractice incident. It sounds like you have a claim that might be viable, but a thorough review of all the pertinent medical records must be undertaken to make that determination. Such a review is generally done without charge under a contingency fee agreement whereas you don’t owe anything unless there is a recovery. Whether an attorney will devote the time and expense to review a case oftentimes depends on the malpractice damages recoverable. You should try to get your surgery medical records, and a summary (from your insurance company) of all medical expenses related to the ‘complications’ you suffered that you feel are the result of malpractice. Time is of the essence! Do not delay in contacting an attorney for assistance.

Statistics & Laws Regarding Sexual Abuse by a Doctor or a Health Care Provider

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:41:30 +0000

Sexual Assault by a Doctor Is Never Acceptable

In light of the suicide of child molester and pediatrician, Dr. Melvin Levine, statistics and laws regarding sexual abuse by a doctor or a health care provider are reviewed here to shed some light for those that have been or are victims.

After decades of charges he was sexually abusing young male patients, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Dr. Levine the day before he killed himself with a gunshot to the forehead. For 40 years he had maintained that he was innocent. He was never convicted on any abuse charge, and never faced criminal charges.

This inexcusable behavior by a health care provider is particularly concerning because of the trust that children and adults place on professionals in the pediatric health care industry. The guilt and shame of the victim, and uncertainty concerning consequences often silences children and adults under the care of physicians, psychiatrists and psychotherapists.

Statistics on Sexual Abuse by Health Care Professionals

Below are a few facts from studies conducted to evaluate sexual abuse by doctors and other health care providers:

A revealing survey done by Gartrell, Milliken, Goodson & Thiemann of physicians and patients have disclosed that sexual relations between physicians and adult patients involve approximately 10% of all medical specialists who care for adults.¹
A study of patients who got psychiatric or counseling care after a former health care provider performed sexual acts upon them found 51% of the care providers were clergy, and 49% were health care professionals.² Of those health care professionals, 85% were from various counseling professions, 7.3% were physicians in medical specialties, and 3.7% were nurses.
In Ontario, Canada, in the 80s, 25% of the health care providers who had been legally charged with patient sexual contact were psychiatrists. Surveys of psychiatrists revealed that 7% to 10% reported that they had had previous sexual contact with patients.³
A Canadian task force on sexual abuse of patients found that patients younger than 14 years accounted for 8.7% of these reports, whereas 80% of patients subjected to sexual contact were adult women.⁴ Male providers were responsible for 91% of the sexual contacts. Among 567 physicians disciplined by their state medical disciplinary boards between 1989 and 1996 for sexually related offenses involving patients, pediatricians accounted for 14 disciplinary events (2.9%), although they represented 7.8% of all physicians.⁵
Recent national data suggest that approximately 8% of American children experience sexual victimization in a given year,⁶ although significant under-reporting occurs.

Laws Regarding Sexual Abuse by Health Care Providers

Additionally to civil suits for cash damages and disciplinary proceedings resulting in license revocation, physicians who have sex with patients may susceptible to criminal prosecution, usually for rape or sexual assault. The principle impediment to criminal prosecution, however, has been the patient’s alleged consent to the sexual acts. Criminal prosecutions of physicians thus usually have been tied to cases in which the physician used force or drugs to incapacitate the patient.

Due to the difficulty that ‘consent’ brings, some states have enacted legislation making sexual abuse against patients a specific crime including statements that consent by the victim is not a defense. For example, in California, where this is a misdemeanor for “any person holding himself or herself out to be a psychotherapist” having any sexual contact with a patient or former patient, the statute specifically states that, “in no instance shall consent of the patient or client be a defense.” North Dakota’s criminal statute, which is similar to California’s, bars only sexual contact “during any treatment, consultation, interview, or examination,” also states that consent by the patient is not a defense.

Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act

In Colorado, the Health Care Availability Act specifically states that it applies to “any civil action for damages in tort (a civil wrong) brought against a health care professional.” Just to clarify, tort law deals with civil situations where a person’s behavior has unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is not necessarily an illegal act but causes harm and therefore the law allows anyone who is harmed to recover their loss.

In a case where a woman was alleged to have been sexually abused by a chiropractor, the Colorado Supreme Court held “a physician owes all examinees a duty not to assault them sexually, and would be liable for such conduct.” Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 5 P.3d 280 (Colo. 2000).

What to Do If You Are a Victim of Sexual Assault

James Avery of Avery Law Firm has 30 years of experience as a medical malpractice lawyer including decades of experience working within the framework of legislatively imposed damages caps. The firm is based in Denver, Colorado, with offices in Indiana, and New York. If you have been a victim of sexual assault from a physician or health care provider, James Avery can help you get the justice you deserve with little or no risk to you. Contact Avery Law Firm today toll-free at (866) 987-4368.

References

Gartrell NK, Milliken N, Goodson WH III., Thiemann S, Lo B. Physician-patient sexual contact: prevalence and problems. West J Med. 1992;157(2):139–143
Luepker ET. Effects of practitioners’ sexual misconduct: a follow-up study. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(1):51–63
Rapp MS. Sexual misconduct. CMAJ. 1987;137(3):193–194
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Final Report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; 1991
Dehlendorf CE, Wilfe SM. Physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses. JAMA. 1998;279(23):1883–1888
Finkelhor D, Ormrod R, Turner H, Hamby SL. The victimization of children and youth: a comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreat. 2005;10(1):5–25

Political Rhetoric Concerning Medical Malpractice Caps by Presidential Candidates

admin — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:05:01 +0000

Colorado Medical Malpractice Caps

Limits on medical malpractice caps are a hot topic in the news due to presidential election and Republican candidates pandering to constituents. Case in point, candidate Rick Santorum has called for caps on medical malpractice cases despite the fact that his wife pursued a $500,000 lawsuit against her chiropractor in 1999, an amount which is $250,000 more than his suggested medical malpractice cap. Denver medical malpractice lawyer James Avery of Avery Law Firm, has successfully tried medical malpractice cases in states whose legislatures have imposed limits on the amount of money that can be obtained through a medical malpractice case.

The controversy over medical malpractice caps is a hot topic for many victims in Colorado. Colorado medical malpractice caps are as follows according to Colo. Rev. State. 13-64-302:

$1 million cap on total damages, including any derivative claim by any other claimant, of which non-economic losses shall not exceed $300,000 (including any derivative claim by any other claimant). Upon good cause shown and if the court determines such limit would be unfair, the court may award damages in excess of the limit. In this case, the court may award the present value of additional future damages only for loss of such excess future earnings or such excess future medical and other health care costs, or both. (1988) Upheld, Scholz v. Metropolitan Pathologists P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (1993).

The limitations of this section are not applicable to a health care professional who is a public employee under the “Colorado Governmental Immunity Act” and are not applicable to a certified health care institution which is a public entity under the “Colorado Governmental Immunity Act”.

So what does that mean in plain English….There are two caps that apply in most malpractice cases. One is an overall cap of $1 million which can be set aside in some cases with future economic (hard money) damages, and the second is a cap on pain and suffering, etc. (non-economic general damages) of $300,000 (as part of the overall cap). Cases with future economic losses can go over the overall cap. To obtain a recovery in excess of the cap requires a specific trial preparation strategy.

The injured person’s ability to successfully pursue fair compensation from medical professionals for medical negligence is dependent upon the ability to produce credible testimony regarding the future consequences of their injury, which requires the participation of a practicing medical professional and economic experts. Denver medical malpractice lawyer James Avery of Avery Law Firm, has the experts you need to obtain fair compensation after you have suffered a disabling injury because of a medical professional’s negligence.

About the Firm

Avery Law Firm has 30 years experience in the fields of medical negligence (malpractice) and catastrophic injury, including decades of experience working within the framework of legislatively imposed damages caps. The firm is based in Denver, Colorado, with offices in Indiana, and New York. If you have been seriously injured because of a health care provider or hospital’s negligence, James Avery can help you get the justice you deserve. Contact us today at (866) 987-4368.

Joint Liability Against Physicians

admin — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:22:16 +0000

What is Joint Liability?

The Imposition of Joint Liability Against Physicians in the Aftermath of the Pro Rata Liability Act.

This article discusses the issue of ‘joint liability’ among physicians since the adoption of §13-21-111.5, C.R.S. (repl. vol. 1987) (referred to herein as the “pro rata liability act”), which eliminates joint and several liability for joint tortfeasors. It also discusses the imposition of joint liability under the pro rata liability act in the context of a traditional negligence case, in the wake of Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman^ⁱ.

Prior to the enactment of the foregoing statute, the law on joint liability among physicians was generally defined by C.J.I. 3d, Civil, 15:10. The current supplement to Instruction 15:10, Notes on Use, deletes the instruction and cautions that the former instruction may no longer be an accurate statement of the law. The Committee on Jury Instructions also notes the absence of case law that indicates that adoption of the pro rata liability act abolished common law principles of vicarious liability (e.g., in a partnership or joint venture). The author has had a recent case go to trial, the Freyer^ⁱⁱ case, in which the issue was addressed, and the matter is currently on appeal.^ⁱⁱⁱ

The Freyer Case

The case is a medical malpractice lawsuit which arose from care and treatment consisting of multiple skull surgeries performed by multiple physicians on the plaintiff. There were multiple surgeons who collaborated on the diagnosis, planning of the original and secondary operations, and follow-up care and treatment. The surgeons practiced different specialties, namely, neurosurgery and plastic surgery. The operation was a type of craniofacial procedure, which frequently is undertaken in a multidisciplinary, team approach.

The plaintiff’s parents were referred to a neurosurgeon, who in turn consulted with a plastic surgeon. Both surgeons claimed special expertise in the area of craniofacial surgery. The surgeons decided to undertake a combined surgical procedure which would be done in a single operation. Simply stated, as conceived, the neurosurgeon would initiate the operation, which involved a craniectomy, then the plastic surgeon would reshape and further dissect the skull, and then the neurosurgeon and plastic surgeon would together reattach the removed segments of the skull and close the scalp.

Both surgeons met with the parents of the minor, separately, and explained the overall operation. They indicated that it would be undertaken jointly, and explained the planned operation and their part of the procedure. Both surgeons claimed to have obtained the informed consent of the parents, who later signed an informed consent form for the operation at the hospital.

As it turned out, the minor plaintiff suffered significant complications during the initial stages of the operation while the neurosurgeon was operating, and the procedure had to be halted before the plastic surgeon performed any surgery. The surgeons subsequently obtained the plaintiff’s parents permission to re-operate and complete the procedure, which was undertaken jointly. There were further complications. There were multiple further operations and surgical procedures, at least one by each physician, performed separately by the surgeons.

Plaintiff’s Claims

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered brain injury secondary to the complications that occurred while the neurosurgeon was performing the first operation. The plaintiff claimed that the plastic surgeon should be held jointly liable with the neurosurgeon for the injuries due to having jointly undertaken the care and treatment, surgical planning (which was allegedly negligent as having been unduly extensive thereby unnecessarily placing the plaintiff at risk for the complications which ultimately ensued) and informed consent.

The plaintiff resolved her claims against the neurosurgeon and went to trial against the plastic surgeon alone on a joint liability theory. At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the joint liability theory of the plaintiff primarily on the grounds that the claim was barred by C.R.S. §13-21-111.5. The plaintiff argued that the common law principles of vicarious liability withstood the enactment of the abolishment of joint and several liability, and that the physicians could be held jointly liable based on the principal/agent theory of joint venture. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that when two physicians impliedly or expressly agree to work with each other to treat a patient, each physician is legally responsible to the patient for any alleged negligence of any other physician arising out of the scope of their agreement to treat that condition.^{^iv}

Plaintiff argued that the common law principles of joint liability, as embodied in the former stock 15:10 instruction, were factually supported in her case. The stock instruction reads:

“When two or more physicians expressly or impliedly agree to work with each other to treat or care for a patient’s injury or condition, each physician is legally responsible to the patient for any negligence of any of the other physicians arising out of and within the scope of their agreement to treat or care for that injury or condition.”

Plaintiff argued that the physicians in her case were joint venturers, and that the defendant had sufficient right of control over the treatment to warrant being held vicariously liable for any harm committed by the settling physician, within the scope of the venture.

The plaintiff argued that the adoption of C.R.S. §13-21-111.5 eliminates common law ‘joint and several liability of tortfeasors’ (which applied in common law irrespective of any agency relationship among the tortfeasors), but does not eliminate joint and several liability when agency/joint venture relationships establish it.^{^v}

Trial Court Recognizes Survival of Joint Liability

The trial judge (Honorable Joseph E. Meyer, III) recognized that joint liability does survive the enactment of the pro rata liability act, in the instance of traditional vicarious liability (which would have to be specifically pled), but held that there was insufficient evidence of a joint venture. However, the trial court allowed the plaintiff to argue joint liability as per subsection 4 of the pro rata liability act which expressly retains joint liability for a tortious act where the defendant acts in concert with another.

§ 13‑21‑111.5 “Civil liability cases‑‑pro rata liability of defendants”, states, in pertinent part:

(1) In an action brought as a result of a death or an injury to person or property, no defendant shall be liable for an amount greater than that represented by the degree or percentage of the negligence or fault attributable to such defendant that produced the claimed injury, death, damage, or loss, except as provided in subsection (4) of this section….

(4) Joint liability shall be imposed on two or more persons who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act. Any person held jointly liable under this subsection (4) shall have a right of contribution from his fellow defendants acting in concert. A defendant shall be held responsible under this subsection (4) only for the degree or percentage of fault assessed to those persons who are held jointly liable pursuant to this subsection (4).

Judge Meyer applied this subsection in reliance on the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision in Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman. In Heiserman, the Court held that joint liability may be imposed, pursuant to §13-21-111.5(4), for an alleged tortious act based on negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty of care, or breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty. Judge Meyer found that there was sufficient proof of an agreement between the two surgeons to plan and pursue the surgery on the plaintiff to submit the matter to the jury.

The jury instruction accepted by Judge Meyer, fashioned from §13-21-111.5(4) and Heiserman, stated:

“When two or more physicians consciously and deliberately pursue a common plan or design that results in negligent treatment of a medical condition, each physician is legally responsible for the negligence of the other physicians arising out of and within the scope of their common plan or design to treat that condition. The common plan or design may be either express or tacit.

If you find that [Defendant] was negligent in his participation in the common plan or design, and [the settling physician] was also negligent in his participation in the common plan or design, that is sufficient to give rise to liability of [Defendant] for the negligence of [the settling physician] arising out of and within the scope of the common plan or design.

On the other hand, if [Defendant] innocently and without negligence of his own, does an act which happens to further the negligence, if any, of [the settling physician], he is not liable for the conduct of [the settling physician].

If you find that [Defendant] and [the settling physician] consciously and deliberately pursued a common plan or design that resulted in negligent treatment of a medical condition, and that [Defendant] was negligent in his participation in the common plan or design, you must find [Defendant] liable for the entire injury or harm caused by the common plan or design of the physicians.”^{^vi}

Judge Meyer decided, during the jury instruction phase of the trial, that to impose joint liability under the pro rata liability act, it was necessary for the jury to first conclude that the defendant against whom joint liability is sought was independently negligent. In other words, as a threshold determination before joint liability could be imposed, the jury would consider the individual negligence of the defendant, and only if it found negligence against that defendant could it impose joint liability against that defendant. The court relied upon the language from Prosser which is set forth in the Heiserman opinion. It reads:

“It is, furthermore, essential that each particular defendant who is to be charged with responsibility shall be proceeding tortiously, which is to say with the intent requisite to committing a tort, or with negligence. One who innocently, and carefully, does an act which happens to further the tortious purpose of another is not acting in concert with the other.”^{^vii}

Theories of Joint Liability Distinguished

It must be recognized that this is a significantly different theory than principles of vicarious liability under common law agency theories such as joint venture. If a traditional joint venture among physicians can be established, then the knowledge and acts of the agent can be imputed to the principal.^{^viii} Thus, the establishment of a traditional agency relationship would result in the jury considering the collective knowledge and acts of the surgeons in making the determination of negligence. Pursuant to the joint liability section of the pro rata liability act, as applied by the District Court in Freyer, the negligence of the defendant must be established without the benefit of the imputation principles of common law agency.

In the Freyer case, the jury found no negligence on the part the defendant (the plastic surgeon who was not present or operating when the injury occurred), having been instructed to consider the negligence on the part of the defendant “in his participation in the common plan or design”.^{^ix} The issue of joint liability, therefore, was never reached by the jury.

Presumably, under a traditional vicarious liability/joint venture theory, the jury would have been instructed to consider the acts or omissions of the settling physician as the acts or omissions of the defendant, with a significant potential for a different result.

The next question is, what would the effect of the joint liability decision have been if the jury had found independent negligence on the part of the defendant in the Freyer case and imposed joint liability? In that event, there would have been no apportionment of fault related to the settling defendant (which would have resulted in a deduction of the settling party’s share of liability from the damages awarded pursuant to the pro rata liability act) and the defendant would have had a contribution claim against the settling party (subject to the provisions of C.R.S. §13-50.5-105).^{^x}

Perhaps the main benefit, to the plaintiff, of joint liability under the pro rata liability statute occurs when you have a judgment proof co-tortfeasor. Then, a plaintiff could utilize this statutory remedy to seek full recovery from the solvent tortfeasor.

The main disadvantage, to the plaintiff, to proceeding under the joint liability provision of the pro rata liability statute (versus a common law vicarious liability theory such as joint venture), is that the plaintiff must prove negligence considering the actions of the defendant and co-tortfeasors separately rather than collectively. When the plaintiff’s goal is to increase the chances of establishing liability, then it is clearly more advantageous to attempt to proceed under a traditional vicarious liability theory such as joint venture.

The two ‘joint liability’ theories should not be confused and considered equal in the eyes of the practitioner. Traditional common law vicarious liability theory (such as joint venture) influences the liability and damages determinations, providing a potential advantage to the plaintiff in regard to establishing liability, whereas the pro rata liability act joint liability theory influences the damages determination only (and does not impact the liability determination).

By: James W. Avery, Esq.

December 9, 1997

i. 898 P. 2d 1049 (Colo. 1995).

ii. China Freyer v. Richard E. Albin, M.D., Case No. 95 CV 5712 (Denver Dist. Ct., Courtroom 7).

iii. Case No. 97 CA 1707 (Colo. App.).

iv. Plaintiff mainly relied on C.J.I., 3d, Civil 15:10 and supporting case law, i.e., Bolles v. Kinton, 83 Colo. 147, 263 P. 27 (1928) and, Scruggs v. Otteman, 640 P. 2d 259, 260 (Colo. App. 1981)[”When several physicians act independently of each other in the course of rendering medical services to a single patient, they generally are not jointly liable for the acts of each other that may result in injury to the patient....On the other hand, when several physicians act in concert or are jointly employed, each may be held responsible for the negligent conduct of any or all of the others.”].

v. See, e.g., McDonald v. Lakewood Country Club, 170 Colo. 355, 461 P. 2d 437 (1969); and, Moody v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 847 P. 2d 215 (Colo. App. 1992).

vi. Instruction No. 21.

vii. Heiserman, 898 P. 2d at 1057, quoting from W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts Sec. 46, at 323‑24 (5th ed. 1984) (footnotes omitted).

viii. See, C.J.I. 3d, Civil, 7:17, 8:1 and 8:2. See also, Notes on Use to Instruction 15:10 (supp.), which state: “If a plaintiff is claiming that the defendant and the “actively” negligent physician had a relationship that would support vicarious liability on some basis other than that which is set forth in the former instrucion, e.g., a partnership, use the appropriate instructions from Chapters 7 or 8.”

ix. Instruction No. 21.

x. §13-21-111.5(4).

Can I sue for a wisdom tooth removal surgery that may have caused TMJ?

admin — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:21:16 +0000

Medical Malpractice Question

I was recently diagnosed with TMJ, and I believe it may have been caused by a wisdom tooth removal surgery. If true, can I sue and how would i prove this happened cause of the surgery.

Medical Malpractice Answer

There are multiple requirements to filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. First, the case must be timely. Second, you must be able to prove the elements of your claim, namely, negligence, causation and damages. The elements generally must proven via expert testimony, by a practitioner in the same field of practice. In this case, an Oral Surgeon probably removed your wisdom teeth and an Oral Surgeon will likely be necessary to testify that the first surgeon was negligent and this caused your TMJ injury.

How can I protect my X-rays in defendants’ possession?

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:32:49 +0000

Medical Malpractice Question

How can I protect my X-rays in defendants’ possession?

I told the administrator of a medical group (defendant) over a phone call that I would like them to keep all of my X-rays. Is that good enough? I think in NY state, they must keep them for 6 years, and it is about 30 days to 6 years.

I suit a doctor there and my case was dismissed on SJ before I even got my x-rays (4 days after I made my demand they filed for SJ and told me the motion stayed discovery.

I will sue the expert witness for fraudulent misrepresentation (I have rock solid proof), and I know if they can they will destroy all of relevant x-rays (4 x-rays were already unaccounted for).

Medical Malpractice Answer

Were the xrays taken at the physicians office? I suggest the first thing you do is request a copy, in writing, via certified mail w/ return receipt, and offer to pay the cost of reproduction. If they refuse to comply or fail to respond, then report them to the medical board.

Who is liable for damages if a hospital equipment overdoses with radiation resulting in a coma?

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:29:31 +0000

Catastrophic Injury Question

If equipment fails in a hospital causing patient to become overdosed with radiation leaving them comatose, who is liable for damages?

Catastrophic Injury Answer

All catastrophic injury claims deserve a thorough investigation as to the cause of injury. In many complex injury scenarios there are more than one responsible party. The best strategy in most cases is to go for the ‘deep pocket’ or the party with the most money so the injured person can be made whole. Medical malpractice cases are capped at $1.25 million in Indiana, but there are other possibilities for a larger recovery. Multi-million dollar complex injury cases have been my emphasis for the past 30 years. I suggest you educate yourself by visiting my catastrophic injury information page.

My son was hit by a car, who is at fault?

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:20:21 +0000

Personal Injury Question

My son was hit by a car while riding his bike in Loveland (Larimer County) Colorado. He was hit from behind. The police tell us that the 3 foot passing law does not apply in this case, because there is a bike lane, delineated by a solid line. I think they are misinterpreting the law. Does it make a difference, how the line between a lane for traffic, and a lane for bicycles is marked? Or are cars required to allow 3 feet of distance when passing a bicycle, as the law states, and the cycling websites claim?

Also claim a good investigation was done. Police report is 3 sentences or so. Driver (79) got off scott free while my son is left with medical bills (GOt a summons for $17,000 over the weekend) and ongoing pain from the accident. Vehicle was a Mercury Moutianeer. Woman was on the phone but that did not make a difference

Personal Injury Answer

State or municipal criminal law is what the police enforce, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with civil law, which is what lawyers use to collect judgments against people for money damages. You might want to see the blog article on ‘distracted drivers’.

Fault in Colorado court’s is determined by the facts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming fault, and the fault of all parties is determined (not just the driver). To prevail, the driver must have greater fault than the bicyclist. The statute of limitation is generally three years, so time matters.

How much does it cost for a lawyer to review a medical malpractice case?

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:06:14 +0000

Medical Malpractice Question

How much does it cost for a lawyer to review a medical malpractice case?

Medical Malpractice Answer

An investigation of a medical malpractice case is usually done at the attorney’s expense, if it is a case they are interested in, with a deduction for costs in the event of a recovery. Let me know if you would like to discuss your case. 317-826-8888 or 866-987-4368 (toll free)