Reno Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Nevada Surgical Patients May be At Higher Risk for Infection

Steve Klearman — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:13:21 GMT

A nonprofit Consumer's Union issued a report April 27, 2009, stating that over a one year period, almost 100,000 patients were subject to increased risks of infection following surgical procedures because of hospitals' failure to follow proven prevention practices.

According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), surgical infections account for 20% of all hospital-acquired infections and 8,205 patients die from surgical infections annually.

The Consumer's Union found that 445 hospitals across the country were in low compliance for administering antibiotics before surgery, a procedure "known for nearly 50 years" to be critical for the prevention of infection.

Nevada made the list of states with the highest percentage of low compliance for the practice of administering antibiotics within one hour before surgery to prevent infection and the practice of stopping antibiotics within 24 hours after surgery to prevent complications that contribute to antibiotic resistance. With regard to the practice of administering antibiotics pre-surgery, 30% of Nevada's hospitals were in low compliance, and 57% of Nevada's hospitals were in low compliance of the requirement to stop antibiotics within 24 hours after surgery.

It is difficult to place these numbers into context because not all states require hospitals to report infection rates. According to the Union's report, twenty-five states now require hospitals to report these statistics but Nevada is not one of them. According to an article published on RGJ.com, Renown Regional Medical Center and Renown South Meadows Medical Center both made the list of low-complying hospitals. Gayle Hurd, who is the administrator for best practices at Renown Health reported that the health system has increased its compliance percentages by 30 points over the last six months.

According to the Union's report, 40-60 percent of all surgical infections could be prevented by following simple infection prevention procedures.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Urge Your Senators to Vote YES to Protect Patients' Rights!

Steve Klearman — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:31:54 GMT

Bill AB 495 has made it to the Senate but further support is needed! The bill seeks to repair some of the harm caused by the KODIN (Keep Our Doctors in Nevada) legislation. Among other things, KODIN put a cap of $350,000 on damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice suits. The Hepititis outbreak that occurred under the watch of Dr. Desai and his colleages has brought into serious question the amount of protection we should afford physicians when they are blatently negligent. Bill AB 495 will remove the cap on damages as well as some other protections that have proven beneficial for doctors like Desai in the past.

I thank those of you who contacted your representatives to urge them to vote yes on this bill. Now I ask that you contact your senators and urge them to do the same.

Dear Senator,
I strongly support Bill AB 495, which seeks to lift some of the obstacles for injured patients in medical malpractice suits. The KODIN legislation, which implemented these obstacles has caused irreputable harm to injured patients and has given unnecessary protections to doctors like Dr. Dipak Desai. I ask that you please vote yes for Bill AB 495.
Sincerely,
[name]

Terry Care, Chair tcare@sen.state.nv.us
Mark Amodei mamodei@sen.state.nv.us
Valerie Weiner vweiner@sen.state.nv.us
Maurice Washington mwashington@sen.state.nv.us
Allison Copening acopening@sen.state.nv.us
David Parks dparks@sen.state.nv.us
Mike McGinness mmcginness@sen.state.nv.usBi

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court to Address Backlog of Medical Malpractice Claims

Steve Klearman — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:33:16 GMT

An article in Nevada Supreme Court News announced recently that the Nevada Supreme Court will be conducting a settlement program to resolve the crisis of backlogged medical malpractice claims in Clark County. The recent influx of 430 claims stemming from the Hepatitis C outbreak at the Endoscopy Centers of Nevada has made it a critical objective of the Supreme Court to settle the more than 400 medical malpractice claims already pending in Clark County.

Through this program, which is referred to as the "medical malpractice settlement marathon," two-member teams of senior judges will conduct settlement hearings during the month of May. The goal is to conduct eighteen or more conferences each week. Thus far, the response from plaintiffs willing to participate in the program has been great and the Court plans to extend the program into June if enough cases are added to the program. If the program is successful, the long-term goal will be to conduct such marathons twice a year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Stand up for Patients' Rights! Urge Your Representative to Say YES to AB495.

Steve Klearman — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:31:28 GMT

In 2004, voters approved Question 3, known as the "Keep Our Doctors in Nevada" (KODIN) initiative. The legislation cut the statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice suit from two years to one, and set a cap on damages for pain and suffering at $350,000. Given the complicated nature of many malpractice claims, the $350,000 cap on damages makes it financially unsound for lawyers to represent patients on these complicated claims.

The outbreak of Hepatitis C at the Endoscopy Center of Nevada in February 2008, has forced legislators to revisit the protections that the Question 3 initiative gave to health care professionals.

Bill AB 495 seeks to remove this safety net for doctors so that injured patients can once again be adequately compensated for their injuries. I have seen many death and serious injury cases since the passage of KODIN in which injured Nevada residents were deprived of meaningful compensation because of the restrictions imposed by this legislation.

While proponents of KODIN argue that it provides for greater and less costly access to health care, the legislation does nothing to deter medical errors or adequately compensate victims of malpractice.

I strongly encourage you to send a letter similar to the one below, urging your representatives to say "YES" to AB 495.

Dear [Assemblyman/woman]: I am strongly in support of Bill AB495, which takes unnecessary and dangerous protections away from the healthcare industry. The so-called KODIN legislation that became effective in 2004 has been a travesty for the citizens of Nevada. There have been too many deaths and serious injuries suffered by insured Nevadans; the pain and suffering for which is grossly under-compensated, if compensated at all. It is time for us to return to a system where insurance companies and healthcare institutions accept responsibility for their actions! AB495 is an important bill. Please give it full consideration and please vote for AB495.
Sincerely, [Your Name]

Representatives:
Bernie Anderson, Chairman banderson@asm.state.nv.us
Tick Segerblom, Vice Chair tsegerblom@asm.state.nv.us
Marilyn Dondero Loop mdonderoloop@asm.state.nv.us
William Horne whorne@asm.state.nv.us
Ruben Kihuen rkihuen@asm.state.nv.us
Mark Mandeno mmanendo@asm.state.nv.us
Harry Mortenson hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us
James Ohrenschall johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us
Bonnie Parnell bparnell@asm.state.nv.us
Barbara Buckley, Speaker bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us
John Oceguera, Majority Leader (Assembly) joceguera@asm.state.nv.us
Stephen Horsford, Majority Leader (Senate) shorsford@sen.state.nv.us

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Bill Introduced to Expand Nevada's "Good Samaritan" Law

Steve Klearman — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:15:59 GMT

Nevada Legislators introduced Bill AB200 on March 5, aimed at expanding Nevada's "Good Samaritan" Law. Under existing law in Nevada, many medical professionals are shielded from civil liability for rendering care, gratuitously and in good faith, in emergency situations. Exceptions to such liability exist where the health care provider already has a patient/physician relationship with an individual or where a medical professional is grossly negligent, reckless or engages in willful and wanton conduct.

The new legislation expands this protection to psychologists and expands protection to medical professionals who render care in good faith to help victims of natural and man-made disasters.

KRNV-TV reported that the Bill was challenged as too vague by Graham Galloway of the Nevada Justice Association, representing trial lawyers. to see article click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Legislators Propose Tougher Health Care Regulations

Steve Klearman — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:13:13 GMT

A year after procedures involving the reuse of syringes at the Endoscopy Center of Nevada led to a hepatitis C outbreak, Nevada legislators have proposed new regulations to require higher standards in Nevada health care.

The Las Vegas Sun reports that the pending legislation would:

• Require outpatient surgery centers like the one that caused the outbreak to obtain accreditation by a nationally recognized organization.

• Require physicians and their related businesses and centers to obtain accreditation before providing certain services involving anesthesia and sedation.

• Allow public agencies to investigate suspected infectious disease problems and to issue cease and desist orders if necessary.

• Ban retaliation and discrimination against nurses who report unsafe medical practices.

• Sanction medical facilities that fail to report “sentinel events” — those unexpected occurrences involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk of such outcomes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court Rules on "Mere Happening" Instruction

Steve Klearman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:06:10 GMT

In Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, issued on October 30, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified the proper treatment of the "mere happening" jury instruction in medical malpractice cases. A "mere happening" jury instruction is an instruction asserting that the mere happening of an accident, is, by itself, an insufficient basis for liability.

The case was a medical malpractice action brought against Sunrise Hospital, in which the Plaintiff, Mrs. Linda Cook, alleged that Sunrise Hospital's negligence during a surgical procedure caused complications which ultimately led to the amputation of Mrs. Cook's leg. The case went to trial and was heard by a jury, who received the following instruction: "the mere fact that an unfortunate or bad condition resulted to the patient involved in this case does not prove, or even imply, that by virtue of that fact, the defendant is negligent." The jury returned a quotient verdict, six to two, in favor of Sunrise, and the district court entered judgment against Mrs. Cook.

Issue: Whether the district court's "mere happening" instruction misstated the law.

The Supreme Court held that the instruction misstated Nevada law because it failed to inform the jury that it could consider all of the circumstances leading to the plaintiff's injury as possible evidence of the defendant's negligence. Thus, the jury instruction may have confused or misled the jury. The Court reversed the judgment after finding that prejudice resulted because, but for the mistake in instructing the jury, it is probably that the Plaintiff may have won his/her case, as the case was close and the evidence could have supported a finding of negligence against the Defendant.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Judge Allows Emotional Distress Claim in Class-Action Hepatitis Case

Steve Klearman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:08:41 GMT

Keeping up with the hepatitis cases against the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, the Reno Gazette Journal reports today that patients from the center who were not physically injured may still be able to recover damages from the Center. Clark County District Court Judge Allan Earl dismissed the Center's argument that emotional distress claims unrelated to actual injuries should not be allowed to recover.

While allowing emotional distress claims to survive, Judge Earl dismissed products liability and warranty claims against the Center, saying that the Center did not sell supplies to its patients.

The RGJ reports that the Center currently faces 121 lawsuits.

Meanwhile, according to Fox News Las Vegas, the Southern Nevada Health District confirmed a ninth case of hepatitis C contracted from exposure at the Endoscopy Center.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Doctors' Malpractice Histories to be Reported

Steve Klearman — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:58:00 GMT

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that after 84 hepatitis C cases were linked to the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and more than 50,000 patients were notified they might be at risk, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners received a bit of negative attention. As a result, the Board of Medical Examiners' website will be posting more information about Nevada doctors' malpractice history.

Currently, the site lists the names of doctors who've been disciplined and the infraction for which they've been disciplined.

Added to the site will be a database of all doctors involved in malpractice cases ending in settlement, award, or judgment.

According to the RGJ, the details of the site are unclear: "The board discussed including only cases that involved $5,000 or more, but did not come to a clear decision. It also did not state a firm launch date for the new site."

The board also discussed the possible adoption of a policy on the use of single and multiuse medication vials, but decided against implementing such a policy for fear of compelling doctors to use medication only according to the manufacturer's label, which is inconsistent with current practice of often using medications "off-label."

For the full article: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806150359

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Rights of the Terminally Ill

Steve Klearman — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:57:03 GMT

The Nevada Supreme Court clarified a few sections of Nevada's Uniform Act on Rights of the Terminally Ill last week in Estate of Maxey v. Darden, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 43 (July 2008). The Act authorizes three procedures for terminally ill patients or their families to withhold life-sustaining treatment. First, under certain circumstances, an individual may direct an attending physician to withhold life-sustaining treatment by executing a declaration. Second, an individual can execute a declaration designating another person to make decisions regarding withholding treatment. Finally, if neither declaration is present, a terminally ill patient's attending physician can withhold life-sustaining treatment if he or she receives surrogate consent from certain family members. In Estate of Maxey, involving the third situation, the Supreme Court addressed the meanings of "attending physician," valid "surrogate consent," and "terminally ill" under the Act.

Attending Physician

Evaluating the term "attending physician" de novo, the Court concluded that "in light of the Act's purpose and the Nevada Legislature's decision not to define "attending physician" with any particular limitations, we determine that the Legislature intended the attending physician to be the physician who has primary responsibility for the patient's treatment and care at the time when administering life-sustaining treatment becomes an issue."

Surrogate Consent

The Act requires that an attending physician act on the surrogate's written consent, attested by two witnesses. The Court determined that "an attesting witness must have personal knowledge that the surrogate gave written consent to withholding or withdrawing the terminally ill patient's life-sustaining treatment. If an attesting witness is present at the time when the surrogate provides written consent, personal knowledge of the surrogate's intent is presumed. Because, however, NRS 449.626(1) does not require an attesting witness to subscribe his or her name to the consent form, but instead only requires attestation, proof of the attesting witness's personal knowledge is not necessarily limited to the witness's signature on the consenting document."

Terminally Ill

The Court concluded that an attending physician's determination that a patient is terminally ill is subject to judicial review because the Act imposes a duty to act in accord with reasonable medical standards when determining the patient's status. Thus, "only if the physician acts in accord with such standards is he or she entitled to immunity from civil liability. A physician's conformity to the standard, when taking any action under the Act, is therefore subject to judicial review."

You can take a look at the entire opinion here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/SCD/124NevAdvOpNo43.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman