Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

Florida's First District Court of Appeal unplugged the rights of victims of the negligent failure to diagnose suicide in the case of Rebecca A. Tuten as the personal representative of James Tuten v. Alexander Fariborzian, Meridian Behavior Healthcare, Inc.

Here are the facts:

On behalf of her husband, Jame's, estate, Rebecca Tuten sued Dr. Alexander Fariborzian, a psychiatrist, and Meridian Behavioral Healthcare, a psychiatric facility,for his negligent wrongful suicide death in Florida. Mr. Tuten was receiving outpatient care at Meridian for depression and suicidal ideations. He attempted suicide in 2007 and voluntary admitted himself. After only 3 days, he was released on medication. Two months later he again attempted suicide and was admitted in the intensive care unit of a local Florida hospital. After being discharged from the ICU he was readmitted into Meridian, but again after just 3 days of care, he requested to be discharged. This time, Dr. Fariborzian denied his request and a petition was filed to involuntary continue his admission pursuant to Florida's Baker Act. Dr. Fariborzian supported the petition for the Baker Act.

At the court hearing for the Baker Act procedure, Mr. Tuten requested to be discharged and Dr. Fariborzian certified that he was competent to provide his own consent for release with an order to receive follow-up care. The very next day Mr. Tuten shot his wife and then fatally shot himself.

The court dismissed her first complaint and she amended it to include a count against the doctor for breaching the standard of care when he certified that Mr. Tuten was competent to consent and against the facility for vicarious liability and for improperly discharging him. Procedurally similar to a case we are currently working on, where we represent the family of a nurse suing his own employer/hospital for the negligent care that we believe led to his suicidal death, the Court dismissed Mrs. Tuten's case and she appealed to Florida's First District Court of Appeal.

She raised three points on appeal. She argued that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint under the Baker Act, that both the psychiatrist and facility breached their duty of care and that the court refused to allow her to amend her complaint.

The court dismissed her claim under the Baker Act by holding that a petition for involuntary placement can be withdrawn prior to a hearing and that Dr. Fariborzian opined that Mr. Tuten could decide for himself if he needed to be committed. Essentially, this means that if a psychiatrist petitions a court for the involuntary commitment of a psychiatric patient and then before the hearing decides to change his mind, even if he is wrong about his evaluation, there is no cause of action.

The court dismissed the second count by holding that there is no common law duty requiring the facility or doctor to keep a patient committed against his will once the treating doctor decides that the patient is well enough to make up his own mind regarding commitment . Because, and I quote the court, "the internal workings of the human mind remain largely mysterious."

The court seems to comfort itself by the fact that Mr. Tuten's death occurred outside of the hospital's custody. Using the illogical reasoning of the Chacko court, which apparently gives Florida's psychiatric hospitals, and their staff unlegislated immunity from liability if one of their suicidal patients pulls the trigger after being discharged, regardless of whether the assessment and discharge was done appropriately.

As a Florida lawyer who sues hospitals and doctors I understand that Mr. Tuten was not in the hospital's custody when he shot his wife and ended his own life, but I am outraged that this Court seems to give Florida's corporate medical cartel the comfort of practicing medicine without consequence to the safety and well being of those suffering from depression and suicidal ideations.

Suddenly, the human mind is such an abstract and wondrous mystery that suicides defy prediction or prevention. Somehow, courts are able to divine the intent of parties to contracts or whether or not an accused acted with premeditation. That the court seems to be able to grasp and see through the looking glass of human nature with 20-20 vision. But the suicidal ideations of Mr. Tuten, who already had tried suicide not once but twice before, was not enough for the First District Court of Appeal to simply allow the case to go to a jury to decide? I find it reprehensible that trial and appellate judges, have the audacity to substitute their interpretation of what is reasonable medical and psychiatric care for that of a Florida jury.

If this Alachua County Florida wrongful death case went to a jury and the jury told Mrs. Tuten that her husband had received the appropriate care, I would be disappointed but I would applaud the fact that she had her day in court and that the jury did its constitutionally designed function. This result is unjust and I humbly suggest unconstitutionally deprives not only Mrs. Tuten justice but potentially thousands of Floridian's affected by the failure to diagnose suicidal ideations and prevent their catastrophic consequences. I realize that not all suicides are predictable or preventable. As a Miami-Dade County patient safety advocate I do not believe that Florida's doctors and health care providers should not be accountable for failing to diagnose a potentially suicidal patient and giving that patient the appropriate care. It is simply no different to me than failing to diagnose a stroke or pre-term labor. Psychiatric Medicine is a science and not some mystical medieval folk art. I suggest that they spend some time reviewing some of the recent studies published by the National Suicide Prevention Hotline that have identified genetic markers that are important in understanding risk of multiple suicide attempts.

Our Florida psychiatric medical malpractice lawyers express our sincere condolences to the Tuten family and hope that the Florida Supreme Court will hear their case and reverse the First District Court of Appeal's unjust decision.

Continue reading "Florida's Courts Don't Understand Suicide Medical Malpractice" »

As a Miami Beach lawyer who sues careless hospitals I was pleased to see that our Florida Supreme Court finally struck back at the ultra doctor-friendly Florida Legislature in the case of West Florida Regional Medical Center v. Linda See when it ruled that information obtainable pursuant to Florida's Constitutional Amendment 7 is not protected from discovery.

In 2003, Lynda See complained of pain during a consult with her primary care doctor. He then ordered her to have an ultrasound which revealed a tiny amount of "sludge" in her gallbladder. She was then referred to a surgeon who recommended a laparoscopic cholecystosomy or removal of the gallbladder.

The surgery was performed at West Florida Hospital and during the surgery, the common bile duct was severed. A common mistake that I am very familiar with as Florida botched gallbladder surgery malpractice lawyer.

When the lacerated bile duct was discovered, a consult was made by another doctor that the patient needed two kinds of emergency procedures, one called a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and the other an open laparotomy. Both procedures were performed without Ms. See's knowledge or consent. She contended that the emergency surgeries were also done negligently, causing additional damage. In addition, she claimed that they doctors failed to monitor her liver postoperatively causing premature liver damage.

Based upon the botched initial, follow up and post-op malpractice, Ms. See was forced to have a another round of surgery in 2005 and had to have a liver transplant. She ultimately filed a Florida gallbladder surgery malpractice case against all the doctors and West Florida Regional Medical Center for both vicarious liability of the surgeons and direct negligence for granting medical staff privileges to those doctors.

Once she filed suit, she requested that West Florida Hospital produce all documents and regulations and rules regarding the surgical credentialing for laparoscopic cholecystosomies, Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and other bile duct injury reports and all document and evidence pertaining to the training and credentialing of the doctors who performed the procedure on her. In addition, she requested all adverse incident reports that involved the hospital and the doctors in question in regards to laparoscopic cholecystosomies, Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and other bile duct injury reports. Florida law defines an adverse incident as medical negligence, intentional misconduct and any other act, neglect or default of a health care facility or provider that causes injury or harm to a patient.

Of course, West Florida Hospital objected to these requests and moved for a protective order. They claimed that, while the requests were made pursuant to Florida's Constitutional Amendment 7, the Amendment itself is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause. In addition, the hospital claimed that the information was neither discoverable nor admissible for any purpose in any civil action. They also contended that since her surgeries occurred back in 2003 and 2005, they predated Amendment 7 anyway. Lastly, they argued that Florida credentialing and peer review statutes §766.101(5) and 395.0191(8) prevented the disclosure.

Ms. See's case made its way from the trial court, to the First District Court of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Ms. See is entitled to receive a copy of a blank application for medical staff privileges and that Florida's Statute §381.0287(b)1 allows impermissible attempts to limit the disclosures guaranteed by the Florida Constitution's Amendment 7. The hospital also was ordered to produce any evidence of the surgeon's training for Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomies, but not the credentialing files for matters other than adverse incidents.

As a Florida injured patient advocate, I strongly feel until Florida's doctors and hospitals are forced to provide open access to the decisions made to give and maintain staff privileges patients care and safety will continue to suffer.

With more Americans living without health insurance, a growing number of women are choosing to deliver babies at home. Home births are less expensive. According to a recent New York Times article, from 2004 to 2008 more than 28,000 babies were born at home, which is less than one percent of all births. However, the number is increasing. One reason might be the fact that research shows that planned home birth mothers receive fewer interventions, including epidurals, fetal heart rate monitoring and episiotomies, which means that these women are far less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections.

In addition, the research showed that planned home births babies are less likely to be born prematurely, suffer low birth weight or require intubation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, once the baby is born at home it is three times more likely to die.

As a Florida midwife birth injury lawyer I recommend that only women who are having completely normal, non-eventual pregnancies even consider having birth at home or under the care of a midwife. A midwife should never be considered if the mother has a history of diabetes, hypertension, is carrying twins or has any other type of obstetric complication.
In addition, both the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist ACOG and the American College of Nurse Midwives agree that any women who has already had a baby by C-Section (VBAC) should have all subsequent babies in a hospital.

In Florida, a skilled and certified midwife has to have a relationship with both a hospital and OB doctor. Certified midwives are licensed in all 50 states and Florida has very specific rules regarding the certification and licensing of a nurse midwife. In Florida, a midwife is defined as any person who supervises a "normal labor and childbirth" with the informed consent of the patient. Normal labor and childbirth is defined as a healthy women with a healthy infant, expelling an intact placenta without injury or complication or undue strain to the mother. Florida Statute §467.003 requires that a certified midwife be a licensed advanced registered nurse and be certified by the American College of Nurse Midwives. The midwife also must be over 21 years old

In addition, our Fort Lauderdale baby delivery malpractice lawyers recommend that if you are considering have a baby born at home that you purchase a home birthing kit that includes plastic sheets, disposable under-pads, menstrual pads, a measuring tape and baby thermometer. Many Florida birth mothers consider having the birth in a special tub called a "birthing tub." If this is rented rather than purchased, we recommend equipping it with a disposable plastic liner.

Since complications can arise at any time during delivery it is very important to have an emergency plan in place for safe and immediate transport to the closest hospital. Statistics show that first-time mothers have a higher risk of complications than those who have previously given vaginal birth.

After over twenty years of being a Florida lawyer who helps babies who have been injured due to careless hospitals and having seen firsthand the catastrophic emotional, physical and financial devastation a birth injury can cause--not just to the baby but to the family--I strongly recommend having your child delivered at a hospital that has the facilities for deliver and a neonatal intensive care unit in case of disaster.

Florida's doctor loving governor Rick Scott has signed a new law that gives sovereign immunity protection to private university physicians who treat patients at public hospitals. This means that doctors who work for the University of Miami a private university and my Alma mater are given the same legal protection from medical malpractice law suits as though they were employed by the State of Florida.

In my opinion, as a lawyer who sues Florida doctors and hospitals, it is a dangerous and unnecessary layer of protection. Florida doctors already enjoy statutory caps on damages, a nearly impossible maze or presuit-requirements, a shortened statute of limitations and are permitted to practice medicine without medical malpractice insurance. Apparently those legal advantages were not enough for Governor Rick Scott, Florida's doctors, and UM President Donna E. Shalala.

I do not understand why private medical schools working with public teaching hospitals need to have sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is found in Florida's Statute Section 768.28 and provides a limitation on the amount of damages an injured person can obtain from a "governmental agency." Florida's sovereign immunity statute limits the amount of money for damages to $200,000.00 per person or $300,000.00 per claim. That means that no matter what damage is caused, from a hospital bed sore or wrong-site surgery or death, the amount of a potential claim is limited.

Florida's Sovereign Immunity Statute was amended to now include teaching hospitals for private universities, like the University of Miami School of Medicine, when the teaching hospital is either owned or operated by the state, a county, municipality, a public health trust, a special taxing district, a governmental entity having health care responsibilities, or a not-for-profit entity that operates such facility as an agent of the state. ,

The teaching hospitals, the medical schools, or employees must now provide specific notice to each patient that the entity that runs the medical school that the provider is acting as an agent of the teaching hospital. In addition, they must advise patients that the only legal rights they may have for an injury or death suffered as the result of medical malpractice will be subject to sovereign immunity. This notice requirement may be met by posting the notice in a place conspicuous to all persons. I doubt that many patients will understand the significance of this change or will have a meaningful opportunity to find alternative care at a private hospital.

President Shalala stated that "teaching hospitals like ours get the rarest and most medically challenging cases ... and they need to be able to attract and retain the full spectrum of top specialists.That's the importance of this legislation for us.'' I hardly think this is a reason to provide them this unnecessary protection.

The savings in medical malpractice payouts by the University of Miami are expected to total over $20 million dollars. Yet to date, none of the savings have been passed on to Jackson Memorial Hospital. This has raised considerable criticism by Florida Representative Carlos Lopez-Cantera who finds it odd that UM would not pass on some of this new- found money to cash-strapped Jackson Memorial Hospital who supported the passing of the bill.

In the end, our Dade-County hospital injury law firm believes both patients of Jackson Memorial Hospital and injured victims of medical malpractice caused by UM --or any protected doctors-- will suffer from this outrageous and unnecessary new law.

Continue reading "Florida's Governor Gives Doctors Additional Protection From Medical Malpractice " »

I am a Miami lawyer who sues doctors and hospitals on behalf of injured Florida's injured patients and their families for over twenty years. I have sadly watched the legal rights of injured patients get whittled away since I started practicing law in 1991. But nothing compares to the machete that Florida's Governor Rick Scott has wielded in the short time since his election. Take his latest weapon: Florida's brand new Statute §766.1065 "Authorization for release of protected health information" in claims for personal injury or wrongful death.

Florida does not permit injured patients or their families to simply sue negligent doctors. Instead, the law requires families and their lawyers to engage in a burdensome, expensive, tricky and time consuming ordeal known as "Presuit." It forces the injured to obtain medical records, expert opinions and comply with a complex and downright tricky legal maze before a law suit can even be filed. Generally, Presuit has to start within two years of the incident, giving doctors and hospitals the advantage of having a shorter statute of limitations than every other defendant in the State of Florida simply because they are "healthcare providers." In the end, Florida's malpractice law simply eliminates all but the most catastrophic medical mistakes from even getting filed as law suits. In the end, injuries that do not cause permanent and significant changes in the quality of a patient's life nearly always go uncompensated.

Florida's Statute §766.1065 simply raises the bar by requiring that the Presuit procedure also include an authorization for the release of a patient's protected health information that is "potentially relevant" to the claim. In fact, if the authorization is not provided in the specific format required by the statute the entire Presuit will be deemed void.

Furthermore, Section 766.1065(2) states that if the patient or their family decides to revoke the authorization it will void the Presuit notice and potentially destroy a claim if the Statute of Limitations has passed.

This new "authorization" allows the defendant doctors or hospitals and their lawyers and insurance companies to obtain an injured Florida patient's medical records and verbally interact with the patient's other doctors. It requires the injured patient to provide a list of the names and addresses of all healthcare providers for two years before the incident even occurred. That means that if an anesthesiologist performs a femoral block on the wrong leg, the injured patient will have to give that anesthesiologist, his lawyers, and medical malpractice insurance company the names and addresses of the doctors she has seen two years before the malpractice even occurred. Then the defendant doctor and his team can obtain her records and even speak with her doctors regarding treatments or procedures that have absolutely nothing to do with her claim.

As a Key West PI attorney I fear this will have a chilling effect on patient care. I am concerned that if a defendant doctor and his lawyers are permitted to speak with unrelated healthcare providers and tell them that their patient is engaged in a Florida medical injury claim, some doctors will start treating their patients more defensively or discharge them completely for fear of being dragged into litigation.

Section C of the required authorization allows patients to certify doctors they believe are not relevant to the claim for the injuries but still requires the patient to list the providers' names, dates of treatment, examination and evaluation.

An other potential harm of this statute is that it will force patients who have received treatment for issues that are private and not relevant to the alleged Florida medical mistake to disclose personal medical information. The effect of this statute may coerce Florida's injured patients and or surviving family to simply abandon legitimate claims. For example, it a patient has been treated for a Sexually Transmitted Disease, Addiction or Depression, she will be forced by this statute and its required authorization to disclose this information to sue a Fort Lauderdale doctor who did a botched plastic surgery.

As a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who sues doctors and hospitals, I find Florida Governor Rick Scott's obsession and interpretation of the United States Constitution's Second Amendment frightening. Since becoming Florida's Governor, Rick Scott has done little to make Florida's patients safer.

When he signed the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act into law he sought to prohibit doctors from asking if their patients had access to guns. Governor Scott claims that the law is needed to protect patients from being "harassed" by nosy doctors wanting to know and note if there are any weapons in the house. The law goes on to provide a means to discipline doctors if they violate the law or affect the patient's insurance premiums.

Of course the National Rifle Association is fully supporting Governor Scott on this issue. The most significant critics of this law is the Florida Chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP claims, when a gun is kept in a home it is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely when a gun is kept in the home.

It is impossible for our Florida personal injury law firm to imagine a scenario where a dispute would arise between the NRA and our governor against a group of pediatricians--but that is precisely what is happening. United States District Court Judge Marcia Cooke ruled that Governor Scott's law was invalid stating that Doctor's have a First Amendment right to inquire about fire arms. Governor Scott is appealing the ruling.

Sadly, our Miami attorneys who represent families of suicide victims have seen first hand the devastation that can happen when untreated or misdiagnosed patients have access to a gun. We agree with Judge Cooke's ruling and urge Governor Scott to reconsider his views on this issue. We believe that patients and their families should be provided with the best and safest medical care. Governor Scott has no business interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, especially when the safety of patients and their families is in question. There simply is no reasonable explanation to pass a law that prevents doctors from simply ask if a gun is in the house.

As a Florida lawyer who sues doctors I was very pleased to see a California jury return a "guilty" verdict against Dr. Conrad Murray for involuntary manslaughter. It is our hope that Dr. Murray never practices medicine again. More importantly, our Miami hospital injury law firm, hopes that this verdict sends a chilling message to doctors across the country who put their own profits ahead of the safety and well being of their patients.

Many might think that what happened on June 25, 2009, in the Holmby Hills, California mansion where Michael Jackson died was unusual. In this case, jurors heard days of testimony about Propofol, the drug that killed Jackson, and listened to the typical defense which is to blame the patient for their own harm. More specifically, Dr. Murray's lawyers argued that the singer injected the fatal dose himself.

The Judge was very clear in his view of the evidence when he issued this statement: "This is a crime where the end result (was) the death of a human being, Dr. Murray's reckless conduct in this case poses a demonstrable risk to the safety of the public. "
He then ordered Murray taken into immediate custody and held without bail.

Of course, Dr. Murray's lawyer was quick to tell the world that they intend to appeal the verdict. It is their right.

Our South Florida patient injury law office investigates cases every day that involve doctors who make mistakes but refuse to accept responsibility. This especially holds true in cases of malpractice that occur outside of hospitals. In Florida, ambulatory surgical centers are utilized with frightening frequency. Ill equipped, under staffed and lacking the supervision and regulation of hospitals, they offer patients an economic alternative to having procedures performed in a hospital.

As a Florida lawyers who sues hospitals, I strongly recommend that if you are considering undergoing an elective procedure and the physician suggests that it be done in a Florida ambulatory surgical center, request that it be done in a traditional hospital operating room instead. In the event there is a intraoperative complication you will be far safer if you are in a hospital rather than near a hospital. The time it takes to call an ambulance and transport a patient to an emergency room can mean the difference between life and death.

Continue reading "When Doctors Commit Murder " »

As a Florida hospital injury attorney I am surprised by the number of gall bladder removal procedures that are performed in our country on a daily basis. The procedure to remove a gall bladder is a called a cholecystectomy and according to the Mayo Clinic carries "a small risk of complications."

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, or "Lap Choly," is a procedure performed to treat patients who may have a gallstone in the gallbladder, bile duct or inflammation in the gallbladder or pancreas. It is usually performed by general surgeons using a camera. The procedure is done under general anesthesia.

In 1985, the first laparoscopic cholecystecomy was performed. In 1992, the National Institute of Health concluded that laparoscopic cholesystecomies are "safe and effective" in the treatment for most patients. Laparoscopic surgery is very popular with both patients and their insurance companies. Since the procedure is performed without a large incision, patients are usually able to return home from the hospital and go back to work.

Nearly 750,000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies are performed annually in the United States, making it one of the most common elective surgeries. Unfortunately, there is a serious risk of injury or death associated with a laparoscopic cholecystectomy that many patients are unaware of until after the surgery. This is the possibility that there could be an intra-operative injury to the bile duct. This happens with greater frequency in laparoscopic procedures compared to open procedures when the surgeon is unable to fully visualize the anatomy and cuts the wrong duct.

If the wrong duct is cut in a laparoascopic cholecystecomy it must be recognized and repaired immediately. Failure to recognize an injury to a duct can lead to infection, excessive scarring and even death.

Our South Florida hospital injury law firm recommends that before undergoing a procedure to remove a gallbladder to ask your surgeon several important questions:

1. How many procedures have you performed?
2. How many times have you injured or cut the wrong duct?
3. Will the procedure be videotaped? Surprisingly many doctors and hospitals refuse to videotape the procedure for fear that it will be used to prosecute a Florida medical malpractice case. The videotape is essential information that can be provided to a reconstructive surgeon in case of a mishap.
4. Determine who will be assisting the surgeon in the surgery. The role of the surgical assistant is crucial in identifying the correct anatomy.
5. Determine if the hospital is a tertiary facility. This indicates the level of care that the hospital is qualified to provide.
6. Request a surgeon familiar with duct repairs to handle the case in the event of a duct injury. Often general surgeons are unfamiliar with the distinctly different technique required to repair a bile duct injury.
7. What is the average length of stay at the particular hospital.
8. What is the number of hospitalizations for the procedure.
9. Is the surgeon Board Certified in general surgery?
10. Is the surgeon insured for malpractice?

As a Miami lawyer who sues surgeons, I especially recommend that following the procedure you advise your surgeon, nurse and attending physician in the event that your pain gets worse, you have a fever, vomit, experience diarrhea, drainage from the incision or no bowel movement. These might be symptoms of a bile duct injury that can be life threatening if not treated immediately and properly.

View more videos at: http://nbcmiami.com.

Our Miami law firm currently represents a Miami family for the wrongful death of a Miami husaband and father following a botched cholecystectomy at a North Shore Medical Center, a local hospital. According to the Agency for Health Care (AHCA) website, North Shore Medical Center had 71 hospitalizations for laparoscopic gall bladder removal for patients age 18-64 in 2010 with the highest cost of hospitalization of $89,778 and 5.2 days of stay.

As a Coral Gables hospital mistake lawyer, I am confused by President Obama's decision to remove the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) from the web. The NPDB provided the public with various information about doctors, disciplinary actions and malpractice verdicts in general. Patients, lawyers and journalists have used the data bank to obtain information about doctors and trends in medical malpractice.

The NPDB has valuable information and reports. For example, it shows that, as of April 2011, Florida has received 126 medical malpractice reports against nurse midwives and 132 medical malpractice reports against nurse anesthetists. Unfortunately, the information is only available to hospitals, health care providers, State and Federal health care agencies, and quality improvement organizations. Patients and their attorneys are only eligible to receive certain information under very limited circumstances.

In response to a complaint lodged by a neurosurgeon, the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Resources removed public access to the data bank on September 1, 2011.

The Kansas City Star recently reported that many doctors with extensive history of malpractice often go undisciplined. The Star reviewed thousands of records and found that 21 doctors practicing in Kansas and Missouri had at least 10 malpractice payments but never received any discipline by the state health agency.

Our Florida injured patient law firm believes that it is important to provide the public access to transparent information regarding both doctor and hospital conduct to ensure responsibility and keep the public focused on fundamental issues of patient safety. By blocking the public's access to crucial information President Obama and the Department of Health and Human Resources will allow doctors and hospitals to continue to quietly make mistakes that harm and sometimes result in the wrongful death of a patient without public accountability.

As a Broward County medmal attorney, I do not agree with a recent report indicating that researchers from Harvard, University of Southern Californian and the Rand Corporation, finding that doctors who specialize in areas considered "low-risk" like pediatricians and psychiatrist are less likely to get sued in comparison with "high-risk" specialties like surgeons, particularly neurosurgeons. .

According to the report, over 19% of neurosurgeons face medical negligence lawsuits yearly. The report outlines the following ten medical specialties as those most likely to be sued:

1. Neurosurgeons
2. Thoracic-cardiovascular surgeons
3. General surgeons
4. Orthopedic surgeons
5. Plastic surgeons
6. Gastroenterologist
7. Ob-Gyn
8. Urologolist
9. Pulmonologist
10. Oncologolist

Dermatologists, pathologists, nephrologists, ophthalmologists, diagnostic radiologists, anesthesiologists and emergency medicine doctors were ranked the least likely to get sued.

The study found that gynecologists, not obstetricians, were the most likely to settle out of court yet are only the 12th most likely to be sued by a patient in the first place. Conversely neurosurgeons, the most likely to be sued, are also most likely to have to pay a malpractice claim with an average payment of $344,811. The average claim paid by pediatricians is $520,924, and for pathologists, $383,509. Many injured patients imagine their claim to be worth over $1million dollars. Surprisingly, the study revealed only 66 cases where verdicts or payments exceeded that amount.

What the study seems to not reflect is the reality of the cost in bringing a medical malpractice claim to court. The up-front cost of obtaining records, experts and preparing a case for trial can be in excess of $100,000.

Most states, including Florida, have caps on jury verdicts for damages which deter lawyers from pursuing low value cases or claims against uninsured doctors or clinics. With the tremendous financial and legal obstacles facing anyone injured by a doctor or hospital in Florida, as a Florida hospital injury lawyer can assure you that, contrary to the media hype regarding baseless medical malpractice claims, no frivolous claims are being filed. Sadly, the public does not understand the true safety value of medical malpractice litigation as a means to force healthcare providers to practice within and above the standard of care, which will keep us all from being injured.

Continue reading "How Much is My Medical Malpractice Case Worth?" »

As a Monroe County hospital injury lawyer, I am painfully aware how kind Florida law is to doctors and hospitals that make medical mistakes, even if those errors end up killing patients. There is a burdensome screening and evaluation protocol that has to be complied with before one can even file a law suit. There is a two-year statute of limitations that can catch grieving widows or parent-less children out of any opportunity for compensation for their loss. There is even a Florida Constitutional Amendment designed to dissuade lawyers from suing doctors or hospitals by capping attorney's fees at ten percent. In many ways, Florida has given doctors and hospitals a license to kill without having to be fully accountable for their negligence.

Without question, the most disgusting law in Florida is §458.320 that allows doctors to practice medicine without malpractice insurance. An increasing number of doctors we sue are practicing without any coverage. Of particular alarm is today's announcement that the nation's largest medical malpractice carrier, The Doctor's Group, is trying to acquire FPIC Insurance Group, which currently insures 18,000 doctors in Florida. Before this deal can go through it has to be approved by state regulators. With Governor Rick Scott in charge, I have little doubt this will pass and The Florida Medical Associations (FMA), Florida's doctor lobby, must be thrilled.

The net result, I believe, will be a chilling effect on the ability of injured patients to obtain compensation from insured doctors who will not participate or testify in cases against other FPIC or The Doctor's Group-insured physicians. It will also lower the bargaining power that doctors have now, with fewer insurers on the market, forcing them to go bare when and if premiums become too high.

Sadly, injured patients often do not know or understand this until its is too late. Demonstrating how little the public knows about these procedures, one of my newer clients just contacted me expecting me to resolve his medical negligence claim once the defendant doctor reviewed his photographs. As a Florida patient injury attorney I had to explain how long, expensive and difficult the case was as well as the idea that a bad treatment result does not always indicate the existence of medical negligence. Even if he wins his case, if the doctor does not have medical malpractice insurance, collection is often impossible.

Our Miami medical injury law firm remains committed to holding Florida's doctors and hospitals responsible for their carelessness.

As a Palm Beach hospital injury attorney, I believe that performing an operation on the wrong patient, site or performing the wrong procedure is a completely avoidable error. When an error or adverse incident happens in a Florida hospital, Florida Statute Section 395.0197 requires hospitals to report certain events called adverse incidents, to the State of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) within 15 calendar days.

View more videos at: http://nbcmiami.com.

The statute specifically requires that in the event of:

1. Death of a patient;
2. Brain or spinal damage to a patient;
3. Performance of a surgery on the wrong patient;
4. Performance of a wrong-site surgery;
5. Performance of a wrong surgery;
6. Performance of a medically unnecessary surgery;
7. Surgical repair of damage where the damage is not a recognized risk,
8. Procedures to remove unplanned foreign objects.

The Agency for Health Care posts on its website quarterly reports detailing the number of reported events. Unfortunately, the AHCA protects hospitals by not identifying the offending facility by name. Assuming that many events are never reported, the number of statewide incidents for the second quarter of 2011 alone is astonishing. There were 29 reported incidents and a horrifying 16 of those involved foreign objects being left in patients.

One of the few statutes that actually protect patients is Florida Statute Section 395.1051 that requires Florida hospitals to advise patients when an adverse incident has occurred. In my 20 years of representing Florida's victims of medical malpractice, I have never seen a case where a hospital has complied with this provision. The statute is silent as to what penalties if any would befall a hospital that fails to comply with notifying a patient of an adverse event. And, as usual, the statute goes on to exclude the admissibility of any such notification in a civil medical malpractice statute.

As a Florida hospital injury attorney, I strongly recommend patients or their families who believe they have suffered an adverse incident in a Florida Hospital or other licensed facility to immediately consult with an experienced personal injury attorney and to notify the Florida Department of Health of the incident.

As a Miami car accident attorney, I am astounded by Governor Rick Scott's lack of concern for Florida's patients. He has turned down millions of dollars under the Affordable Care Act that would go to providing health care to those who would otherwise be eligible for Medicare. In addition, his Republican-led Legislature has rejected grants that would move long-term patients into their own homes, curb child abuse through in home counseling, educate teens on pregnancy and put tighter grips on regulating the bloated health insurance industry.

This year's Florida Budget left over $8million of federal grants on the table that would have expanded community health centers as well as a Medicaid pilot program that would have provided $2million for a new hospice pilot program for terminally-ill children.

Governor Scott told the New York Times in a recent interview that he did not want to waste state money on "something unconstitutional."

Many of the people our Palm Beach injury lawyers represent have little to no access to medical care or health insurance. It is unforgivable that the State of Florida, which is the fourth most-populated state in the country, only collects $46.4 million out of the nearly 2 billion awarded nationally. This ranks Florida 12th in the amount of money received from health care grants.

In order for Florida to obtain more federal grants it will have to set up an insurance exchange; but with Governor Scott, that seems unlikely. In fact, he has been quoted saying, "I'd rather nobody runs it." If Florida fails to set up an insurance exchange by 2013 the federal government can take it over.

I am a Florida medical malpractice lawyer and yes, I sue doctors for a living. Like the saying goes "some of my best friends are....doctors." Two of my friends have actually continued on from medical school to become incredible lawyers. For the most part, when I meet doctors, be it in line at the movies, next to me on a plane or in the court room, their skin crawls when they learn that I am a lawyer.

So after twenty years of suing doctors and hospitals for making a wrong diagnosis, or botching a surgery, what can I tell them about how best to keep me or other medical malpractice lawyers from knocking on their doors?

1. Slow down and listen. It might be easier said than done, but most doctors see an inordinate number of patients, rushing from room to room, crisscrossing cities and hospitals. Not being in such a hurry could and should assist them in avoiding a lot of needless mistakes.

2. Admit you do not know something. I do not know if it's ego, but more good doctors make bad mistakes when a problem spirals out of their areas of expertise or comfort. I see this mistake particularly in post-op infection and wound-care cases. Someone may be a great surgeon, but maylack the skills to treat a complex infection. Call in a consult.

3. Get Technical. Utilize the latest technology in scheduling, scanning and follow ups. I am amazed how many doctors I sue who have no records of how many patients they see on a given day, how many surgeries they performed or how a patient's medications are charted.

4. Spend the Money on Your Patients. I have sued hospitals that claim to not have resources to properly staff floors or emergency rooms, but spend millions on sponsoring tennis tournaments and black-tie balls.

5. Get Malpractice Insurance. More and more Florida doctors are "going bare" with the hope that it will discourage patients from filing and collecting claims. Moreover, Florida Statute §458.320 allows doctors to practice without medical malpractice insurance provided that they have a letter of credit in the amount of $250,000 per claim.

Sadly, I acknowledge that it has had a chilling affect on the ability to represent injured patients when lawyers are concerned that they will ever be able to collect. I fear that the lack of medical malpractice insurance has actually given doctors a false sense of security that lackadaisical and negligent care will go on checked because no "lawyer will take it on" I urge all medical doctors to be insured for malpractice not to encourage claims but to satisfy an injury that can happen due to the fact that doctors are, after all, human beings like anybody else.

Continue reading "This One if for you Doc: 5 Ways Not to Get Sued for Malpractice" »

As a Florida injury attorney I was proud of New York State for legalizing gay marriage. Sadly, Florida seems unable to stop its discriminatory and hateful law that fails to not only recognize same sex-marriage in Florida but goes on to not recognize lawful marriage performed and deemed legal in a state or country that has legalized it. Florida Statute Section 741.212 seems to say that Florida knows best that a marriage can only be between one man and one woman. In essence, Florida has a superior legal right to disregard the laws of other states and countries on this issue. This is offensive, nonsensical and in my opinion unconstitutional.

If a corporation is valid in Delaware, Florida law respects it. If an adoption is valid in Arizona, Florida will recognize it. If a marriage is valid in New York, Florida law says it is illegal here. Ever wonder why?

I think it is just too easy to blame this evil perspective on those with strong religious beliefs. Our Miami medical negligence law firm believes this is a calculated effort by those in true power to prevent the compensation of the injured. If same-sex marriage were legal in Florida then every spouse of an injured victim would be able to make a claim for loss of consortium, services and society. (Florida's consortium law recognizes the spouse of an injured person to be compensated). Imagine the millions of dollars that the insurance industry saves each year by hiding behind anti-gay marriage legislation and depriving compensation to the truly injured spouses in what would and should be a recognized marriage.

Furthermore, imagine the effect on taxes, immigration and social security if payments and benefits were afforded to spouses in same-sex marriage. I find it hypocritical that those who are so pro-marriage would deny it to anyone who is willing to commit themselves to another regardless of gender.

Continue reading "Why Florida's Insurance Companies Hate Gay Marriage" »