Organizing Your Medical Records

It is quite crucial when dealing with a medical lawsuit that any records you are using are organized and complete. Structured and comprehensive medical records will save you time - no wasting time searching for what you need; and money – you won’t have to pay a medical expert a high hourly fee to organize the records.  

What Can You Do to Improve the Organization of Medical Records?

Start organizing the records as soon as you receive them. Records can be arranged in chronological order or by the types of records they are.  For instance, place all lab results in one section and all primary care documents in another. Hospital records should be separated and placed in chronological order. You'll can further separate them into additional types or categories, like subsections. Be sure all pages are numbered, especially if stored electronically. Numbering is vital to make it easier for you and your medical expert to refer to the pages during litigation or review.

Hardcopies of medical records should be arranged in a three ring binder. Once you have them organized, it is useful to make tabs identifying distinct sections in order to quickly locate that which you are seeking.

If you know the records will be evaluated by a medical expert, ask the expert how he/she would like the records prepared. Organizing the files yourself can save plenty of money rather than having the expert invest his/her time organizing or trying to find information.

Effectively organizing all medical files when working with a medical malpractice, personal injury or worker’s compensation case, may be hard. Nonetheless finding the time to do this can make or break your case. Medical records are filled with crucial information that can be critical to a case, therefore, knowing what you have and being able to find it quickly and effectively is essential.

To make sure your documents are organized in a professional way, consider having them analyzed by a medical record review expert. Contact us for more information about the importance of organizing the medical documents, and how you can get organizational support.

Malpractice and the Presidential Race

Dr. Ben Carson had a distinguished 30 year career as a renowned brain surgeon before he decided to run for president of the United States. Somewhat astonishingly, he is not the sole medical doctor in the field of nominees - Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, is also in the running. Historically, most politicians in the U.S. have foundations in the military, law, or business; yet five doctors actually signed the Declaration of Independence.

Like many U.S. physicians, Dr. Carson confronted medical malpractice lawsuits several times during his 30 year career. He was sued for medical malpractice at least eight times during his years as a neurosurgeon. 

Eight medical malpractice lawsuits may seem to be significant number, yet it is not alarming after considering the high risk nature of Dr. Carson's specialty. Neurosurgeons are more prone to be sued when compared to other specialties. Overall, 7.4% of all doctors face a medical malpractice claim each year, whereas 19.1% of all neurosurgeons face a medical malpractice claim each year according to a 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers suggested that the neurosurgery numbers were higher because frequently the most complex, high-risk cases end up in court. Many times a lawsuit is filed simply because a plaintiff suffered an injury, not always because the surgeon's performance fell below the standard of care. The study also noted that the vast majority of neurosurgery claims were ultimately decided in favor of the neurosurgeons.

Therefore, the eight medical malpractice claims faced by Dr. Carson were statistically relatively low. Whether Dr. Carson ultimately becomes the republican presidential nominee is yet to be determined.

Contact MediPro Solutions, LLC, for all your medical legal questions!

Federal Law and Malpractice

A recent judgement in a Florida appeals court might have far reaching consequences in medical malpractice cases.  Florida has a constitutional amendment that gives plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases expanded access to hospital medical records.

Access to these records became an issue in Florida after a patient suffered neurological injuries and permanent damage after being treated at the Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc. in Jacksonville. The patient's lawyers filed a lawsuit and requested records from the hospital regarding her injuries. The hospital released just some of her records and withheld others, citing the Patient Safety and Quality and Improvement Act of 2005, which is a federal law. This act stipulates that certain medical records are unavailable to plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases because to release those records would create fear for healthcare providers that their words may be utilized against them in court, thereby preventing open communication in health care.

The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiff and stated that the requested records must be provided by the hospital. The hospital appealed that ruling stating the federal law took precedent in the case and allows for hospitals to legitimately refuse to release records. The appeals court ruled in favor of the hospital noting if there is any contradiction between federal and state law, the federal law prevails.

In order to reverse this opinion, attorneys for the plaintiff can appeal to the Supreme Court. In the event the Supreme Court rules on this issue, then the law would employ throughout the U.S. However, this may take some time because the process of appealing to the Supreme Court normally takes several years.

Contact us for your medical consulting needs.

When Athletes Get Hurt in Training, Can They Sue Coaches for Overuse Injury?

Participation in athletics comes with the knowledge that injuries could occur.  Sprains and bruises are common and even expected by those who routinely participate in athletics.  However, in some cases athletes sustain injuries from activity that would be considered outside of the scope of routine practice. Common overuse injuries include runner’s knee, swimmer’s shoulder, and shin splints. 

Coaching staffs are in charge of overseeing the training and practice of their athletes.  Therefore, if an athlete suffers an injury from the training regimen that was established by the coach, can you sue a coach for an overuse injury?

According to the Stop Sports Injury website, errors in training, typically a rapid increase in the intensity, duration, or frequency of activity, are what can most commonly result in overuse injuries. It can be difficult to pinpoint the exact activity causing the injury and the time the injury occurred since they usually occur during training.  These injuries should be diagnosed by a medical professional who can also recommend an alternate training regimen or physical therapy if needed.

At what point could the diagnosis of an overuse injury warrant questions about liability or lawsuit?  Attorney Roger Manwaring, writing in Lawyers’ Legal Research & Writing, states that if an injury arises from the intentional or negligent conduct of a coach, the athlete may have a legal claim.  Athletes may consider a lawsuit for negligent training or supervision, or for selecting inappropriate protective equipment. However, such claims can be very difficult to prove, especially considering societal pressures to encourage athletes to compete hard on the field. 

Sports injury laws vary from state to state, but in Massachusetts, for example, a coach is considered a public employee and therefore is immune to a lawsuit under the state’s tort claims act.  However, a school or college, which is considered a public employer, can be sued.  These suits are subject to damage limitations.  Massachusetts law also protects volunteer coaches, managers, umpires, or referees in sports programs serving youth under 18 years old. 

Keeping athletic competition on the playing field rather than in the courtroom is a factor driving much of the law governing legal claims for sports injury.  However, there are instances when such claims are allowed. To learn more, contact us!

How Patients' High Deductible Insurance Plans Pose Malpractice Risks to Doctors

High deductible insurance plans require patients to take on more of the financial risk in exchange for lower monthly premiums.  Patients are increasingly choosing plans where they cover their own eligible expenses until costs reach a deductible that can be well into the thousands of dollars.  These high deductible insurance plans can pose a malpractice risk to doctors.

The number of patients with health insurance has increased due to the Affordable Care Act, however, most of these patients choose high deductible health plans.  The number of patients with these types of plans has increase to 17.4 million in January of 2014, up more than 12 percent from the previous year, according to Healthcare Finance.

The issue that physicians are seeing with these high deductible plans is that patients are making medical appointments less often for chronic care, and are also skipping medication refills or declining to pay their out-of-pocket costs for medical tests.

Patient choices to forgo aspects of their health care can have disconcerting implications for physicians.  A case reported in Massachusetts Medical Law Report demonstrates these potential consequences.  A physician was sued for malpractice by the family of a patient who died after a late stage cancer diagnosis.  The patient, a 65-year-old man was a patient of the physician for four years; however the physician never performed a complete physical exam during that time, including colon rectal cancer screening.

The cancer was not diagnosed until the patient went to the hospital with abdominal pain for several hours and no bowel movement for several days.  He underwent exploratory surgery where stage IIIB colon cancer was discovered.  The physician said he did not offer the patient cancer screening because he was only seeing him for blood pressure checks, not for full primary care.  The private-pay patient declined any further medical care beyond those blood pressure checks.  The case ultimately settled for $1.5 million.

The risk stems from the fact that physicians could be held responsible for patients who decline care and this risk is likely to increase as patients put off or skip screenings that are not covered by insurance. 

To protect themselves, physicians must explain the risks of skipping tests and then follow through on whether they have been performed or not.  Physicians must also document everything – the patient chart should reflect whether a patient declined appropriate screening tests, as well as whether the patient understands the possible consequences of that decision.

To learn more about the potential implications of high-deductible insurance on medical malpractice, contact us today.

Spending and Malpractice

Findings from a new study recently published in the BMJ and supported by the National Institutes of Health provide evidence for those who assert that practicing defensive medicine is a realistic alternative for physicians who would like to safeguard their careers and reputations.

The study focused on data between 2000 and 2009 that involved 24,637 doctors and 18,352,391 admissions to acute care hospitals in Florida. The data showed a connection between higher spending by doctors per patient and a decreased risk of incurring a medical malpractice claim.

There were 4,342 malpractice claims made during the time period under review. Generally, the analysis found that higher spending doctors get sued less often than lesser spending physicians. For example, in the obstetrics specialty, the likelihood of facing medical malpractice fell as an obstetrician performed more Cesarean sections and spent more per patient.

Directors of the study did admit limits to the findings, specifically that information on illness severity was not provided and doctors were not directly asked if their increased spending was motivated by defensive medicine. Nevertheless, even if the study doesn't necessarily demonstrate that increased spending was the direct cause of the decreased opportunity of facing a medical malpractice suit, it does demonstrate that there is a correlation and more research is probably needed to understand the link.

Contact us for your medical legal needs!

Comparative Negligence, Expert Witnesses, and Medical Malpractice

One would think that a wrong is a wrong, no matter where it took place and that your compensation for that wrong should also not be affected by where it happened.  However, in medical malpractice every state has different rules.  A recent lawsuit against LabCorp is an example of how those rules can reduce compensation.

A woman in Florida died of cervical cancer three years after LabCorp diagnosed two of her pap smears as negative for cancer.  Her husband filed a medical negligence lawsuit against LabCorp alleging that they misread the tests.  The jury determined that damages to her husband totaled just over $20 million, but reduced this award to $15 million because the patient was found to be 25% liable for her own negligence.

Florida follows a comparative negligence guideline in which a party’s own negligence will reduce any monetary award in proportion to the amount of the plaintiff’s negligence. Many other states follow a modified comparative negligence standard in which a party will lose any right to compensation if that party is more than 50% liable for his or her injuries.

Florida also requires medical negligence plaintiffs to file a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice claim, which must include an expert witness’s opinion that the plaintiff has a good basis for a lawsuit.  The notice of intent marks the start of a ninety-day settlement period that may or may not affect the statute of limitations on the case.

Other aspects of medical malpractice cases fall under differing rules in different states.  A plaintiff usually must file his or her malpractice case within two or three years of the occurrence or discovery of an injury.  Some states impose an absolute bar against any malpractice case of seven to ten years after the medical error is committed, regardless of when an injury manifests itself.

Many states have also enacted caps on damages related to pain and suffering (noneconomic).  In some instances courts have struck down those caps, but for now a plaintiff’s damages for pain and suffering can depend on what location the underlying wrong occurred.

The substantive elements of a medical malpractice case may be simple and straightforward, but the laws, rules, and standards which govern the case differ dramatically from state to state.  MediPro Solutions, LLC works with attorneys to navigate those laws and select the most highly qualified medical experts to analyze and verify a client’s malpractice case.  Contact us at your convenience for more information about our services.