Do You Need a Medical Expert Witness?

A medical expert witness is imperative to prove a medical malpractice case whether you represent the victim, or the physician or medical team accused of malpractice.

Why is it so important to have a medical expert testifying on your behalf?

The most overriding reason is the fact that in any medical malpractice case, many complex and technical terms will be utilized by both sides. A jury filled with laypeople who may or may not be acquainted with the technical medical terminology can be confused by these terms. It's the expert medical witness’s job to decode the technical terms and present the case in an understandable way to the jury.

The jury might not agree with a medical expert’s opinion, however, they must utilize the expert’s opinion to consider the important facts of the case at hand. It is, therefore, crucial to find a medical expert witness that is able to present your case in a clear, concise, and favorable way to the jury.

This is where we come in. MediPro Solutions is a small business that locates and provides medical experts to either side of a medical malpractice lawsuit. Our founder, Dr. Honor A. Schoech, MD, handpicks the expert witnesses all herself. Thus, she can promise that you will be satisfied with the personal attention given to each and every case.

If you are in need a medical expert witness for a medical malpractice case, contact us now.

The Misapplications & Misunderstandings That Turn HIPAA into a Code of Silence

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) would appear to be a clear-cut law that protects patient health information and offers guidelines for when that information can be safely released. However, the truth is that HIPAA is often misunderstood and misapplied.

There are situations in which HIPAA is utilized as a shield to allow health care providers to neglect to correctly disclose information, even when it is absolutely sensible to do so.

One common misapplication of HIPAA is the straightforward question of whether a friend was admitted to the hospital. There have been cases where hospitals tell people they cannot supply any information at all because of HIPAA.

Another blunder is using the law as the rationale for refusing to take information. In one example, a woman contacted the emergency room where her 85-year old mom was being treated. Since her mother's memory was impaired she desired to alert the staff to her mother’s drug allergies. The staff told her that HIPAA didn't permit them to take that information. Fortunately the woman eventually got a nurse to take the information before any damage was done.

To better understand HIPAA, think about the following guidelines:

·         Under HIPAA, assisted living facilities or nursing homes can offer general patient information on condition and location, if that patient is within that facility and can report a death. The patient can also list who can be advised.

·         HIPAA allows health professionals or family members and caregivers to supply information.

·         HIPAA applies only to organizations that handle patient data as part of their company. This consists of insurance companies, health care providers, clearinghouses that store and manage health information, and their business associates.

·         Written permission to release patient info is not necessary. Patients can verbally ask a friend or relative to receive their health care information. However, many facilities still insist on a written signature on a form.

·         Patients can object to the release of their information. A physician cannot disclose information in the event the patient objects and isn't incapacitated.

Have you ever encountered cases where HIPAA was misapplied to withhold information? Tell us about your experiences. To find out more about disclosure issues surrounding HIPAA, contact us!

Physician Bad Behavior

Nearly everyone within the healthcare arena knows a “difficult doctor”; that physician who  is abusive towards nurses and other staff, won’t admit patients to the hospital at the conclusion of a shift, or slacks off on paperwork. Negative physician behavior has been around for many years and is usually treated as a dirty secret.

Often times, the intimidation and poor communication from physicians is accepted because of the demand for physicians, but this behavior can result in serious safety issues that lead to medical errors, poor patient treatment and high staff turnover. The Joint Commission has issued a requirement for medical care organizations to have a policy in position to deal with bad behavior.

Some think the superior attitude displayed by some doctors has resulted in a culture of submissiveness. Over the last decade, health care advocates have fought to bring this issue to light and push back against this culture.

One of the major reasons for mistakes in hospitals is the state-of interaction between doctors and nurses. Oftentimes, nurses are doing their duty, reporting and documenting what's required, nevertheless the physician won't take action.

Have you have run into a physician with bad behavior? Tell us your experience!

Determining who is responsible in a medical malpractice lawsuit is essential to winning a case. Contact us to find out more about how medical malpractice lawsuits can be affected by physician behavior.

Lavern’s Law Could Impact Other States

Lavern Wilkinson, a 38 year-old mother of a severely autistic 15 year-old daughter went to the King’s County Hospital emergency room in February of 2010.  She was experiencing chest pain and the first year resident assigned to her case sent her for chest X-rays.  The resident then reported the results of those X-rays as normal.  She was sent home with Motrin for the supposed muscle spasms that were causing her pain.

But, the X-ray results were not normal. They showed a suspicious mass in the right lung that should have resulted in additional testing since it was cancerous. Over the following two years, Wilkinson returned to King's County Hospital several times due to continual cough and breathing problems. Doctors diagnosed her with asthma. More than two years after that first X-ray, in May 2012, doctors finally noticed that she had cancer. By this time, the cancer was untreatable and had spread to her spine, liver, and brain. She died May 7, 2013.

Currently in New York, a malpractice lawsuit must be filed within fifteen months of the malpractice, not within 15 months of the discovery of the malpractice. In Wilkinson's case, the statute of limitations had run out so she was unable to file a suit before the cancer was discovered.

The outcry over this appalling case has caused some politicians in New York to recognize the unfairness of the current statute of limitations law. "Lavern's Law" has been proposed in the state legislature to alter the statute of limitations to the discovery date. There's a real possibility this law will ultimately be passed after previous failures. The medical and insurance businesses have lobbied against this change saying it would be unaffordable. Other states without the date of discovery rule include Arkansas, Idaho, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Maine. The passage of this law may pave the way for change in these states too.

Contactus for all your medical legal consulting needs.

Proctoring in Medicine and Associated Legal Risks

A proctor is somebody who supervises or monitors in an educational setting. In the practice of medicine, proctorship is somewhat more complicated. Comprehending the medical role of a proctor helps clarify the legal risk of proctoring.

In medicine, a proctor objectively evaluates the clinical competence of some other doctor. Proctors are utilized in hospitals to evaluate or to assess new and existing staff members that are requesting enlarged or new privileges.

The proctor does not provide patient care, but is only an onlooker. Thus, the proctor does not establish a physician-patient relationship and does not have any financial connection to the patient.

Since the proctor has no physician-patient relationship or a relationship with the doctor being proctored, the legal system is reluctant to hold proctors liable if performance falls below the standard of care. But in the event the physician shifts from a proctor into more of a preceptor job, she or he could be found liable.

A preceptor is very different from a proctor. Preceptorship serves an educational and training function, not a monitoring function. New skills can be taught by preceptors and they do develop a physician-patient relationship. A preceptor would hold the principal responsibility for a patient's care.

The line between observation and participating can be hard for a proctor. If a proctor volunteers to participate in a process, their function could then shift into that of a preceptor and can unknowingly produce a doctor-patient relationship. There is legal precedent for a preceptor being held liable for failing to intercede in a patient's care.

Proctoring is a standard method for credentialing physicians and surgeons, nevertheless, if they would like to avoid medical malpractice accountability, they must not participate in the decision making regarding the procedure or the procedure itself. Crossing that line can lead to medical malpractice risk. To learn more regarding the legal risks connected with proctoring contact us!

Patients Search the Internet For Health Info, But Is It Ethical For Physicians to Google Patients?

Patients regularly surf the internet for health care information, doctor reviews, and treatment choices, generally starting with Google. Nonetheless, is it ethical for physicians to Google their patients? Doctors and bioethicists are weighing if this sort of search is proper.

Jessica Pierce, bioethicist, says that doctors shouldn't Google their patients. An Internet search isn't an ethical method to gather information about a patient and a physician isn't likely to find anything clinically applicable, she writes in Psychology Today.

Others contend that Internet searches by physicians regarding a patient might be satisfactory in very limited circumstances.  Examples of possible satisfactory utilization of Internet searches include scenarios where the doctor has a duty to warn of possible injury, to see if a patient's story is credible, to see if another professional's advice raises questions about a patient's story, and if there are suspicions of abuse or concern about suicide risk.

One example the authors noted was an instance where the doctor discovered that a cancer patient misrepresented her family's cancer history and was increasing funds, maybe fraudulently, to attend a cancer convention.

A bioethicist at The Hastings Center, a bioethics institute, argues that these notions of what represents an appropriate search are too far reaching. She says that doctor intent is what matters most. Why is the physician moved to do this? Is it going to help the patient or is it just out of personal curiosity?

The American Medical Association has new guidelines involving physician use of social media, nevertheless, those guidelines do not adequately cover this issue of a physician's Internet research on patients. The AMA admits this is an unresolved issue within the organization. The AMA's chair on the Council of Judicial and Ethical Affairs, Patrick McCormick, wrote in a blog post that physicians have a fundamental obligation to honor a patient's privacy and that professionalism and physician ethos extend to social networking.

Standards and guidelines involving a physician's use of the Web and social media are complex and still in development. To learn more,contact us.

The Case of the Accidental Recording

A decision in late June by a Virginia jury represents a sad and stunning display of doctors behaving badly.

A Virginia lawyer went to a gastroenterologist for a colonoscopy. After chatting with anesthesiologist, Dr. Tiffany Ingham, he readied his smartphone to record the post-op directions so he wouldn’t miss anything. He then inadvertently struck the record option before the process started and recorded the whole colonoscopy.

On his drive home, he played the recording and was stunned by the crass dialogue about his body parts and a line of insults toward him specifically by Dr. Ingham.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physicians and their practices for medical malpractice, defamation, and punitive damages, even though the procedure went well.

The defense suggested the recording itself was not legal, yet in Virginia only 1 party must consent to recording of a conversation. The recording was entered into evidence and showed that Dr. Ingham talked about the patient’s sexuality, threatened to punch him in the face during the procedure, wondered if he had a sexually transmitted disease, and called him a “wimp” and other names.  

Dr. Ingham was found liable and the patient received $500,000 in damages. She has since moved to Florida and continues to practice there.

Doctors should be reminded to always appropriately discuss their patients, particularly in today’s developing technology age. A few inappropriate words can be quite harmful.

Contact us today for all your medical legal needs!