South Florida Injury Law Blog

Florida law generally allows a person injured by another's negligence to recover damages for the wide variety of economic and non-economic harms that may result. In Estrada v. Mercy Hospital, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal explains that the damages award may include lost earnings for a person whose life is expected to be cut short due to the injury.

After being diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in September 2010, Ms. Estrada sued Mercy Hospital and Dr. Amisha Agarwal for negligence, claiming that Agarwal failed to report evidence of micro-calcifications during a routine mammogram more than two years earlier. The defendants admitted liability and the parties agreed to have an arbitration panel determine the damages incurred by Estrada as a result of the negligence.

Estrada argued that, because her life expectancy had been "severely curtailed" as a result of the hospital's negligence, she was entitled to damages covering lost earnings over the course of her "pre-injury" life expectancy (more than 82 years). While the panel heard such evidence, it ultimately rejected Estrada's assertion. The panel awarded her more than $1 million in damages, a figure that included $365,000 in lost earnings for time that she would be unable to work because of the cancer during her shortened life expectancy.

The Third District reversed the decision on appeal. The court held that Estrada was entitled to damages for lost earning capacity for the years following her expected death until the time she would have likely otherwise died, had the cancer been diagnosed earlier. "It is the function of an award of damages to place the injured party in an actual, as distinguished from a theoretical position, financially equal to that which he would have occupied had his injuries not occurred," the court explained, quoting the Florida Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Renuart Lumber Yards v. Levine. Indeed, Section 766.202(3), Florida Statutes (2012), which governs arbitration awards in medical negligence cases, defines "economic damages" as "financial losses that would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action."

The court rejected the hospital's assertion that allowing recovery for damages incurred after Estrada's expected death would wrongly compensate her heirs for the injury, rather than Estrada herself. While the claim was for negligence - it was not a wrongful death action on behalf of Estrada's family - the court noted that Florida law bars a subsequent wrongful death action related to injuries for which a person has already been compensated in a personal injury claim. As a result, the arbitration panel should have considered damages caused by the defendants' negligence that may be incurred following Estrada's death, according to the court.

Continue reading "Loss of Earnings in Florida Medical Negligence Cases - Estrada v. Mercy Hospital" »

The timing of a lawsuit is a crucial issue in any case, but particularly in medical malpractice actions where tight restrictions require an injured person to not only meet certain pre-suit requirements but also file suit within a strict deadline. In Woodward v. Olson, the Second District Court of Appeal explains how the deadline works for a patient claiming she's been mistreated over the course of many years.

Mrs. Woodward was a heavy smoker with cancer in her family when she started regularly seeing Dr. Olson in 1989. Woodward was injured when she fell from the roof of her home in 2002 and was later admitted to a local emergency room. A radiologist's report on X-rays taken at the time indicated that the X-rays showed an "area of increased density" in the right lung. Although the radiologist recommended follow-up examinations, Dr. Olson did not tell Woodward about the x-ray results, nor order additional tests.

Following X-rays in August 2005 and January 2008, radiologists again identified issues with Woodward's right lung and recommended follow-up tests. Olson, in turn, did not provide the X-ray results to Woodward nor schedule additional tests. He retired in 2009. When Woodward saw a new physician, the doctor immediately told her about the earlier X-ray results, which had been included in her medical file. Woodward was later diagnosed with lung cancer.

Woodward and her husband sued Dr. Olson and his hospital for medical malpractice in June 2010. The trial court granted summary judgment to Olson, ruling that the action was barred under Florida's statute of repose. Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that a medical malpractice suit can be brought not later than four years after "the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued." Woodward had alleged that the malpractice began in 2002.

The Second District disagreed with the lower court, however. "[I]n a medical malpractice case, it is the discrete incident of malpractice that triggers the running of the statute of repose," the court explained, citing the Fourth District's 1987 decision in Carr v. Broward County. Here, Woodward alleged more than one discrete incident of malpractice, according to the court. The first was during her 2002 emergency room visit when Olson failed to mention or act on the x-ray results. The two similar, but separate incidents in 2005 and 2008 were other discrete events.

Continue reading "Filing Deadlines in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases - Woodward v. Olson" »

If you've been to a doctor's office lately, you are probably familiar with the stacks of forms and agreements that usually must be completed before you or your child can be seen. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal explains in Moody v. Lawnwood Medical Center, the terms of this and other paperwork can determine your right to later sue if something goes wrong.

Ms. Moody brought her daughter, S.W. , to a pediatrician after S.W. was injured in a playground accident. The doctor ordered x-rays and, along with a radiologist, determined that S.W. had suffered a hip fracture. He recommended that she be admitted at nearby Lawnwood Medical Center, where he had privileges as an independent contractor.

S.W. was admitted through Lawnwood's emergency room where Moody signed a "Conditions of Admission" form stating, among other provisions, that Lawnwood was to provide medical services in exchange for payment. On the reverse side of the form were additional terms limiting Lawnwood's liability for the acts of independent contractor physicians. Moody later denied that she ever read or assented to the terms on the back side of the form.

After evaluating S.W., Lawnwood's on-call orthopedist determined that she did not have a hip fracture and recommended that she be discharged. The pediatrician completed the discharge.

Moody later brought S.W. to Palms Hospital after her condition worsened. At Palms, she was diagnosed with a number of conditions, including a fractured right hip, septic arthritis and shock, right heart failure and various infections throughout her body. She "was hospitalized for ten weeks and had significant long-term health complications," according to the court.

Continue reading "Waivers and Releases in Florida Medical Negligence Cases - Moody v. Lawnwood Medical Center" »

If it looks like a sham and talks like a sham, is it a sham? Not until there's a full evidentiary hearing on the issue, Florida's Second District Court of Appeals ruled in a recent medical malpractice case, Reyes v. Roush.

Athany Reyes was born on May 25, 2005. According to the court, Athany "appeared to have limited use of one of his arms, possibly a shoulder dystocia which may be caused by an injury to the brachial plexus nerve during birth."

Shortly after his birth, Daisy Barcenas - Athany's mother - considered filing suit against Dr. Catherine Nguyen Roush, who was the attending obstetrician at the time of the delivery. Barcenas contacted a personal injury law firm, which carried out the pre-suit investigation required before filing a medical malpractice action. The firm ultimately concluded that it appeared that Dr. Roush did not breach her duty of care in delivering the child.

After four years of physical therapy, doctors informed Barcenas that continued therapy was unlikely to fully restore motion to Athany's arm. A specialist, however, indicated that corrective surgery was a possibility. The specialist also told Barcenas that Athany's injury may have been caused by malpractice. As a result, Reyes filed suit against Roush on Feb. 7, 2011, alleging that the doctor committed medical malpractice during Athany's delivery which resulted in his injury.

A trial court granted Roush's motion to dismiss the claim, finding that it was barred under Florida's statute of limitations, which requires a plaintiff to file suit within two years from when the person knew or should have known of both the injury and the reasonable possibility that it was caused by malpractice.

Continue reading "Court Says Hearing Necessary to Determine Whether Florida Medical Malpractice Claim a 'Sham' - Reyes v. Roush" »

In Rell v. McCulla, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal explains that before suing for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must not only notify the defendants of his or her intent to sue, but also make sure that the notice clearly contains an allegation that the defendants were negligent and that this negligence led to the person's injury.

David McCulla sued podiatrist Dr. Brian Rell and Coastal Orthopedics & Sports Medicine of Southwest Florida for negligence, alleging that he suffered a partial tear of the interior tendon in his right ankle as a result of weakening due to two arthroscopic surgeries and a steroid injection performed by Dr. Rell.

Under Florida law, a person suing for medical malpractice is required to first conduct an "investigation" to determine whether there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that the person's injury was caused by medical negligence. The plaintiff must also notify prospective defendants of his or her intent to sue before filing a complaint in state court, including an expert opinion corroborating that there are reasonable grounds to support the claim.

In McCulla's notice, he attached an opinion by Dr. Jeff D. Kopelman. "In my expert opinion, based on the records provided, there are reasonable grounds that the patient's tibialis anterior tendon could have been weakened or injured by the steroid shot given by Dr. Rell," Kopelman wrote. He did not however, proffer an opinion as to whether Rell's treatment fell below the standard of care.

The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action, in which they argued that McCulla's pre-suit notice was insufficient because it didn't include an expert opinion indicating that the injury was caused by medical negligence. On appeal, however, the Second District sided with the defendants.

Continue reading "Pre-Suit Notice in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases Must Include Negligence Allegation - Rell v. McCulla" »

These days medical treatment is no longer a case of the local doctor coming out for a visit. Modern medicine involves a myriad assortment of doctors, nurses, specialists, and the like, all of whom are trying to properly treat their patients. When something goes wrong, however, the long cast of characters involved can make it difficult to determine who is at fault and, ultimately, who may be liable for medical malpractice. The Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Saunders v. Dickens is a good example of how courts determine causation in a medical malpractice case.

Plaintiff Ruby Saunders sued Dr. Willis Dickens on behalf of the estate of her husband, Walter Saunders, claiming that the doctor was negligent in his treatment of Mr. Saunders. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Dickens, a neurologist, failed to diagnose and treat a cervical cord compression, which ultimately led Saunders to suffer from quadriplegia.

Dr. Dickens began treating Saunders in July 2003. Finding that Saunders' symptoms suggested lumbar stenosis, the physician ordered an MRI of Saunders' brain and lumbar. The MRI showed stenosis and the doctor referred Saunders to Dr. Guillermo Pasarin, a neurosurgeon. After additional tests, Dr. Pasarin diagnosed Saunders with cervical myelopathy and recommended that he have cervical decompression surgery, indicating that it should be performed within 30 days.

Saunders was cleared for the surgery on November 6, 2003, but Dr. Pasarin failed to schedule him for surgery that month. Saunders developed a deep venous thrombosis in December, which prevented him from undergoing surgery. He was not able to have the surgery after this time and his condition eventually progressed to quadriplegia.

Plaintiff originally sued Dr. Pasarin and Broward General Medical Center for negligence and later added dr. Dickens as a defendant. Plaintiff later settled with each of the defendants, except Dr. Dickens. At trial, Plaintiff's expert testified that Dr. Dickens should have ordered an MRI of Saunders' neck in addition to the other tests in July 2003, and that he breached the standard of care by failing to do so.

Continue reading "Step One in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases: Who Done It? Saunders v. Dickens" »

Florida medical malpractice cases are often a battle of experts: doctors and other health professionals who give their opinions on whether a defendant acted reasonably and, if not, whether his or her negligence caused the injury suffered by the plaintiff. In Duss v. Garcia, the Third District Court of Appeal makes clear that it's not just about getting experts to testify, it's about getting the right experts to testify.

The guardian of Daniel Duss, a minor child suffering from cerebral palsy, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that obstetrician Martin Garcia negligently used a fetal vacuum extractor during Duss' delivery, which resulted in brain injury.

At trial, each side presented expert testimony. Plaintiff's four experts testified that Garcia breached the relevant standard of care by unnecessarily using the vacuum extractor six times during the delivery, likely causing an ischemic stroke (i.e., a blockage of an artery to the brain) that ultimately caused Daniel's brain injury. Defendant's experts, on the other hand, testified that Garcia's use of the vacuum extractor was within the standard of care, and could not have caused the ischemic stroke. Instead, these experts concluded that Duss' injury was a result of "placental abnormality."

The jury entered a verdict in favor Garcia, finding that either he was not negligent or that his negligence did not result in Duss' injury.

On appeal, the court upheld the jury decision, finding that the trial court properly ruled that expert witness Dr. Barry Schifrin could not testify as to whether or not the vacuum procedure actually caused Duss to suffer an ischemic stroke. Schrifin is an obstetrician/gynecologist, not a neurologist, and therefore was not qualified to testify as an expert regarding Duss' possible neurological injury, the court ruled.

Continue reading "Quality, Not Quantity: Expert Witnesses in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases - Duss v. Garcia" »

There are a number of hoops, so to speak, that a person seeking to sue for medical malpractice in Florida must jump through before filing suit. The Third District Court of Appeal explains one of them - pre-suit notice - in King v. Baptist Hospital of Miami.

Plaintiff Melissa King sent formal notices to Dr. William Thompson and his employer, Pediatric Group, PLLC, informing them that she intended to file a malpractice suit stemming from surgery and other treatment provided by Dr. Thompson to King's child at Baptist Hospital in Miami.

King then filed suit against a number of parties, including Thompson, THE University of Miami and Baptist Hospital, alleging that it was vicariously liable for Dr. Thompson's negligence. The trial court granted the hospital's motion to dismiss the claims against it, finding that King did not properly notify the hospital of her intent to file suit.

Florida law requires a plaintiff to notify each prospective defendant of his or her intent to sue prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence." Furthermore, civil procedure rule 1.650(b)(1) provides that by sending the pre-suit notice to a prospective defendant via certified mail, a plaintiff effectively gives notice to both the prospective defendant and any other prospective defendant with a legal relationship to the person or entity to whom the notice was sent.

The trial court found that there was no legal relationship between the hospital and either Dr. Thompson or Pediatric Group, and therefore their notice of the suit could not be imputed to the hospital.

Continue reading "Pre-Suit Notice Requirement in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases - King v. Baptist Hospital of Miami" »

In Florida, medical malpractice cases are often based on a theory of alleged negligence, either by doctors or other medical staff. In Hollywood Medical Center v. Alfred, the First District Court of Appeal explains that proof of negligence is not enough. A medical negligence plaintiff must also prove causation: that the defendant's negligence caused an injury.

Ursuline Alfred, a 45-year-old South Florida resident, was taken to Hollywood Medical Center (HMC) after suffering a seizure at her home in May 1996. She fell into a coma while in an ambulance and died after suffering cardiac arrest 50 minutes after arriving at the hospital.

Alfred's husband, Camillus, filed suit against HMC, alleging that the emergency room doctor - Dr. Schellinger - and nursing staff that treated his wife upon her arrival at the hospital were negligent in failing to intubate his wife and place her on a respirator when she arrived at the hospital. Following trial, the lower court rejected HMC's motion for a directed verdict in its favor. Alfred settled with Dr. Schellinger before the jury returned a verdict, finding both Dr. Schellinger and the hospital negligent.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court's decision on the directed verdict motion with respect to HMC's liability for negligence by the nursing staff. The court found that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the nurses' negligence caused Ms. Alfred's death. Citing the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc., the court explained

To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.

Although Plaintiff presented evidence - in the form of expert testimony - indicating that the nurses should have checked Ms. Alfred's vital signs earlier and more frequently and should have questioned Dr. Schellinger's decision to administer valium, the court found that Plaintiff failed to prove that this negligence caused Ms. Alfred's death. Had Dr. Schellinger intubated Ms. Alfred and put her on a respirator, she likely would have survived, according to the court. However, no one testified that it was the nurses' duties to take such action.

"Thus, while the evidence supported a conclusion that the physician's failure to act affected the outcome, no one testified that the nurses' failures to act affected Mrs. Alfred's outcome."

Continue reading "Florida Court Explains Causation in Medical Malpractice Cases - Hollywood Medical Center v. Alfred " »

There are a number of procedural hoops that a plaintiff in a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit must jump through before bringing suit. As the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal explains in Berry v. Padden, the failure to abide by these pre-suit rules can be fatal to a case.

Plaintiffs Elsie and Carl Berry filed suit against Defendant Dr. David Patten, asserting that he committed medical malpractice during Ms. Berry's knee replacement surgery by improperly installing a tibial component that was too large. In support of their complaint, Plaintiffs attached a letter from an orthopedic surgeon - Dr. Christopher J. Cassels - which was not verified as sworn, notarized or otherwise at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs filed a verified opinion from the orthopedic surgeon roughly six months later.

Florida law requires a person seeking to sue for medical negligence to corroborate the basis for the suit by submitting "a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert ... at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed." Where a plaintiff fails to meet this requirement, a court is required to dismiss the claim.

The trial court granted Dr. Patten's motion to dismiss the claim finding that the Berrys failed to provide a verified written medical expert opinion within the applicable statute of limitations, which expires two years from the date of the alleged negligence (with an additional 90 days of required pre-suit notice to the defendant and a possible 60-day extension).

The Fourth District affirmed the ruling on appeal. "The law is well-established that a properly verified, corroborating medical expert opinion must be provided by the plaintiff to the defendant prior to expiration of the statute of limitations," the court noted, citing the Second District's 1998 decision in Maguire v. Nichols. Although the defect can be cured by filing a verified opinion before the statute of limitations expires, according to the court, a medical negligence case must be dismissed where the opinion is filed after the expiration date.

Continue reading "In Order to Sue for Medical Malpractice in Florida, You Must First Get a Medical Expert Opinion - Berry v. Padden " »

Sunshine State lawmakers are set to consider a proposed law intended to limit Florida medical malpractice lawsuits by raising the standard of proof in certain cases and allowing defendants to have unfettered access to a plaintiff's treating doctors.

The Associated Press' Gary Fineout reports that "[t]his effort is being criticized as an attack on the privacy rights of patients and comes at a time when fewer medical malpractice claims are being filed, according to state regulators."

Sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fort Walton Beach), House Bill 385 provides that a doctor is not liable for malpractice for failing to order or perform a diagnostic exam, unless the doctor also failed to act "in good faith," as proved by the plaintiff based on "clear and convincing evidence." It also allow a potential medical malpractice defendant - a person seeking to sue for medical malpractice must notify the defendant before filing suit - to interview the plaintiff's treating doctors without the plaintiff or his or her attorney present.

Undeterred by the difficult standard of proof that the proposed law would enact for certain medical malpractice plaintiffs, Gaetz told the AP flatly that sometimes there are simply "bad outcomes" in medicine. He also overlooked the significant privacy implications of allowing a doctor to talk to a third person about a patient's condition and treatment without the patient or a representative present.

Section 456.057(7)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2010) requires that a health care practitioner obtain a patient's written authorization before discussing the person's medical records with a third party. The law provides an exception, however, "[i]n any civil or criminal action . . . upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice to the patient or the patient's legal representative by the party seeking such records." § 456.057(7)(a)(3).

Continue reading "Florida Considers Medical Malpractice Revamp, Raising Privacy Concerns" »

A person seeking to sue a doctor or hospital for medical malpractice in Florida is generally required notify the defendants before filing suit. But what about suits against other health professionals like pharmacists? Florida's Second District Court of Appeals recently took on this issue in Galencare, Inc. v. Mosely.

The plaintiff in this case is the estate of Mable Moseley, which filed an action alleging that Ms. Mosely died due to an overdose of narcotics administered while she was in the care of Brandon Regional Hospital near Tampa. The estate brought a negligence claim against seven pharmacists (the Pharmacists) working at the hospital and a third-party spoliation claim against the Hospital, alleging that it failed to maintain the proper records that could support a claim by the Estate against the other defendants who are not health care providers.

The Pharmacists filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that the Estate failed to provide the notice required before filing a medical malpractice suit in Florida. Specifically, section 766.106 Florida Statutes (2008) states that "[a]fter completion of pre-suit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203(2) and prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant . . . of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence." A trial court denied the motion, finding that the claims against the Pharmacists are not medical malpractice claims and, therefore, not subject to the notice requirement.

On further review, the Second District agreed with the trial court, finding that the Estate was not required to notify claims the Pharmacists before bringing its claims against them. These claims, according to the court, are not medical malpractice claims. Under Florida law, a medical malpractice claim is one in which the plaintiff seeks damages for the death or personal injury of a person resulting from the negligence of a health care provider. Section 766.202(4) defines "healthcare provider " as:

any hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility ...; a birth center...; a clinical lab...; a health maintenance organization...; a blood bank; a plasma center; an industrial clinic; a renal dialysis facility; or a professional association partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other association for professional activity by health care providers.

This list doesn't include pharmacists. "We must conclude that the legislature specifically intended to exclude pharmacists...from the definition of health care provider," the court ruled. As a result, the Pharmacists were not subject to the pre-suit notice requirements.

Continue reading "Florida Court Explains Medical Malpractice Notification Requirement - Galencare, Inc. v. Mosely" »

While the statute mandated Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA Plan) provides no-fault benefits for certain childbirth injury claims, the Florida Supreme Court recently made clear that coverage under the plan is limited and in many cases the parents of injured children can seek a full range of legal remedies.

In Bennett v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc., et al, the Court ruled that the parents of a child born with certain brain injuries could sue the hospital and physicians allegedly responsible for damages and were not required to pursue limited compensation in an administrative forum provided under the NICA plan.

Plaintiff Tammy Bennett was pregnant when she was involved in a car accident in MacClenny, Florida. Following fetal testing, she was transferred to St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville. At St. Vincent's, Ms. Bennett declined into kidney failure and underwent a caesarean section for the delivery of her daughter, Tristan. In the following week, the child suffered from numerous conditions, many of which were linked to kidney and liver damage. She suffered a pulmonary hemorrhage, oxygen deprivation and seizures a week later and it was determined that Tristan had sustained permanent and substantial neurological damage. The Bennetts filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and treating physicians.

According to the Court, the NICA Plan was created in 1988 "as a means to alleviate the high costs of medical malpractice insurance for physicians practicing obstetrics." The plan provides compensation, on a no-fault basis, for a limited class of birth-related neurological injuries. Coverage is specifically limited to "birthrelated neurological injury":

injury to the brain or spinal cord of a live infant. . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice in Childbirth and the Limits of Florida's NICA Coverage - Bennett v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc., et al" »

The statutory cap on punitive damages in Florida medical malpractice cases remains intact - at least for the time being - thanks to a recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida's cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages, ruling that the statute under which it was enacted does not violate the U.S Constitution. However, the court opted to certify the question of whether the cap violates the Florida Constitution to the state supreme court.

Michelle McCall died in February 2006, shortly after giving birth via cesarean section at the Eglin Air Force Base hospital in southwest Florida. McCall's estate, parents and husband sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80.

After a two-day bench trial, the District Court found the United States liable under the FTCA because the negligence of its employees proximately caused Ms. McCall's death. The District Court found that the plaintiffs' compensatory damages, or financial losses, amounted to $980,462.40 and punitive, or noneconomic damages, totaled $2 million. Because Florida Statute § 766.118(2) limits the recovery of noneconomic damages in a medical malpractice case to $1 million, the court capped these damages accordingly.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the statutory cap violates the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment and constitutes a taking in violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. They additionally asserted that the cap violates various provisions of the Florida Constitution: (1) the guarantee of separation of powers in Article II, § 3 and Article V, § 1; (2) the right to trial by jury under Article I, § 22; (3) the right of access to the courts under Article I, § 21; (4) the right to equal protection under Article I, § 2; and (5) the prohibition against a taking of property without just compensation under Article X, § 6.

Continue reading "Capping Punitive Damages in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases - Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States" »

In hospital lingo, medical errors and preventable infections are called "adverse events." In legal lingo, the term "medical malpractice" is used to describe an act of professional negligence by a health care provider in which the provider deviates from commonly accepted standards of practice, and that deviation results in injury or death to a patient. From a legal perspective, adverse events are not always equivalent to actionable medical malpractice because adverse events sometimes occur even when the hospital staff exercised the utmost diligence.

A new study published in the medical journal Health Affairs shows that about one out of every three people admitted into a hospital encounter some type of adverse event during their stay. The findings of this study suggest that incidents of medical malpractice are actually much higher than previously estimated.

Previous studies that addressed adverse events in hospitals relied heavily on voluntary methods of data collection. In other words, hospitals were trusted to accurately report on their own medical errors. The Health Affairs study used a new method to collect data, and according to the study, the actual frequency of medical errors in hospitals is ten times higher than what the federal government and hospitals had previously reported.

The editor-in-chief of Health Affairs commented on the recently published study and said, "Without a doubt, we've seen improvements in health care over the past decade, but overall progress has been agonizingly slow." The American Hospital Association (AHA) responded to the study by saying that hospitals "are dedicated to improving patient quality and safety." According to the AHA, the Health Affairs study "offers new insights that hospitals can use for quality improvements."

In related news, the US Department of Health and Human Services recently launched a new on-line tool to help patients choose and compare different health care facilities. At hospitalcompare.hhs.gov, consumers can review patient satisfaction data for local hospitals. For example, a patient contemplating a surgical procedure can compare local hospitals and hopefully make an informed decision about where to seek medical care based on data collected from previous patients. Data is currently available for dozens of Broward County health care facilities.

Continue reading "New Study Finds that Medical Errors are Grossly Underreported; On-line Tool Makes it Easy for Floridians to Compare Healthcare Facilities " »