California Medical Malpractice Law Blog

President Obama is weighing the suggestions of the insurance industry to mandate that all claims against health care providers go before a "health court". Though no one seems to know with any certainty what a "health court" would look like, most believe that it would be modeled after the workers compensation system. The health courts would apply universal standards of care to each case, which proponents of the system argue will result in a consistent results. Those in favor of the system also contend that it will weed out frivilous lawsuits better than the current system. Those opposing the health courts point out that there are very few frivilous lawsuits against health care providers, that developing universal standards of care would be impractical, and that the jury system is the fairest forum for justice for patients and health care providers. There are fewer claims being filed against health care providers in most jurisdictions, and the jury verdicts have remained nearly the same over the years, which has lead some to question the need for health courts and the abdiction of the right to trial by jury.

San Francisco Superior Court presiding Judge James McBride recently told local attorneys that "We're burning the hull of the ship to keep the boiler running." This comment was in response to a projected $10.7 million budget deficit for the next fiscal year. The court has frozen hiring, cut off travel and it's reserves are low. Many courts across the state, including San Francisco Superior, have implemented mandatory furlough days which typically close each court room for one day per month. The concern among the local bar is that the budget crisis could result in additional furlough days and the closure of civil departments. That would delay or even preclude justice for every aggreived person or business who is seeking to be made whole by the negligent or intentional misconduct of others.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that a Harvard study has found that the legal system successfully weeds out claims against health care professionals that have no merit. This comes as a surprise to the American Medical Association, and other medical groups and insurance companies, who have long contended that the laws regarding the liability of health care professionals are too liberal and that tort reform is necessary.

The study was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, found that 90% of all claims against health care professionals involved a severe injury; 26% of those resulted in death and 80% in disability. The study reported that 63% of the injuries were due to the negligence of a medical professional and that the overwhelming majority of those claims thought to be without merit did not result in compensation.

This study, which some believe is another nail in the coffin of tort reform, substantiates what plaintiff and defense lawyers have known for a long time; that tort reform is a response to a campaign of misinformation orchestrated by insurance companies that gives preference to insurance company profits over the rights of health care professionals to affordable insurance and the rights of those they inadvertently injure.

California enacted the Medical Compensation Reform Act (MIRCA) in 1975 that, among other things, limited pain and suffering awards against health care providers to $250,000. The damage limitations of MICRA will likely not apply to those who have been injured as a result of Kaiser’s alleged failure to properly administrate their kidney transplant service.

California Civil Code § 3428 states that a health care service plan or managed care entity, such as Kaiser, has a duty of ordinary care to “arrange for the provision of medically necessary health care service to its subscribers and enrollees…” California Civil Code § 3428 (j) states that damages recoverable for a violation of this statute are not limited by MICRA.

Practically speaking, this means that for those who lost family members, or were otherwise seriously injured, as a consequence of Kaiser’s alleged misadministration of their transplant service, their pain and suffering damages will truly reflect their actual losses and not be limited by the draconian measures of MICRA.

In response to patient protests, California HMO regulators announced on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 that they will oversee Kaiser Permanente’s kidney transplant unit in San Francisco in an effort reduce undue delays in facilitating kidney transplants. Presently more than 2,000 Northern California Kaiser patients are waiting for kidney transplants. Kaiser patients have reported considerable delays in obtaining kidneys; delays which are allegedly caused by lost paperwork, poor communication with staff members and problems transferring their seniority from other institutions. At a recent news conference, Cindy Ehnes, the director of the state Department of Managed Health Care referred to a statistic that showed that more than twice as many patients on Kaiser’s transplant waiting list had died than had received new organs.

It is presently unknown if patients have died, or were seriously injured, as a result of these alleged administrative problems at Kaiser. Those who were injured, and possibly their families, may have statutory rights under the laws of the state of California and should consider seeking legal advice.

Medical providers are supposed to offer us care and support during our most critical moments. While most medical providers do offer excellent care that will help us to heal, some providers do not hold themselves to a requisite standard of care. When these medical professionals fall below this standard of care, they may be guilty of medical malpractice. San Francisco law firm Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell represent clients who have been injured due to the negligent or wrongful actions of a medical provider.

Physicians, nurses, all members of hospital staff, and any other individuals providing care to a patient may be guilty of medical malpractice. Our San Francisco attorneys have represented clients who have suffered devastating injuries due to the actions or inaction of a variety of medical professionals. Medical malpractice can include unsanitary or unclean conditions, negligent care, surgical mistakes, hospital mistakes, failure to diagnose, nursing home abuse, and many other issues.

It is important to remember that not every unfavorable outcome following medical treatment is a case of medical malpractice. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell encourage potential clients to ask themselves the following questions:

Is the patient’s condition significantly worse now, following treatment?
Are the symptoms the patient experienced following treatment commonly associated with the medical procedure he or she underwent?
Is the physician able to give a satisfactory explanation for the patient’s symptoms?
If your physician cannot answer your questions satisfactorily, you may have been a victim of medical malpractice. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell encourage you to contact a medical malpractice attorney at our firm today.

Pediatric Meningitis
Failure to Diagnose – Cardiac & Cancer
Radiation Injury
Anesthesia Injury
Suicide
Kaiser Medical Malpractice

$9.9 million - Confidential largest medical malpractice settlement in California history; involved cardiac death of young executive.

Our wrongful death attorneys in San Francisco recently settled a case involving the death of an athletic 38-year-old executive, who stopped at a clinic on his way to the airport complaining of exert ional and resting chest "tightness," which was relieved by Advil. The EKG was normal; there were no cardiac risk factors. The doctor diagnosed chest muscle strain and allowed the decedent to fly on to Colorado and then Mexico. He died 7 days after the clinic visit. Unfortunately, his tissue was severely decomposed when it was returned to the United States. There was no evidence of myocardic infarction, but there was an 85% sclerotic lesion in the right coronary artery and congenital narrowing of the left coronary artery. We contended that the decedent died of myocardio- ischemia. Defendants argued that the decedent appeared healthy and in no distress and therefore the clinic symptoms were not cardiac and his death was probably from some other cause. Our wrongful death attorneys believe that this is the largest pre-judgment medical malpractice settlement in California history.