Medical Malpractice

January 17, 2020

How one woman’s tragic battle with uterine cancer saved an untold number of women from a similar fate

FDA-300x221 On May 23, 2017, Dr. Amy J. Reed, an anesthesiologist and mother of six children, passed away in her home at the age of 44. Her life was cut short by an aggressive form of uterine cancer, leiomyosarcoma. For her husband, the tragedy of her early death is entwined with regret and anger, as the two of them fought not only Stage IV leiomyosarcoma, but an intractable profession and the industry which profits from its practice.

At the age of 40, Dr. Reed was diagnosed with uterine fibroids. Fibroids are masses of the smooth muscle cells lining the inside of the uterus. Although fibroids are generally considered benign, their presence can cause serious discomfort and pain in the pelvic area. To treat her condition, Dr. Reed underwent a hysterectomy. She chose to have the procedure performed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston—the hospital is affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, where both Dr. Reed and her husband, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm both held teaching positions.

After her surgery, the tissue was removed, and a biopsy was performed. The tissue contained leiomyosarcoma cells, an extremely aggressive form of uterine cancer. Although the biopsy revealed that the cancer cells had been confined to a very small area within a fibroid, the procedure through which the fibroids were removed seeded malignant cells throughout her abdomen. The dissemination of cancer cells caused her cancer to accelerate to Stage IV. The five-year survival rate for patients diagnosed with Stage IV leiomyosarcoma is only 14%.

March 13, 2019

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rejects Late-Filed Claim Despite Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: vchal / Shutterstock.com

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently issued a decision discussing whether a plaintiff could file an asbestos claim beyond the time period set forth in the statute in cases involving diseases with extended latency periods. In this case, the claim was filed after a man died in 2016 of mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos when he working on the construction of two nuclear power plants in the 1970s. If you or a loved one was similarly exposed, reach out to a Massachusetts medical malpractice attorney.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff came into contact with asbestos between 1971 and 1978, and received his diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in April 2015. In August 2015, he filed a claim alleging that General Electric had negligently exposed him to asbestos. General Electric designed and manufactured certain parts in the plant, and used insulation materials containing asbestos.

Under Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 260, section 2B, there is a six-year statute of repose for tort claims arising out of a deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction, or general administration of an improvement to real property. The statute states that tort claims cannot be filed more than six years after the earlier of the following dates: 1) “the opening of the improvement to use,” or 2) “substantial completion of the improvement and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner.”

August 22, 2018

Massachusetts Appeals Court Hears $30+ Million Medical Malpractice Case

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: vchal / Shutterstock.com

After a jury awarded over $35 million to a woman in a medical malpractice case (later reduced to $32.5 million), the defendant appealed the verdict on a number of grounds. This case involves a woman who was a marathon runner and exercise class instructor who complained of dizziness. An MRI revealed that she had a “venous varix” in her brain, which is similar to an aneurysm. However, this was not found to be the cause of her dizziness. Her primary care doctor, an employee of the defendant, received a copy of this MRI but never noted the venous varix on her problem list.

A few years later she became pregnant. Since her obstetrician did not know about her venous varix, and she had no way of knowing it was relevant, she did not have a Caesarian section as recommended for people with the condition and instead gave birth naturally. Some hours after giving birth she suffered a debilitating headache and went into a coma for a month. After the coma her left side was paralyzed and she now has difficulty chewing, swallowing, and speaking. She will most likely need 24/7 care for the rest of her life. Based on these facts, at the initial trial the jury awarded her $35 million which was later reduced due to a calculation error. The hospital appealed.

August 15, 2018

Massachusetts Court Holds No Duty of Care to Psychiatric Patient’s Neighbor

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Stokkete / Shutterstock.com

The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently decided a case about the duty of care that psychiatrists and psychiatric hospitals have to people who may be harmed by current or former patients. Specifically, in this case a man was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital after acting bizarrely and making threats of violence toward family members. After he was released from the hospital he murdered his neighbor. This claim was brought as a wrongful death claim by the family of the neighbor. The neighbor’s family alleged that the hospital and the man’s psychiatrist were liable for wrongful death by negligently letting the man leave the hospital. If you have been injured or a loved one was killed due to the acts of another, you should contact a knowledgeable Massachusetts wrongful death attorney as soon as possible. You may be able to hold the wrongdoers accountable for their actions.

Involuntary Hospitalization

November 20, 2017

Massachusetts District Court Refuses to Amend Complaint in Medical Malpractice Case

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff, in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of a victim, brought a Massachusetts nursing home negligence action against Park, Marion, and Vernon Streets Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Brookline Health Care Center (BHCC), and John Doe Physicians and Jane Doe Nurses. As alleged in the complaint, as a result of the defendants’ negligence, the victim choked to death when she was left unsupervised to eat in the dayroom of the assisted living facility in which she resided.The victim was admitted to BHCC in April 2012 for nursing care and rehabilitation after a hospitalization for seizures and falls, and she remained there until her death in May 2014. Throughout this period, she was deemed to be at risk for falls. Her medical records also indicated that she was on a soft diet, customized for her diabetes, and at variable times during her residency at the facility, she required continual supervision while eating, since she was at risk for aspiration. On the morning of May 7, 2014, a resident in the day room alerted the nurses to help the victim, who was holding her chest and in distress. A nurse’s note later in the day said that the victim was seen holding her neck and tapping on her chest and that she became unresponsive as she was being assessed by staff.

When ambulance personnel attempted to insert an endoctracheal tube, they had to remove a silver dollar-sized piece of food before they were able to successfully intubate her. The victim was pronounced dead upon her arrival at Beth Israel Hospital. The cause of death was respiratory distress, secondary to aspiration.

Suit was originally filed in Norfolk Superior Court in February 2017. BHCC removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in May 2017, alleging that this court had diversity jurisdiction. (Diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court in the federal judiciary has the power to hear a civil case when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and when the persons that are parties are “diverse” in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens.)

September 14, 2017

State Appeals Court Upholds Verdict in Drug Overdose Case

by Neumann Law Group

In a medical malpractice action not unlike some Massachusetts medical malpractice cases, the defendant Emergency Medicine Physicians of New London County, LLC, appealed from the judgment of the trial court after a jury verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and award of noneconomic damages. Specifically, it claimed that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence for the jury (1) to find that the defendant’s negligence caused the death of the decedent, and (2) to award $150,000 in damages for the destruction of the decedent’s capacity to carry on and enjoy life’s activities. The Connecticut Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.On November 29, 2008, the decedent was found unresponsive and was brought to a hospital emergency department, where she was treated for a suspected drug overdose by the attending emergency department physician. After the decedent’s vital signs improved and stabilized, she was discharged and returned to the home of a friend, where she was found unresponsive the next morning and was pronounced deceased.

The plaintiff alleged that the hospital was vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of the doctor in treating the decedent for a suspected drug overdose. The plaintiff claimed that the doctor’s discharge of the decedent after only four and one-half hours of observation was premature in that the doctor should have kept the decedent under medical monitoring for 24 hours, which is the period of time during which the fatal side effects of methadone toxicity may occur. If the decedent had remained under medical monitoring for the full 24 hours, the fatal overdose side effects she experienced after her discharge would have been treated, and her eventual death from methadone toxicity would have been averted.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the doctor appealed. The hospital claimed that there was no direct evidence as to when the decedent consumed the fatal dose of methadone, and the undisputed scientific evidence established that if she had actually overdosed on methadone on November 29, 2008, she would have had a recurrence of overdose symptoms before she was discharged from the hospital’s emergency department.

June 21, 2017

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling for Defendant in Medical Malpractice Case

by Neumann Law Group

A patient sued a hospital and a clinical care nurse for medical malpractice after the nurse inserted a catheter to drain his urine during and after his surgery, allegedly causing injuries. At trial, the plaintiff sought to offer the testimony of a registered nurse regarding the proper standard of care. The trial court concluded that the nurse was not a similar health care provider as required by the statute pertaining to the qualifications of expert witnesses in medical malpractice actions, and it granted the hospital’s motion to preclude the nurse’s testimony. The trial court thereafter granted the hospital’s motion for a directed verdict because the patient had failed to establish the requisite standard of care for treatment.On appeal, the patient claimed that the trial court erred in precluding the nurse’s testimony and directing the verdict for the hospital. The Connecticut Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

March 15, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Verdict for Defendant Doctor in Infant Wrongful Death Case

by Neumann Law Group

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently rejected arguments by a couple who lost a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit involving the 2009 death of their infant child. They filed suit against a doctor and a nurse in 2010 for the loss of their late daughter, who died three days after her birth.The mother made headlines in April 2011 after she went public with allegations that she was being discriminated against after she was notified one week after her daughter’s death that her job at the state Department of Higher Education was being eliminated. According to reports, the family’s house went into foreclosure, and the family lost their health insurance. Adding insult to injury, in April 2014, a Suffolk Superior Court jury returned a verdict for the doctor and the nurse.

February 13, 2017

Massachusetts Patient Files Lawsuit Over Potent Painkiller

by Neumann Law Group

A woman in Rochester filed suit last month in Strafford County Superior Court for medical negligence and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act after becoming highly addicted to the potent painkiller Subsys, which is stronger than morphine and heroin.Her Portsmouth attorney filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in Strafford County Superior Court. Among the defendants, the lawsuit names a physician’s assistant who treated and prescribed painkillers to the woman from the fall of 2012 to the summer of 2015. The center that prescribed the medication is also listed as a defendant. Finally, Colby is suing the drug’s maker, Insys Therapeutics.

January 10, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Allows Medical Malpractice Case to Move Forward

by Neumann Law Group

Gena Paretchan brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Edward Kwasnik, a surgeon who performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on her, and Dr. Gaurav Sharma, a surgical resident who assisted Dr. Krasnik during the procedure. Paretchan experienced complications for a month after the procedure with repeat hospital visits, tests, and ultimately a surgery to repair a bile duct disruption. A medical malpractice tribunal determined that the offer of proof was insufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability as to both defendants. After Paretchan failed to post a bond, and judgment was entered for the defendants, Paretchan appealed. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment for the defendants.Before considering the lower court’s decision, the appeals court reviewed the facts of the case. Paretchan had a history of symptomatic gallstones with multiple attacks. In October 2012, the defendants performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove her gallbladder. Her worsening abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting after discharge led Paretchan to seek medical attention, including multiple emergency room visits. An exploratory laparotomy was subsequently performed, and a right anterior bile duct disruption was found. Paretchan underwent surgery to repair this injury.