Don’t make the mistake of believing that this Virginia medical malpractice lawsuit is isolated – there are many more like it where the victims are robbed by the med mal cap, including the cases of Hector Alvarez and Rita Talbert.

Medical malpractice plaintiffs end up becoming victims twice.  They are first victimized by the negligence of their medical providers, but then they become victims again when their compensation is limited.

Liability caps are impacting the people who are hurt by medical malpractice and their family members. It is so frustrating to hear about cases where a jury decided, based on the evidence and arguments presented, what amount should be awarded, only to have the amount often cut in half.

You can read more about Virginia medical malpractice lawsuits in Ben Glass’s book, Why Most Medical Malpractice Victims Never Recover a Dime.

If you and your family would like the benefits of tort reform you can use this official volunteer for tort reform form.

Barry Taylor, Johnson’s attorney, said that she also suffered brain damage and can no longer work.  Previously, Johnson worked as a secretary and bookkeeper.  Based on the evidence presented in trial, she now has significant cognitive impairment and short-term memory loss.

Johnson’s medical bills reached $167,000 and her lost wages, which are based on her life expectancy, are estimated at $340,000.

The Circuit Court jury concluded that Johnson’s debilitating stroke was caused by the complications of the undiagnosed diverticulitis.  She was awarded $2.5 million, when only $2 million was requested.  However, due to Virginia’s cap on medical malpractice damages, $850,000 was taken from Johnson, reducing her award to $1,650,000.

Johnson isn’t the only victim who has been robbed of money in which the jury felt they were entitled. Hector Alvarez’s family was deprived of $1.15 million, after a jury awarded nearly $3 million in the undiagnosed perforated esophagus case.   What about Rita Talbert?  She was robbed of $2.25 million after a jury heard her case about being burned by a flash fire in the operating room.

Read the article, Tort Reform in Virginia? Another Robbery, to learn more about Carol Johnson’s case.

We are investigating a claim right now involving a Fredericksburg, Virginia orthopedist who:

1. decided to do an operation to remove a small lipoma on the back of our client’s shoulder;
2. once the surgery started he couldn’t figure out whether he was supposed to be operating on the front or the back;
3. he thought about canceling the surgery because he couldn’t figure it out and, since the patient was already anesthetized, he couldn’t ask her;
4. he decided against canceling the surgery and, instead relied on his “memory” of what the MRI said (he was wrong and the report telling him he was wrong was right in the file);
5. He then went and got the MRI, but misread it;
6. He went ahead and operated on the wrong side of the shoulder and when he couldn’t find the lipoma he get digging deeper and deeper;
7. He finished the operation and never did what he was supposed to do.

The patient ended up with one unnecessary surgery, lots of bruising, unnecessary scarring and needing additional care in the form of physical therapy;

(By the way, all of the above comes from the doctor’s own notes, not anything we are “guessing” about.)

The next day, during an office visit, he apologized to the patient, admitted he was wrong and offered to do the right surgery when he got back from vacation (which he was leaving for the next week.) –she’s no fool, though…what he did was very, very dangerous and she opted to have the lipoma removed later by a general surgeon (why was an orthopedic surgeon removing a lipoma anyway?)

This young lady did everything right. She made a very reasonable proposal to the doctor’s insurance company.

How–you say–could they possibly deny this claim.

They did. In a terse letter that explained nothing, the doctor’s insurance, company, (one that prides itself on taking every single case all the way through trial) said “we didn’t do anything wrong.”

The next time you see anyone writing anything about tort reform and plaintiff’s lawyers and “opportunistic patients” please drive them to this blog and get them to comment. I’d love to hear what they have to say about this.

By the way, we’ll release the name of this doctor once we file the case. We’ll also be filing a complaint with the Virginia Board of Medicine.. Again, by this doctor’s own words, he engaged in a very, very dangerous activity by starting a surgery he knew he should have canceled.

This law made plaintiffs submit a “Certificate of Merit” with any lawsuit that alleged medical malpractice.  The “Certificate of Merit” document had to be signed by a medical professional who possessed expertise in the defendant’s field.  When a doctor signs the Certificate, he or she is in essence saying that the feeling is that the standard of care was violated in some way.  In a medical malpractice case, it has to be shown that the standard of care was violated and that this violation was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

According to the court’s opinion, mandating that plaintiffs have to produce evidence before discovery, which is the time period that both sides trade documents and information, put an undue burden on the plaintiffs.  Also, the court decided that this requirement passed by the legislation interfered too much with the judicial branch and access to the courts, making it unconstitutional.

There is a lot of talk by politicians regarding tort reform.  It is crucial to understand that when they are talking about tort reform, they are basically talking about removing patients’ rights.

Michael died at home in his bed and the medical examiner determined that his cause of death was an accidental overdose.  Seattle Children’s Hospital admitted that it made an error and apologized.  The hospital also said that it has changed its procedures.

Michael’s mother, Tammy Jarbo-Blankenship, had a valid point when she said that Michael shouldn’t have had to die for the hospital to put safeguards in place to make sure this type of situation doesn’t happen.

The tragic case of Michael Blankenship makes one think about all the debate over tort reform. Basically, national tort reform would tell the Blankenship family “tough luck.”    People have made the argument about the government imposing a “cap” on medical malpractice damages.  Should the government decide how much Michael’s life was worth without knowing the details about this young boy or his family?  It should be left up to a jury to make this decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed the surgeon’s appeal because the appeal had not been filed on time. What is not discussed in the Supreme Court’s opinion is how Virginia’s “tort reform” laws stole $2.25 million from Rita Talbert.

In April 2005 Ms. Talbert entered Alexandria Hospital for simple outpatient surgery. Many operations later and after incurring over $500,000 in medical bills she filed suit against the surgeon, the hospital, and the anesthesiologist after a flash fire caused severe burns.

A jury in Alexandria (known for conservative verdicts) awarded her $4 million as full and fair compensation for her injuries. However Virginia has its own version of “tort reform” which determined even before the case was filed that the maximum recovery from his Talbert would be $1.75 million.

In Virginia it makes no difference how bad your injury or whether or not your medical bills will bankrupt you. The insurance lobby has been highly successful in imposing an unfair total cap on damages.

Ms. Talbert settled with other defendants for $710,000 and proceeded to trial against Dr. Hutchins who refused to settle.

You can read more about this operating room fire and the verdict against the surgeon here.

Here is another website with information about surgical fires.