Indiana Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Patient safety researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine claim an estimated 80,000 preventable medical errors were made in hospitals across the nation between 1990 and 2010. Researchers from the school reportedly reviewed and analyzed national medical malpractice claims in order to determine that a foreign object is left inside of a patient about 39 times each week, the wrong procedure is performed on a patient approximately 20 times per week, and an incorrect body part is operated on an estimated 20 times each week. The research, led by Dr. Marty Makary, an Associate Professor of Surgery at the medical school, is allegedly the first time the nationwide rate of preventable surgical errors was analyzed.

According to Dr. Makary, the medical mistake estimates that researchers recently published in the journal Surgery are likely on the low side as many preventable medical errors are never discovered or are not reported. As part of the study, Dr. Makary and his team analyzed medical malpractice claims listed in the federal National Practitioner Data Bank. Researchers then reportedly worked to identify judgments and settlements related to preventable mistakes such as operating on the wrong body part. Dr. Makary and his team allegedly identified almost 10,000 medical malpractice judgments totaling about $1.3 billion that resulted from preventable medical errors. Approximately 33 percent of the patients identified suffered a permanent injury and nearly seven percent died as a result of the alleged hospital mistake. The researchers then extrapolated the data to estimate that more than 4,000 preventable surgical mistakes are made every year across the nation.

Dr. Makary stated the National Practitioner Data Bank was the best resource available for his research because the nature of the data collected suggests that most medical malpractice claims included are legitimate. According to Dr. Makary, the majority of preventable surgical mistakes are fairly easy to prove and generally result in few frivolous lawsuits. In addition, hospitals are legally required to report preventable medical errors like those examined by researchers to the database.

Although Dr. Makary admits that some health care mistakes will never disappear, he reportedly believes the study demonstrates that more work needs to be done with regard to addressing preventable medical errors. Current patient safety procedures, mandatory operating room timeouts, and written surgical checklists are allegedly not enough to ensure preventable surgical errors are avoided. Researchers reportedly believe surgical mistakes should be publicly reported in order to provide both surgeons and hospitals with an increased level of accountability.

Continue reading "Study Claims Too Many Patients are Injured by Preventable Surgical Mistakes in Indiana and Nationwide" »

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a heated case between a Medicaid recipient and the State of North Carolina. In Delia v. E.M.A., a child born in February 2000 suffered extensive damages including blindness, deafness, and cerebral palsy in connection with her birth. According to her parents, the child, Emily Armstrong, was the victim of medical negligence. The obstetrician who delivered Emily, Dr. James A. Barnes Jr., reportedly had a history of prescription drug abuse and he voluntarily gave up his license to practice medicine three months after Emily was born. Due in large part to the severity of Emily's medical needs following her birth, she became a recipient of federal Medicaid insurance administered by the State of North Carolina.

In 2003, Emily's parents sued Barnes, the hospital at which Emily was born, and a number of other entities for medical malpractice. In 2006, the family settled the case for $2.8 million. Officials in North Carolina subsequently placed a lien on one-third of the settlement pursuant to a state law. The state placed the lien in an effort to recoup a portion of the estimated $1.9 million North Carolina purportedly spent on Emily's medical care prior to the award. Emily's family then challenged the North Carolina law by stating it conflicted with a federal Medicaid law that forbids a state government from placing a lien on a recipient's property.

Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Medicaid Act's property protections only apply to those portions of a medical malpractice settlement that are not meant to reimburse a patient's medical costs. Unfortunately, the settlement in Emily's case failed to specify what portion of the funds were based on the child's medical expenses and what monies were awarded for other damages such as pain and suffering. According to North Carolina officials, the state should be allowed to determine how much of the settlement may be taken for Medicaid reimbursement.

The outcome of the case could have a dramatic effect on how states may claim money awarded to Medicaid beneficiaries following medical malpractice injuries. North Carolina and other state officials are reportedly concerned that if the case is decided in Emily's favor, future medical malpractice settlements may be structured in a way that prevents states from seeking any reimbursement from Medicaid recipients. Eleven states have purportedly filed a formal brief in support of North Carolina's position. The U.S. Department of Justice and the AARP have reportedly sided with Emily's family.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Hears Medical Malpractice Settlement Case that May Affect Medicaid Recipients in Indiana and Nationwide" »

A Virginia jury recently awarded $3.5 million to an 87-year-old woman who was reportedly hurt in 2006 when she fell from a hospital bed following hip surgery. Shirley Burrell allegedly became permanently disabled after falling from her bed while a patient at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News. Burrell purportedly sustained a severe hip fracture and suffered a stroke after the fall.

In her lawsuit, Burrell claimed that hospital staff failed to implement the proper safety measures to protect the allegedly high risk patient from falling. The case claims Burrell should have been moved to a room that was closer to a nurse's station, soft restraints should have been used on the elderly woman, or member of the hospital's staff should have been placed in her room to watch her. Nurses treating Burrell also reportedly failed to utilize a bed alarm designed to alert them to patient falls because the electronic system was too sensitive and sometimes provided false positives. In addition, Burrell's complaint accused the hospital of failing to address a high patient fall rate that has purportedly existed at the facility for many years.

According to Burrell's attorney, elderly patients are frequently injured in falls at hospitals and skilled nursing facilities throughout the nation. He said the verdict sends a message to healthcare facilities across the country that seniors must be protected and are not disposable. A prepared statement issued by Riverside Regional Medical Center stated the hospital is currently considering whether to appeal the jury's verdict.

Fall injuries sustained by senior adults are often quite serious. Data from the nation's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states one in three Americans over the age of 65 falls each year. In addition, preventable falls are reportedly the leading cause of severe injury and death for elderly Americans. Falls may cause broken bones, traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord trauma, and even death. In 2010, approximately 2.3 million senior citizens across the country were treated in a hospital emergency room for an injury sustained in a fall and at least 662,000 were admitted for further treatment. During the previous year, more than 20,000 elderly individuals reportedly died as a result of an injury sustained in a fall.

Unfortunately, the injuries suffered as a result of hospital or healthcare facility neglect can be serious and life-altering. In the State of Indiana, medical professionals must provide all patients with a level of care that meets the accepted standards of practice for their profession. When a physician, nurse, pharmacist, dentist, hospital, long-term care facility, or other medical provider fails to meet that standard of care and a patient is injured, a negligence claim may arise. If you or a loved one was hurt while being treated at healthcare facility in Indiana, you are advised to contact a skilled personal injury attorney to discuss your case.

Continue reading "Hospital Negligence May Lead to Serious Fall Injuries for Senior Citizens in Indiana and Nationwide" »

Despite that an estimated 98,000 people die as a result of medical mistakes made in United States hospitals every year, such stories rarely make headlines. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, about one-fourth of all patients who enter a hospital in the U.S. will be harmed by a medical error. Each week, American surgeons reportedly operate on the wrong patient body part as many as 40 times, and errors made by health care professionals kill enough patients to fill four jumbo jets. According to researchers, between 20 and 30 percent of all medical tests and treatments performed throughout the nation are unnecessary. Additionally, medical errors reportedly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars per year.

Too often, the same reportedly preventable medical errors are made time after time with deadly consequences. Accountability in American hospitals appears lacking and it is difficult for patients to assess the overall safety record of each medical institution that may treat them. Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital, believes U.S. hospitals should be more transparent with regard to safety. American doctors allegedly overlook the mistakes of their colleagues quite often. Instead of using reported mistakes as a learning opportunity, Dr. Makary said hospitals and doctors shun or punish whistleblowers. He stated many new technologies available to hospitals and physicians should be used to track and report hospital safety.

One technology that by hospitals could use to increase safety transparency is an online dashboard. Online informational dashboards that report infection and readmission rates, surgical complications, and other medical mistakes would make it possible for patients to become more informed consumers. Additionally, such technology may report patient satisfaction scores, and the number and type of surgeries performed at an institution each year. According to Dr. Makary, public reporting can have a dramatic impact on a hospital's response to patient safety issues.

Hospitals may also increase patient safety by analyzing the institution's culture of safety. For example, a survey of 60 hospitals found that in facilities where the staff believes they work as a team with co-workers, mistakes and patient infection rates are reportedly lower. Dr. Makary stated good teamwork has a direct correlation with patient care and safety.

Another technology that may be used to improve patient safety in hospitals across the country is video cameras. Not only are doctors reportedly more likely to comply with best practices on camera, video of medical mistakes may assist administrators in altering hospital policies to ensure such errors do not occur again. Additionally, video of routine surgeries may be utilized as training tools and evaluated by peers in order to improve the quality of care provided to patients. Video may also serve to supplement the often limited notes in a patient's chart.

Allowing patients to view their medical notes may also increase a doctor's effectiveness. When physicians provide patients with access to their written files, misunderstandings and mistakes may be more easily corrected before they impact safety. Additionally, such transparency may help patients to ask important follow-up questions about procedures or other treatments. Too often, patients are reportedly asked to refrain from discussing medical mistakes. According to Dr. Makary, increased accountability for both doctors and hospitals is necessary in order to decrease often deadly medical errors.

Medical professionals in Indiana have a responsibility to provide a level of care that meets the accepted standards of practice for their profession. When a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, dentist, or other medical provider fails to meet that standard of care and a patient is injured, a medical malpractice claim may arise.

Continue reading "Increased Transparency and Accountability Could Reduce Medical Mistakes in Indiana Hospitals " »

Last week, the Supreme Court of Missouri struck down a 2005 state law that limited the amount of non-economic damages a jury may award in medical malpractice cases. In a 4-3 decision, the Court stated the $350,000 limit imposed on damages for pain and suffering violated a patient's right to a jury trial.

In Watts v. Cox Medical Centers, et al., a Springfield mother filed a lawsuit after her son sustained catastrophic brain damage during his birth. A jury determined the hospital's delay in providing Deborah Watts with an emergency Caesarian section caused her son's brain injury and awarded the new mother almost $5 million as a result. The jury's $1.45 million non-economic damages award was reduced, however, pursuant to the 2005 law. Watts subsequently appealed her son's case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Chief Justice Richard B. Teitelman said the Court's decision to strike down the so-called tort reform law will ensure that Watts' son will receive the benefit of the jury's decision to provide compensation for his future medical expenses and care.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry expressed disappointment with the Court's decision. Missouri House Judiciary Committee Chairman Stanley Cox said the state Supreme Court's holding was a reversal of an earlier decision that held a damages cap does not violate an individual's right to a jury trial. In response to the decision, some Missouri legislators stated they would consider asking voters to reinstate the medical malpractice caps through a constitutional amendment. Senator Rob Schaaf said a constitutional amendment would also prevent the possibility of a veto by the current Governor.

In contrast, Tim Dollar, President of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, applauded the high court's decision. Both patient advocates and plaintiff's attorneys believe the non-economic damages cap unfairly targets children and the elderly who do not normally receive an award for lost wages following a catastrophic injury. Although the average number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed since the 2005 law was passed has decreased from 847 per year to 643, the number of jury verdicts in favor of Missouri plaintiffs remained steady at one percent. Additionally, the Missouri Foundation for Health reported the damages cap failed to reduce health care costs in the state. Attorney Jeffrey Herman believes fewer medical mistakes may result from a lack of a damages cap as physicians and other health care providers will have an increased incentive to be cautious when providing patient care.

Many states have passed a variety of so-called tort reform laws that include an arbitrary cap for non-economic damages. Non-economic damages normally include pain and suffering, grief, loss of companionship and other injuries that are not easily calculable. In 1975, the State of Indiana placed a cap on all damages caused by medical malpractice. Despite the cap, the cost of health care in the state has continued to increase at an alarming rate.

Continue reading "Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Malpractice Damages Cap " »

In the 1920's, pasteurization, or heating, of milk became a widespread practice. The heating process destroys harmful bacteria and other pathogens that may cause sickness such as gastroenteritis, miscarriage in pregnant women, and death. At present, thirty states have implemented a variety of laws to allow raw milk sales.

The sale of unpasteurized milk in Indiana is currently prohibited. In fact, it is only legal to drink raw milk in the state if you own the animal the milk came from. Near the end of the recent spring legislative session, however, Indiana lawmakers instructed the state Board of Animal Health to design a management plan for raw, unpasteurized milk. The Board is currently accepting public comments regarding the issue.

Public health officials in Indiana are reportedly concerned the State Legislature's request means unpasteurized milk will likely be legalized in the future. According to Indiana Public Health Veterinarian Jennifer House, unpasteurized milk offers no additional health benefits and actually increases human sickness and disease. House stated prior to the widespread use of pasteurization, about one-quarter of all pathogen outbreaks in the nation were related to the consumption of raw milk. She also said many illness outbreaks related to Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli ceased after states began to require pasteurization for all milk sold in the marketplace.

Jerry Kozak, National Milk Producers Federation President, agrees with House. He stated if lawmakers pass legislation that would allow raw milk to be sold in Indiana, it would be a huge step backwards for public health. Kozak believes bypassing milk pasteurization would likely result in increased sickness and death. A 13-year study published earlier this year by the Nation's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that disease outbreaks were 150 times more likely to be caused by raw milk and milk products than pasteurized milk. The CDC also found milk-related illness outbreaks were more than twice as likely to occur in states where the sale of raw milk was legal.

Still, others argue that drinking raw milk should be a choice left up to consumers as the pasteurization process reportedly kills both harmful and beneficial bacteria. For example, one pro-biotic used to make cheese is only found in unpasteurized milk. Cheese manufacturers who use pasteurized milk must add the live bacterium to their milk products in order to produce cheddar, Colby, and Monterey Jack cheeses. Additionally, a recent study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that Amish children who regularly consume raw milk have a better immune response to asthma and allergens than farm children in Switzerland who drank only pasteurized milk.

In the State of Indiana, when someone is injured by a dangerous or defective product the manufacturer or distributor of that product may held legally responsible for any injuries or damages that result.

What are your thoughts? Should Indiana allow the sale of unpasteurized milk?

Continue reading "Debate Over Raw Milk Safety Rages in Indiana" »

Nearly 100 people were seen protesting outside the LaGrange County, Indiana Courthouse on Monday, April 9th. Ireena Keeslar was arrested March 31st on a felony charge of practicing midwifery without a license.

Indiana is one of fifteen states that prohibits Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) from delivering babies and generally prevents women from choosing mid-wife assisted home births. In Indiana, to legally practice midwifery one must qualify as a certified nurse-midwife (CNM), meaning they are a registered nurse (bachelor's degree in nursing) and have obtained a master's degree from a national accredited school of midwifery. This standard is significantly higher than that of other states, as a CNM has specialized education and training in both nursing and midwifery.

LaGrange County prosecutor's investigator said Keeslar had been a licensed nurse but let her license lapse, making her ineligible under Indiana law to perform midwifery services.

CNMs usually practice under the supervision of obstetricians and generally only assist in deliveries conducted in hospitals or clinic environments. Additionally, unlike many states, Indiana courts have held that the administration of extensive prenatal care and the performance of deliveries do constitute the practice of medicine, and thus only doctors and CNMs may legally conduct these procedures.

Due to the recognition of midwifery as the practice of medicine, it is unlawful to practice without a license and both felony criminal charges and medical malpractice actions can be brought against unlicensed midwifes. Many hospitals do not support the practice of midwifery because the malpractice insurance rates may be higher in order to cover midwives.

Advocates in favor of home-births argue that states should recognize CPMs and do away with the stricter CNM requirement for practicing midwifery. These arguments are based on a woman's constitutional right to choose among birthing options, women's right to privacy and the significant public health and economic benefits that result from greater access to midwife care.

The month of March is Brain Injury Awareness Month. "Brain Injury Awareness Month honors the millions of people with brain injury, who with proper acute care, therapeutic rehabilitation and adequate long-term supports, are living with the successes and challenges that each day brings," said Susan H. Connors, president/CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America.

The Brain Injury Association of America's mission is to be the voice of brain injury. Through advocacy, education and research, they bring help, hope and healing to millions of individuals living with brain injury, their families and the professionals who serve them.

Facts about brain injuries:

• A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a blow, jolt or bump to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain.
• 1.7 million people, including 475,000 children, sustain a TBI in the U.S. each year. 3.1 million individuals live with life-long disability as a result of TBI.
• TBIs are caused by falls (35%); car crashes (17%); workplace accidents (16%); assaults (10%); and other (21%).
• TBIs are a contributing factor to a third (30.5%) of all injury-related deaths in the U.S.
• The costs to treat brain injuries are staggering:
• Average hospital-based acute rehab is about $8,000 per day.
• Range for post-acute residential is about $850 to $2,500 per day.
• Day treatment programs (4 hours of therapy) are about $600 to $1,000 with no room/board.
• According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., direct medical costs and indirect medical costs of TBI, such as lost productivity, totaled an estimated $76.3 billion each year.

For more information about brain injuries, visit the Brain Injury Association of America's website at www.biausa.org.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered manufacturers of surgical mesh to conduct new studies of the mesh products used to treat two conditions affecting millions of women in the United States.

What is Surgical Mesh?

Surgical mesh is a woven fabric used in a variety of medical procedures. The new studies recently ordered by the FDA focus on the use of surgical mesh when used to treat two conditions: stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

Stress urinary incontinence, the most common type of urinary incontinence in women, is the unintentional loss of urine during physical activity, such as coughing, sneezing, laughing, or exercise. When stress incontinence can be the result of weakened pelvic muscles that support the bladder and urethra. When surgery is deemed an appropriate treatment, mesh slings can be surgically implanted to provide lift and support.

Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when the muscles and ligaments supporting a woman's pelvic organs weaken to the point that pelvic organs can prolapse, or slip out of place. Pelvic organs include the vagina, cervix, uterus and bladder, with the bladder being the most common organ involved in pelvic organ prolapse. Symptoms of the condition may include pelvic discomfort or pain, pressure, leakage of urine, and sexual problems. If surgery is recommended for treatment, surgical mesh can be used to provide support to the affected organ(s).

FDA Alerts

The FDA has received reports of complications that can have serious consequences as a result of mesh placement. The most frequent complications reported include erosion through the vagina, infection, pain, urinary problems, and recurrence of the prolapse and/or the incontinence. Some patients required additional surgery to address the complications.

In July of 2011, based on an updated analysis of adverse events, the FDA issued a Safety Communication to inform the medical community and patients that:

1. Serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare, and



2. It is not clear transvaginal repair pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair.

In early January, the FDA ordered 33 manufacturers of urogynecolgoic surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and 7 manufacturers of single-incision mini-slings for stress urinary incontinence to conduct new studies of their mesh products. The FDA is requiring the manufacturers to submit plans for studies that will follow women for at least three years to determine side effects and to address specific safety and effectiveness concerns related to the mesh products. The current regulatory status for mesh products for stress urinary incontinence does not require pre-market approval testing.

What Does This Mean For You?

• If your surgeon recommends surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, the FDA recommends you ask your surgeon the following questions:


• What are the pros and cons of using surgical mesh in my particular case? Can my repair be performed without using mesh?


• If a mesh is to be used, what has been your experience with implanting this particular product? What experience have your other patients had with this product?


• What's been your experience in dealing with the complications that might occur?


• What can I expect to feel after surgery and for how long?


• Are there any specific side effects I should let you know about after the surgery?


• What if the mesh doesn't correct my problem?


• If I have a complication related to the mesh, can the mesh be removed and what could the consequences be?


• If a mesh is to be used, is there patient information that comes with the product, and can I have a copy?

If you believe you have been harmed as a result of mesh implantation, contact the law firm of Wilson Kehoe Winingham. We have over 30 years of trial and litigation experience and we have achieved positive results for many clients. In addition to highly-qualified attorneys, our team includes two on-staff registered nurses and experienced paralegals and consultants. Put our resources to work for you.

The National Institute of Health has estimated that 11 million people were exposed to asbestos between the years 1940 and 1978. With the latency period for mesothelioma (the time between exposure to asbestos and onset of the disease) typically between 25 to 50 years, it is projected that asbestos related cases will peak around the year 2020. This suggests that many individuals, for whom mesothelioma currently has little meaning, will yet have to seek medical care and legal assistance to cover health-related and other expenses. In considering this, it is important that the individual fully understand why contracting with a law firm can be critical.

Much of the reason for this has to do with the aforementioned latency period. The length of time between exposure and symptom onset/diagnosis often makes identification of where the exposure occurred (and thus who is responsible) difficult. Asbestos attorneys have resources for helping plaintiffs recall such occurrences including product identification books, employee records, contact information on former co-workers, etc. Such attorneys should also have a thorough understanding of case valuation as based upon several critical factors including the type of mesothelioma and its stage at diagnosis; the plaintiff's age, gender, and work history; the plaintiff's level of pain, suffering, loss of income and ability to keep working; and the exposure/diagnosis time lapse.

Perhaps more obvious, but equally important, the attorney experienced with injury cases brings an understanding of which jurisdictions tend to be more plaintiff-friendly, the ability to compare individual's case with others he/she has handled, and a knowledge as to the reputation of the defendant(s) for going to trial versus settling.

Some might think that the possibility of success in mesothelioma cases is not very good, with bankruptcies of some major asbestos manufacturers. That is absolutely not true. Funds are available from some of these bankruptcy proceedings to help compensate persons with mesothelioma. Many defendants other than asbestos manufacturers, such as property owners, product manufacturers who included asbestos in their products, and businesses that operated on a site known to have asbestos, all may have legal responsibility for the contraction of mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. Identification of these numerous defendants is a key element toward successful resolution of a mesothelioma case.

While no one can determine the outcome of an asbestos-related case or the amount of compensation the plaintiff may be awarded, attorney experience in this very specific area of personal injury law should prove advantageous.

BREAST CANCER FACTS:
2,149 New cases of breast cancer in men will be reported this year. That's a rate of 1.3 new cases per 100,000 men, compared with 123.4 new cases per 100,000 women.
39% How much higher the breast cancer mortality rate is among African-American women than among Caucasian women. Factors include barriers to health-care access and a later stage of breast cancer at diagnosis.
39,970 women will die from breast cancer this year in the United States, according to an estimate from the American Cancer Society.
90%-95% of women diagnosed with breast cancer don't have a family history of the disease or cancer in general.
(Sources: Susan G. Komen For the Cure, Central Indiana; www.indystar.com )
4,350 Indiana women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2010, according to an estimate by the American Cancer Society. Source: American Cancer Society, Surveillance and Health Policy Research
*** One out of every 8 women will get breast cancer. A woman dies of breast cancer every 13 minutes. And breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women ages 15 to 54.
******************************************************************
SOME COMMON CLAIMS ABOUT BREAST CANCER
(Addressed by Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer)

Claim: All lumps in the breast are cancerous.

Answer: "No, most lumps are not cancerous, especially in younger women, but every lump should be evaluated," Brawley said.

Claim: Breast cancer is an automatic death sentence.

Answer: Breast cancer death rates have steadily declined in women since 1990, according to the society's "Cancer Facts & Figures 2011."

"We have about 220,000 to 240,000 women who are diagnosed with breast cancer in the average year, and there are about 40,000 who die in the average year," Brawley said. "A woman's risk of dying from breast cancer today is 70 percent of what that woman's risk would have been at the same age 20 years ago."

Claim: Leading a healthy lifestyle can prevent breast cancer.

Answer: "Healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of breast cancer," Brawley said. But it's not a 100 percent guarantee that you won't get it.

Take the 55-year-old woman who gets breast cancer and says, "I did everything they told me to do. I got a mammogram every year to try to detect it early, but now I'm diagnosed with Stage 4 disease. I exercised. I ate right. I didn't smoke. Why did this happen to me?' " Brawley said. "The answer is all of those things reduce risk of getting cancer but do not reduce risk to zero."

On a similar note, "obesity increases risk of breast cancer," but "every obese woman is not going to get breast cancer," he said.

Claim: Thermography is better than mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Answer: "No, it is not," Brawley said. "We do need a better test (than mammography). I wish thermography were that better test, but I don't have clinical studies to tell me that thermography is that better test right now."

Thermography is a way to measure and map the heat on the surface of the breast to detect changes that could possibly indicate a tumor, according to the cancer society. The society doesn't endorse its use for screening.

Also, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning in June that thermography is not a substitute for mammography. The statement noted "the FDA is unaware of any valid scientific evidence showing that thermography, when used alone, is effective in screening for breast cancer."

Claim: There's no need to get a mammogram at age 40.

Answer: There is some debate here. But the American Cancer Society recommends an annual mammogram, starting at age 40.

"The number of lives that mammography saves among women in their 40s is a small number, but it saves lives," Brawley said.

In late 2009, another group -- the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force -- sparked controversy by recommending that women start screening at age 50. The expert panel, which suggests that mammograms be done every two years, said the benefit of screening in the 40 to 49 age group is small and cited other drawbacks, such as common false alarms. But the task force also stated that the decision to start screening before age 50 should be an individual one.

Brawley acknowledged there are problems with the test, including the fact that it "will miss a lot of breast cancer, but it still saves lives," he said, "therefore, we recommend it."

Claim: You must do formal breast self-exams.

Answer: Actually, the American Cancer Society's official screening guidelines refer to breast self-exams as just "an option" for women who've reached their 20s, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against teaching the exams.
Brawley suggests this approach: "What a woman should do is be aware of her breasts and think of it as a brief physical exam every day when one is in the shower as opposed to that monthly breast self-exam that took a half hour to do. If one finds an abnormality, one should seek medical attention for that abnormality."
******************************************************************

KOMEN TISSUE BANK - INDIANAPOLIS:
The goals of the Bank are to acquire biomolecule and tissue specimens from the entire continuum of breast development: puberty to menopause and to make these specimens or the digital data derived from them available and accessible to researchers across the globe.

By collecting samples from women with and without breast cancer, researchers will be able to determine the differences between these populations, which could lead to a better understanding of the disease. Samples taken from women without the disease are especially helpful because there are few collections of so-called "normal" specimens. The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Tissue Bank at the IU Simon Cancer Center will ultimately give researchers valuable and unprecedented research data.

What to Expect During the Donation Process
During the donation process, a tissue sample is taken from one breast with a needle and local anesthesia. The amount of tissue taken is about one gram (or the size of two peas).

To participate, women must:
• be age 18 or older
• have the ability to understand and the willingness to sign an informed consent
• be willing to give one hour of their time to complete a questionnaire and a breast biopsy
• not be allergic to local anesthetics (numbing medicine)
• not be receiving a therapeutic blood thinner (this does not include aspirin)
• not have breast implants or have had a breast reduction

Register online or contact Kathi Ridley at (317) 274-2366 or keridley@iupui.edu. Donors must have a confirmed appointment time.

If you'd like more specific information you can go to the National Cancer Institute website or the American Cancer Society website.

On August 26, 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics announced the recall of both its ASR XL Acetabular Hip System as well as its ASR Hip Resurfacing System. This recall is in response to alleged product defects that have adversely affected a significant percentage of the 93,000 people who have received a DePuy hip replacement since 2003.

WKW. Injury Lawyers ... Restoring Lives®

Wilson Kehoe Winingham partner Bill Winingham was recently elected to the Indiana Judicial Nominating and Judicial Qualifications commission. The seven-member commission appoints judges to the state's appellate courts and handles cases of judicial misconduct among other duties.

Congratulations Bill!

Indiana Code 34-18-2-18 defines "Malpractice" as a tort or breach of contract based on health care or professional services that were provided, or that should have been provided, by a health care provider, to a patient. In simple terms, Malpractice is when a health care provider not doing what he/she is supposed to do or did what he/she was not supposed to do. The term is used to indicate medical negligence by a health care provider that causes an injury.

Injuries suffered as a result of malpractice can be serious and life altering. If you or a loved one has been injured by Malpractice, contact us. Let your recovery begin.

Since the recent Gulf oil spill there has been some discussion among the public and members of the US government about the $75,000,000 liability cap placed on oil companies for damages they cause due to deepwater spills. Congress is now re-examining the cap on such damages and trying to retroactively remove them or raise the limit to a mere $10 billion. This arbitrary cap previously enacted into law is an example of one aspect of what is commonly referred to as "tort reform". The term "tort reform" is placed in quotation marks to indicate that while it is the common term for such measures, the term itself is intentionally misleading. It was invented as a strategy to engender public support for legal measures which by their very nature reduce the rights of the members of the public for the benefit of various business interests.

Continue reading "Tort Reform and Indiana Medical Malpractice Law" »