Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

The Georgia Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of O'Brien v Bruscato, allowing suit to go forward involving a mentally ill Georgia man that brutally killed mother. Vito Bruscato, the father and guardian of Victor Bruscato brought a medical malpractice suit against Victor's psychiatrist for discontinuing his medication shortly before the homicide of Victor's mother. Victor, who had a history of violence, crushed his mother's head with a battery charger and proceeded to stab her 72 times on August 15, 2002 at the family's Norcross Home. During his interview with police, Victor Bruscato, told them he knew killing his mother was wrong but that "the devil made him do it."

The suit alleges Dr. O'Brien's negligence in discontinuing his son's medication caused him to become psychotic and kill his mother. The two drugs, Zyprexa and Luvox, are powerful prescription that Bruscato was taken off of several weeks before killing his mother. The court records in the case indicate that Victor Bruscato was assigned to Dr. O'Brien in 2001in a community health center in Gwinnett County. Expert witnesses have testified that anti-psychotic drugs he was prescribed were helping him manage his violent tendencies. In May 2002, O'Brien discontinued the medications because he wanted to make sure that Bruscato wasn't developing a "dangerous syndrome." After the discontinuation of the medication, Bruscato claims he began having nightmares and the claimed the devil was ordering him to do bad deeds.

The Supreme Court noted in it's decision that an expert psychiatrist testified "the chemical changes that resulted from withholding medication caused Bruscato to decompensate and experience the return of the most severe symptoms of his medical disorder, including auditory command hallucinations, agitation, and hostility. The expert concluded that O'Brien's treatment manifested gross negligence and a disregard of the consequences of leaving a historically violent and potentially psychotic patient unmedicated."

Continue reading "The Supreme Court of Georgia Ruled a Jury Will Be Allowed to Hear Unusual Medical Malpractice Suit" »

A new study published by the Journal of the American Academy of Physicians Assistants finds that a majority of emergency room doctors do not believe the Physician Assistant's (PA's) are not more likely to commit malpractice. The study questioned 1000 members of the American College of Emergency Physicians in 2004 and then again five years later. 72% of doctors disagreed or strongly disagreed that PA's were more likely to commit malpractice and the number dropped to 68% in 2009. The study also stated that doctors believe increased utilization of PA's in emergency rooms may improve patient communication, decrease wait times, increase patient satisfaction, and therefore decrease malpractice risk.

Doctors in the study said they felt the most important factors in decreasing the risk of malpractice with PA's was increased clinical experience, completion of post-graduate residency programs, and appropriate supervision by physician.

As a Georgia Medical Malpractice Attorney I can only hope this study is accurate as both PA's and nurse practitioners are being used more and more frequently in most areas of health care, and I have seen the horrific consequences that can result from medical malpractice. Over 225,000 people die each year due to medical malpractice, with nearly half of those being in the emergency room, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. In fact, medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease and cancer.

Continue reading "Are Physician's Assistants More Likely To Commit Medical Malpractice than Doctors?" »

In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical drugs could not be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects. This ruling should be of a great concern to anyone who uses generic pharmaceuticals.

In the original lawsuit, Gladys Mensing, alleged that taking a generic form of metoclopramide, a common drug used to treat heartburn, gave her a severe neurological movement disorder. None of the generic manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide made any effort to include warnings on the label for metoclopramide. Manufacturers of the generic metoclopramide, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, UDL Labratories, and Actavis Inc. argued that federal law barred such a suit becausethe drug is approved by the FDA, (federal law requires generic drugs only to have the same labels as their brand name equivalents). They argued that because government regulations only require them to have the same label on metoclopramide as is on its brand name equivalent, Reglan, that they had no duty to include additional warnings for their generic form of metoclopramide.

The majority of the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, sided with the pharmaceutical companies. Thomas stated in his opinion that the federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with and thus pre-empt state lawsuits. The net effect of this opinion is that it gives generic drug manufacturers zero liability for medication injuries that could have been avoided by an updated warning label.

Continue reading "Product Liability Update; Many Stunned by U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling On Generic Drugs" »

With the incredible amount of medical technology available in the United States it is hard to believe that doctors are performing procedures on the wrong patient or body part with regularity. Wrong site surgery is a very real problem in Georgia and the rest of the country. As a medical malpractice lawyer, I've discussed this problem with numerous doctors and they have all agreed that wrong site surgeries should never happen and are easy to avoid. Amazingly, according to a 2006 study looking at the frequency of surgical errors in the United States, the findings suggest that there could be as many as 2700 mistakes each year where a surgery is performed on the wrong body part or patient. This is about seven per day.

Recently Jesse Matlock, a 4-year-old Oregon boy was a victim of this sort of surgical error when he went in for a procedure to operate on a lazy right eye. Though the doctor performed several safety steps, including writing her initials above the boy's right eye, and performing a final safety "time-out," making sure that the correct patient is about to undergo the correct procedure, the doctor still managed to operate on the boy's healthy right eye. In explaining her mistake the doctor said, "Frankly, I was at the head of him, and I lost my sense of direction and the mark got covered up. By the time I realized it was the left eye, it was all said and done."

One question for anyone about to go into an operation is obviously what causes this type of error to occur? A 2010 study done for the Archives of Surgery found that among operations on the wrong part of the body, 85% were due to errors in judgment, with 72% of those doctors not performing a "time-out" as required by protocol. The study found the groups most frequently involved in operations on the wrong patient were doctors of internal medicine, who were responsible for 24% of these types of mistakes; orthopedic surgeons were responsible for 22.4%, general surgeons for 16.8%, and anesthesiologists for 12.1%.

Continue reading "Wrong Site Surgery is a Very Real Medical Malpractice Problem" »

With the Supreme Court of Georgia's recent monumental decision on medical malpractice damages caps, the tort reform debate is back in the news. As a Marietta Medical Malpractice Lawyer, when I saw that Joe Kirby (Editor of the Editorial Page of the Marietta Daily Journal) had written an article on medical malpractice damages caps, I was curious to see what his take on the issue would be. The MDJ's Editoral Page has a long standing reputation as a respected conservative voice for Metro Atlanta.

Mr. Kirby's article on med mal tort reform is a refreshing look at the issue without a political bias. If you are interested in learning more about the practical effect of tort reform I recommend you read this MDJ article.

In 2005, under extreme pressure from the insurance industry, the Georgia Legislature passed sweeping tort reform measures (known as SB3) drastically changing Georgia law. At the heart of SB3 is OCGA § 51-13-1, which limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions. Under this law no matter what value a jury places on a human life, the loss of a limb, the ability to see, or other catastrophic injury the award must be reduced to an arbitrary limit imposed by the Legislature. Today, the Supreme Court of Georgia in an unanimous 7-0 decision, Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt et al., held noneconomic caps on damages unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled "OCGA § 51-13-1 clearly nullifies the jury's finding of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury's basic function...Flat caps on noneconomic compensatory damages...violate this State's constitutional guarantee that 'the right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate.'"

As one who believes in protection of our sacred constitutional rights and also a strong believer in victims' rights, I could not be more pleased with the Supreme Court's decision. Today is a great day for Georgia and for Betty Nestlehutt. Click here to watch Betty Nestlehutt's story.

Mrs. Nestlehutt's lawyer, Adam Malone, commented on the Court's decision. "The bedrock of our democracy depends upon our ability to self govern at the ballot box and in the jury box," Malone said. "Any attempt by the government to invade either is an assault on what separates America from the rest of the world."

In the arena of medical malpractice, the law in Georgia has always favored hospitals and doctors. While the number of deaths and serious injuries from medical errors are at an all time high recovery for injured patients (settlements and verdicts) are the lowest they have been in nearly 20 years. Georgia medical malpractice lawyers continue to face an uphill battle helping malpractice victims recover. So even though times are still tough for malpractice victims, at least the constitutional promise of a trial by jury remains.

Since 1863, Georgia law has required that those practicing medicine for compensation must bring to the exercise of their profession a reasonable degree of care and skill, and Georgia law has provided that any injury resulting from a want of such care and skill shall be a tort for which recovery may be had. In 2005, all that changed, and ER physicians in our State were no longer required to practice with care and skill. This new law, codified at OCGA § 51-1-29.5 (c), was part of the tort reform package proposed by the insurance industry and passed by the Georgia Legislature in 2005. Those injured or killed by ER malpractice can no longer recover unless they can prove a much higher burden of gross negligence. This week in a 4-3 decision, Gliemmo et al. v. Cousineau et al., the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the ER gross negligence statute as constitutional.

The case began in 2007, when Carol Gliemmo presented to St. Francis Hospital with serious pain behind her eyes, a sudden snapping in her head, and elevated blood pressure. Mark Cousineau, MD of Emergency Medical Specialists of Columbus, P.C. wrote her a prescription for Valium and sent her home. Two days later her primary care physician ordered a CT scan, which revealed a brain hemorrhage. As a result of the brain hemorrhage going untreated Carol Gliemmo was paralyzed.

So, even though expert physicians can agree that Dr. Cousineau breached the standard of care required of emergency physicians and caused this woman's paralysis she cannot recover under Georgia law. It's still difficult to believe this is the state of the law in Georgia. I'm certain Georgia medical malpractice lawyers will continue to fight for injured victims, but times are grim in Georgia. Of course Atticus Finch would say courage is knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

In 2005, by the narrowest of margins, the Georgia Legislature passed sweeping changes to Georgia's tort laws, known as SB3. Included in those changes was the new "Offer of Settlement" statute, codified at OCGA § 9-11-68. The Offer of Settlement statute has created a new mechanism for punishing a party to litigation with attorney's fees. Georgia already has two statutes (OCGA §§ 9-15-14 and 13-6-11) that subject parties to statutory penalties, including attorney's fees, for bringing frivolous suits or unreasonably litigating matters. The Offer of Settlement statute is different in it applies to all cases even meritorious suits that prevail at trial. This statute sets up situations where injured victims may win a jury verdict but end up with a net loss because the insurance companies' attorney's fees exceed the verdict. This week, the Supreme Court of Georgia in a 5-2 decision upheld the Offer of Settlement statute overruling the trial court's finding that the statute violated the Georgia Consitution's right to access the courts.

In her dissent, the honorable Justice Hunstein artfully explained why this statute does in fact violate our constitutional access to the courts as follows: "OCGA § 9-11-68(b)(1) penalizes plaintiffs with meritorious causes of action for an impossiblity, namely, their failure to see into the future so as to calculate the precise amount a factfinder may award them for the damages they reasonably believed they sustained at the hands of the defendants...No party intending to file a cause of action in tort can foresee whether she will recover 'enough' money to avoid the effect of OCGA § 9-11-68(b)(1)."

The practical effect of this statute is that it will make it extremely difficult for middle class Georgia citizens to pursue meritorious cases. As discussed above, if an injured person fails to recover "enough" money from the jury, the insurance company can take a judgment against the injured person for the attorney's fees they paid defending the case. Those without significant assets will not be deterred from pursing meritorious cases, because there is no way to collect a judgment against someone that has nothing (also known as "judgment proof"). The wealthy will still seek justice and their day in court knowing they can afford the unlikely result of a lower than expected jury verdict in their favor. The middle class injured victim is the only one truly stung by this new law. Many will still seek justice, but there are those that will forgo pursing recovery for their broken bones and medical expenses because the fear of having to pay for the insurance companies' lawyer. This new law is just one of many challenges an experienced Georgia personal injury lawyer must negotiate in the mine field that is civil litigation.

The above video illustrates why we need government watchdogs, consumer advocates and Georgia trial lawyers fighting for the constitutional right to a jury trial. If you watch the video you will understand why the American System of Civil Justice should be protected from the insurance companies. We continue to pray for a favorable ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court to return Georgia to a place where judges and juries decide what is appropriate compensation for medical malpractice victims.

Proponents of civil justice are celebrating and insurance companies are fuming in the wake of yesterday's decision by the Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois' highest court ruled capping damages for victims of medical malpractice violated the State Constitution's separation of powers clause by imposing decisions reserved for judges and juries. That is a huge win for the citizens of Illinois.

I've defended a huge number of doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice lawsuits, I have doctors in my family, and I have a really high opinion of the medical profession. As a Georgia medical malpractice lawyer, I recognize healthcare is a problem in our country. However, caps on medical malpractice damages are not the answer. Unless the question is how do we further victimize those that have been catastrophically injured by medical negligence.

For those that don't know, medical malpractice caps mean this: No matter what a doctor or hospital does to you. No matter how egregious the malpractice. No matter if the consequence is death, dismemberment, or disfigurement. You CANNOT recover what the judge and jury think your case is worth if it exceeds the arbitrary cap. In Georgia the cap is $350,000. If you are a housewife, retired, or unemployed and killed by a doctor's negligence the judge and jury cannot decide what your life is worth, $350,000 is the max. If a checked-out doctor cuts a baby's penis off during circumcision, refuses to acknowledge her mistake, and the baby is forced to live a life disfigured, the jury's verdict will be reduced to the arbitrary cap. Caps on damages were created by insurance companies to erode the civil justice system of trial by jury. For all its flaws, the American system of justice is still the best system in the world.

Thankfully, Illinois was protected from these caps by the State's Constitution and their high court's willingness to enforce it. The Supreme Court of Georgia is expected to rule soon on our medical malpractice caps. I, like many others, hope and pray Georgia will soon also be free from the injustice of caps.

Insurance companies are waging war on the American Civil Justice System. They consider the Right to Trial by Jury and the Rule of Law unnecessary speed bumps reducing insurance company profits. Insurance companies began their organized attack on the constitutional right to a trial by jury since before this Georgia Injury Lawyer started practicing law, over ten years ago. In recent years, Insurance companies in Georgia have been specifically targeting victims of medical malpractice.

Luckily, many still believe the American Civil Justice System is still the best system in the world and have taken up the fight to defend the Right to Trial by Jury. Recently, a leading civil justice blog addressed the question how many hoops should medical malpractice victims have to jump through to obtain justice? It is an excellent read.

For nearly two decades, the American Cancer Society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40. However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel of doctors and scientists, recently issued a controversal report that mammograms are not recommended until age 50 and then only every other year. In response to the government report, the Cancer Society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley stated "This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over,"

Dr. Brawley went on to offer this sharp criticism of the report: "The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote. That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he added.

As a Georgia Injury Lawyer that deals with insurance companies on a daily basis, I'm concerned about the insurance implications this task force report will have on healthcare. Although research shows annual mammograms beginning at age 40 save lives, I fear health insurance companies will use this recent report to justify refusing payment for mammograms before the age of 50 and then only authorize mammograms every other year. Like prexisting conditions and other insurance created concepts, this will give insurance companies additional opportunities to accept premiums without providing appropriate benefits.

Continue reading "The American Cancer Society Sharply Critical of New Mammogram Standards; "Annual Mammograms From Age 40 on Save Lives"" »

With all the reports recently of preventable medical errors, today CNN printed an informative article "How to avoid falling victim to a hospital mistake." The average person would be shocked by some of the stories I hear on a regular basis as a Georgia Medical Malpractice Lawyer. The Joint Commission, which provides accreditation for hospitals, reports that wrong-site, wrong-side and wrong-patient procedures occur more than 40 times each week in the United States.

The above CNN article arms patients with simple practical knowlege that can help prevent these types of errors. One example is to repeat your name, date of birth, and the procedure you are having to each and every nurse, tech and doctor involved in your care. I would recommend reading this article for anyone undergoing any hospital testing or surgery in the near future.