Pennsylvania Injury Law Report : Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Stuart Carpey Law Firm : Auto Accidents & Product Liability : Pennsylvania Injury Law Report

Almost immediately after President Obama signed the sweeping health care bill into law this week, 14 state attorneys general filed a cause of action in Federal District Court in Florida challenging the law. Among them were Pennsylvania State Attorney General Tom Corbett. Joining him were state attorneys general from Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. Virgina's attorney general filed a separate suit in Federal District Court in Virginia. All of the attorneys general were Republicans, with the exception of the attorney general from Louisiana, James Caldwell, a Democrat.

The gist of the lawsuits are that, according to the attorneys general, the new law violates the Constitution by forcing the individual states to act without providing the financial resources to pay for what thew law requires. "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit reads.

Sounds like political posturing to me. That said, whether you agree with the health care law or not, the passage of the health care bill may be one of the most important votes from Washington in our lifetimes.  It will have broad changes to how insurance companies do business in this country.

I personally don't see how the attorneys general; who filed these cases are going to win the day. More problematic, however, is the fact that they are not legislators. What if the majority of the citizens in their individual states like the changes to health care that has now become the law of the land? By challenging the constitutionality of the health care law, are the attorneys general perhaps overreaching their mandate? Did the attorneys general have an obligation to poll the citizens of their states to see where the populace stood on the issue before using taxpayer funds to challenge the law's constitutionality?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The use of radiation therapy for cancer treatment is designed to kill cancer cells and stop the cancer from spreading. It is a specific and exact therapy where an external beam  is directed to the site of the cancer by a machine called a linear accelerator. The beam is precise in terms of the amount of dose sent to specific areas on the human body for treatment.

Over radiation occurs when the patient gets more than the prescribed dose of radiation over a period of time. The results for over radiated patients  even in seemingly small doses  weakens and kills healthy tissue causing skin and organ damage.

In a remarkable article by Josh Goldstein of the Philadelphia Inquirer it was reported last week that the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) has publicly revealed  that on January 21, 2010 a man being treated  for prostate cancer received radioactive seeds, a similar therapy to that of a linear accelerator, which were incorrectly implanted outside of the intended target site. Similarly, the Department of Veterans Affairs in December 2009 apologized for a prostate-cancer program where veterans were over radiated for six years at its main Philadelphia  VA Hospital via the same method as in the HUP case.

These are not isolated events. In a lawsuit against the Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, a cancer clinic in Melbourne, Florida, it is alleged that doctors put patients at risk through poor safety procedures as well as lack of oversight of technicians, and then tried to cover up their mistakes. Not only that, but the lawsuit further alleges that the clinic fraudulently over billed Medicare from 2003 through 2008 for the over use of the  high tech and highly reimbursed radiation treatments. The Florida suit was started by a "whistle blower,"  a Fred Fangman, the cancer center's former director of radiation oncology. Federal prosecutors joined in the suit.

Walt Bogdanich of the New York Times has been following this issue. His article dated January 26, 2010 entitled "The Radiation Boom-As Technology Surges, Radiation Safeguards Lag" reports the following.

In New Jersey, 36 cancer patients at a veterans hospital in East Orange were overradiated — and 20 more received substandard treatment — by a medical team that lacked experience in using a machine that generated high-powered beams of radiation. The mistakes, which have not been publicly reported, continued for months because the hospital had no system in place to catch the errors.

Lorraine Raymond, a radiation therapist, raised concerns about overradiation in the treatment of Frederick Stein at a Veterans Affairs hospital in New Jersey in 2006.
In Louisiana, Landreaux A. Donaldson received 38 straight overdoses of radiation, each nearly twice the prescribed amount, while undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. He was treated with a machine so new that the hospital made a miscalculation even with training instructors still on site.

In Texas, George Garst now wears two external bags — one for urine and one for fecal matter — because of severe radiation injuries he suffered after a medical physicist who said he was overworked failed to detect a mistake. The overdose was never reported to the authorities because rules did not require it.

These mistakes and the failure of hospitals to quickly identify them offer a rare look into the vulnerability of patient safeguards at a time when increasingly complex, computer-controlled devices are fundamentally changing medical radiation, delivering higher doses in less time with greater precision than ever before.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Apparently it is, or was,  Vivian T. Miller, and she's quitting, and her daughter, Robin T. Jones, is taking over the job. I didn't know who these folks were until I read  an article about them in the Philadelphia Inquirer written by Karen Heller. Here's what Ms. Heller writes in her March 10, 2010 article "Fairwell to the 14th Century."

Clerk of Quarter Sessions Vivian T. Miller tendered her resignation Monday after being roundly criticized by everyone and his mother for running a bloated, obsolete, and thoroughly incompetent hackatorium that failed to keep records on $1 billion in forfeited bail.Naturally, Miller was praised by city leaders. Ecclesiastes was quoted. Miller intoned, "I go in peace, love, and harmony," which isn't easy to do in Philadelphia. ...Miller first ran for clerk of quarter sessions promising - and I quote from an Inquirer article of May 1991 - to "upgrade accounting and financial-management practices. She also plans to institute professional training and development programs for workers and to upgrade record-keeping procedures," pledges she didn't honor to this day....The office originated in 1682, and became an elected position in 1838. The very premise of quarter sessions dates to 14th-century England, the reign of Edward III, requiring justices of the peace of each county to meet quarterly at Epiphany, Easter, Midsummer, and Michaelmas....Miller will step down at month's end, replaced by first deputy Robin T. Jones, who is also, as these things tend to happen here, her daughter. Nepotism is discouraged, if not prohibited, in most businesses but apparently mandated in Philadelphia government by the City Charter.

Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts commented on the resignation by saying "it's time with a capital T to have this office abolished and absorbed into the courts.It's sort of ironic to have such an old-fashioned name when our society is becoming increasingly modern and computerized."

Vivian Miller did not modernize the internal systems of the office that she was responsible for, was resistant to technological changes, and could not account for a ton of money that, in these difficult financial times, the City of Philadelphia sorely needs.

If I operated my business the way the Clerk of Quarter Sessions ran her office, I'd be out of business, and my clients' cases would be down the tubes. I am constantly upgrading my systems, including my computer systems, solely to be more efficient. This makes me a better lawyer, makes my firm a better law firm, and my clients benefit from that.  I have to be accountable to my clients and to the Courts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following is a posting on a listserve I belong to for Pennsylvania personal injury lawyers.  It was posted by another  lawyer seeking opinions and advice.  It does not concern a client of mine, but it is certainly instructive for anyone injured in an accident. 

I have written before on this blog site, on my web site, as well as in other written materials about what can be questionable practices on the part of insurance companies and their representatives.  My purpose is educate the public on some of these practices.  I know insurance companies do.  The consumer may not.  What follows is a remarkable story but not altogether that uncommon.

This story is somewhat long winded, but I think all of the facts set
forth are necessary to get a full appreciation of the case. Friday of
last week, (2/19/10) a woman (client), married, mother of 2 (17 & 21)
shows up in the office and tells me the following: On the previous
Monday (2/15/10) she was involved in an intersectional motor vehicle accident where the
other party went through stop sign. She was alone. Other driver admits
fault at scene and liability is not an issue. Air bags deploy on
client's vehicle; her vehicle is SEVERELY damaged, but I don't know if
it is totaled. She has bruising on her legs with neck and back pain.
She goes to the emergency room. and is released with prescriptions for narcotic pain medication and instructions to see family doctor. The NEXT day, the insurance adjuster
begins calling and wants to schedule in home visit for the stated
purpose of getting a recorded statement. Client is hurting, feeling
effects of the pain meds and resists. However, husband, upset over the
car damage, wants to get that resolved ASAP and talks he into meeting
with the adjuster (after several more calls from the adjuster) and
meeting is held in the home on Thursday 2/18/10. She is alone. He
takes statement and showers her with flattery and sympathy, telling her
that, while he doesn't do this for most people, she is entitled to
"something for her pain and suffering" and suddenly and unexpectedly,
offers her $1000. She is nonplussed, and says OK. He pulls out a
release and his checkbook and writes a check on the spot. She is not
offered the opportunity to discuss this with her family or an attorney;
nor is a copy of the release left with her. Of course, when husband got
home and she explained what happened, he is quite upset to say the
least. She calls the adjuster the nex day, Friday 2/19/10 and tells
adjuster she doesn't want to settle. He, in effect, tells her to pound
sand; "too bad, you signed a release."
She is hurting quite badly; in fact she went to the emergency room on Saturday
because of severe neck and back pain.

What can be done in a situation like this?  There may be ways to defeat the release.  The injured person who signed a release was in pain, had received narcotic medication from the emergency room, and so on.  Defeating the release will require a lawsuit against the insurance company and probably against the adjuster personally.  The allegations in the lawsuit could consist of fraud and misrepresentation, unjust enrichment on the part of the insurance company, detrimental reliance and conspiracy.  But make no mistake.  Is a difficult proposition to defeat the insurance company once a release is signed.  However, being forewarned is being forearmed. Be aware of your rights in the event you are involved in an accident and the insurance company representative comes knocking at your door with a check and release in hand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link