Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice - Most Commented

Recall of Boston Scientific Flextome Cutting Balloon Systems

Jamie Sheller — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:00:57 GMT

Boston Scientific is recalling one of its medical devices. The Flextome Cutting Balloon system is used to open blocked arteries or blood vessels. The FDA and Boston Scientific recently recalled the device because one of its parts may separate when the device is withdrawn from the patient. More in-depth surgery may then be required to remove the piece from the artery. Boston Scientific recently submitted a successful bid to purchase Guidant Corporation, which manufactures heart devices. Guidant has recalled several of its pacemakers and defibrillators, due to sometimes fatal defects. Sheller, Ludwig and Badey is currently investigating injuries resulting from recalled Guidant heart devices.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

New Cases of Veterans Getting Wrong Cancer Treatment

Jamie Sheller — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:43:38 GMT

In 2008, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania shut down a prostate cancer treatment program that had been running since 2002. The program was shut down after it was discovered that over 90 veterans, out of 114, had been given incorrect dosages of radiation to treat their prostate cancer. Recently, six more cases of botched cancer treatment have been found at the VA hospital in Philadelphia. At issue is a cancer treatment called brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive metal seeds. These seeds will kill cancer cells. Most of the veterans who received the incorrect treatment were given less than the prescribed dose. Other veterans received overdoses of radiation, which affected nearby tissue and organs. The Department of Veterans Affairs has forwarded information about the six new cases to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If you received incorrect radiation treatment for prostate cancer at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, contact Sheller, P.C. to discuss your potential legal rights. We are currently handling cases of veterans who received this botched medical treatment. The Sheller firm has a long history of aggressively fighting for the rights of individuals and classes of individuals who have been injured by improper medical treatment, as well as parmaceuticals, medical devices and other defective products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Veterans Get Wrong Cancer Treatment At Philadelphia VA Hospital

Jamie Sheller — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:44:44 GMT

Ninety-two veterans at a VA hospital in Philadelphia received incorrect cancer treatment. Over the course of six years, the veterans, who were being treated for prostate cancer, were given the wrong doses of radiation therapy. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, in ninety-two of one hundred and fourteen cases, there were medical treatment errors. The treatment, called brachytherapy, involves implanting radiation seeds to kill the cancer cells. According to an investigation, in fifty-seven veterans, too little radiation was delivered to the prostate, and thirty-five veterans received overdoses of radiation to other parts of the body. Some veterans with prostate cancer received both underdoses to the prostate and overdoses to other body parts. The number of dosing errors led to an inspection of the Philadelphia Veterans Medica Center by a federal commission. Meanwhile, the prostate cancer treatment program at the Philadelphia VA hospital has been suspended, and several staff members no longer work for the VA hospital. All of the veterans who received the wrong prostate cancer treatment, have been given follow-up care.

Anyone who received improper prostate cancer treatment at the Philadelphia Veterans Medical Center should contact Sheller, P.C. to discuss whether you have a potential legal claim. The lawyers at Sheller, P.C. have many years of experience successfully representing injured people, and helping them recover the compensation they deserve for their injuries. Our lawyers represent people injured by medical errors, defective drugs and dangerous products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Hospitalized Children At Risk for Drug Errors

Jamie Sheller — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:31:37 GMT

It is difficult for anyone whose loved one is hurt by a medical-related error while in the hospital. However, it is especially difficult for a parent to have their child suffer from such an error. A recent study has shown that pediatric patients have a greater than 1 in 10 chance of suffering an adverse drug event. The study was published in the medical journal Pediatrics, and is titled, Development, Testing and Findings of a Pediatric-Focused Trigger Tool to Identify Medication-Related Harm in U.S. Children's Hospitals. Prior data had shown a 2.3 percent risk of such events. However, that information was based on voluntary reports, while the recent study relied on a specific methodology used to review randomly selected medical charts. Analgesics and opiods were involved in the largest percentage of adverse events. The vast majority of the drug errors caused mild harm, such as itching and nausea. However, even such mild reactions should be avoided when a child is already sick. The study also found that many of the adverse events were preventable. The Joint Commission, a not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies hospitals, has recommendations for hospitals in light of the study findings. Hospitals should use kilograms for calculating dosages, improve identification of medicines and improve communication, as the errors most commonly occurred during the monitoring and prescribing/ordering of the medication process.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Patients Experience Difficulty Trying to Obtain Medical Records

Jamie Sheller — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:22:00 GMT

Under federal law, every patient or a designated representative has the right to see and copy the patient's medical records. However, according to USA Today's Patient Safety website, missing or disputed records are the most common source of complaints about inadequate medical care. Patients often complain that their ability to bring a lawsuit against hospitals or medical providers was hampered by those providers obstructing access to the medical records. When records appear to be incomplete, the patient or family may need an attorney to assist them in obtaining the records. Visit http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-04-29-medical-records_N.htm for more information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Man Received Cancerous Lungs in Transplant, Lawsuit Filed

Jamie Sheller — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:44:31 GMT

A lawsuit has been filed that claims that a man received cancerous lungs during a transplant and then died six months later.

A spokeswoman for the Penn Health System, Susan Phillips, stated that the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania had no way of knowing that the lungs were unhealthy and never gave Tony Grier or his family any misinformation.

Grier was diagnosed with pulmonary sarcoidosis, which causes lung tissue to harden, in 1986. He put his name on a transplant waiting list and finally received a pair of donor lungs in 2005. Grier remained hospitalized from the time of his surgery to his death on July 16, 2007 at the age of 43.

Grier's mother, who brought the suit, said that Penn told Grier that he was receiving healthy lungs from an 18-year-old.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Woman Awarded $12 Million in Breast Cancer Case

Jenny Albano — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:44:22 GMT

A women was awarded $12 million by a Philadelphia jury in a terminal breast cancer suit against her two doctors who allegedly did not diagnose the cancer before it had progressed to a terminal stage.

According to the plaintiffs attorney, Donna Lee Jones, one of the doctors settled before the trial, but the jury found that the doctor who settled was still 35% responsible for his failure to diagnose the breast cancer. The plaintiff's attorney stated that her client, Angela Sutherlin, can recover up to 65% of the verdict, which is %7.8 million from the doctor who decided not to settle, Arthur D. Magliner. A 12-member jury came up with the unanimous verdict after a weeklong trial in Philadelphia.

According to court papers, Sutherlin had a screening mammography in June 2003 in a Fox Chase mobile unit. The suit alleged that, due to Sutherlin's history of breast problems, including a bloody discharge from her nipple that required a prior biopsy, she was not a proper candidate for a "screening" test in the mobile unit and instead should have undergone a "diagnostic" test.

Magilner stated that Sutherlin's questionnaire, which was completed by technicians, did not mention Sutherlin's surgical history or that she had gone through breast reduction surgery in 2000. The lawsuit alleged that Magilner's report falsely described a "dilated duct" that was "unchanged" and suggested a follow-up test in one year.

But Jones argued that a comparison of Sutherlin's 2001 and 2003 mammograms revealed that his report from the 2001 test did not mention of a dilated duct. She stated that Magliner missed the change in her left ductal prominence, which is where a lump and her cancer developed.

The suit alleged that when Sutherlin had another mammogram in March 2004 at the Albert Einstein Medical Center, another doctor, Susan Summerton, interpreted the films and noted "several small nodular densities," but found that they "remain stable compared to prior studies." But the suit alleged that no nodular densities had been noted in the prior report, and that Summerton therefore should not have labeled the finding as benign.

The second doctor, like Magliner, did not diagnose Sutherlin's breast cancer when it was in the curable Stage 1 and would have only required a mastectomy. Jones and Summerton settled before trial began.

Sutherlin's surgery was unsuccessful due to the fact that the cancer metastasized her bones and organs and she is only receiving palliative care. But her attorney states that even the high-dose narcotics cannot control her pain.

Before the trial Jones was only demanding $2 million from the doctors, which was the combined limit for their insurance policies, and warned if a jury found them guilty the amount would be much larger. Magliner only offered a $125,000 settlement and chose to go to trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

How safe are you in the hospital?

Jamie Sheller — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:13:25 GMT

Is it safer to be in the hospital during the day when having a heart attack than in the evening? According to recent research, a higher percentage of heart attack patients get better care during the day at a hospital, than between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. Apparently, hospitals are better staffed and more attentive to patient needs during the day. Sadly, those who rely upon the staff the most, are at highest risk. For more information read this
Today more people are injured by the negligence of their healthcare providers. Due to changes in medical coverage, and incentives by insurance carriers, patients often receive less than adequate health treatment.
If you or a loved one has been injured by the malpractice of a health provider, contact Sheller, PC. We have a team of experienced trial attorneys who are eager to assist you with your legal needs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis caused by pain pumps

Jamie Sheller — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:22:21 GMT

Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis, or PAGCL, is a painful condition in the shoulder caused when the cartilage between the humeral head and the ball and socket of your shoulder has broken down to the point where bone meets bone. Recently, studies have shown that pain pumps used after shoulder surgery is a leading cause for this pain. While these products are still available on the market, attorneys are beginning to bring claims against the manufacturers for related injuries. If you or a loved one has experienced serious injuries from these pain pumps, please contact our firm. We have a team of experienced trial attorneys who are waiting to assist you.

For more information on this subject, please see our section on Drugs, Medical Devices and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller

Thoratec Implantable Ventricular Assist Devices Recalled

Jamie Sheller — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:40:39 GMT

Thoratec Corporation has recalled its Implantable Ventricular Assist Devices (IVAD) catalog number 10012-2555-001, serial numbers 488 or higher. The recalled devices were manufactured and distributed from October 1,2 004 through October 22, 2007. These IVAD's are used to help pump blood through the body of a person whose body is too weak to perform that function. The IVAD can be implanted or placed in an external position. If the IVAD is placed in the external position, it may develop air leaks. These air leaks could result in not enough blood flowing to and from the heart. For information visit the following website:

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/recalls/recall-101907.html

For more information on this subject please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jamie Sheller