Plastic Surgeon Leaves Sponge in Patient after Eye Lift!

Potential Plaintiff vs. Potential Defendant Cosmetic Surgery Physician and his P.C. Subject to non-disclosure Regarding Settlement $45,000.00 Settled during Notice of Intent period, pre-suit Facts: This is a medical malpractice action against potential defendant cosmetic surgery physician and his professional corporation. Plaintiff presented to defendant with asymmetry of the position of her eyebrows and severe hooding of her upper eyelids. Defendant formed a diagnosis of bilateral brow ptosis with asymmetry and bilateral upper lid blepharochalasis. She underwent surgery to correct this abnormality. On the weekend after surgery, Plaintiff’s eye swelled and she experienced ongoing pain. She presented to defendant, who diagnosed a staph infection and prescribed a Z-pack. Throughout, Plaintiff continued on antibiotic therapy as prescribed and continued to experience the consequences of infection and the failure of the wound to heal. Plaintiff presented to an infectious disease specialist, who informed her that an MRI revealed an encapsulation around the fluid above the left eye and indicated a biopsy of the encapsulation would be scheduled. Throughout this period of time, Plaintiff had undergone six aspirations of fluid at defendant’s office and one aspiration with ultrasound at another facility. Consultation was then made with a plastic surgeon, who performed surgery. During the operation, the physician explored the left temporal area and removed a sponge/foreign body in the left temporal area through a scalp incision. Additionally, the physician performed debridement and excision of necrotic skin approximately 3 mm on either side of the incision on the left upper eyelid, along with debridement and irrigation. Following surgery, defendant did apologize for overlooking the sponge and took responsibility. As a residual of the surgery performed, Plaintiff has residual scar tissue and is unable to close her eyelid completely. Following the procedure, she underwent multiple infusions for ongoing infection. In addition to an inability to completely close her eyes, Plaintiff continued to experience dry eyes, requires constant re-wetting with solutions, has difficulty focusing when reading, experiences fatigue and strain in the eye, fogginess, vision affecting her ability to read. Despite the defendant’s admission of responsibility and apology, the defendant’s insurance company failed to negotiate resolution before the Notice of Intent was served. Proceedings were therefore instituted, substantial time was spent accumulating documentation & review, and ultimately a resolution was achieved. The case was resolved in the Notice of Intent stage. Submitted by: CHARFOOS & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. DAVID W. CHRISTENSEN P11863 MARY PAT ROSEN P34992 Attorneys for Plaintiff 26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 399-0350 or (313) 875-8080 / Fax: (248) 399-0351 dwchristensen@c2law.com mprosen@c2law.com

Federal law may protect urgent-care center patients

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, is a federal law that was put in place to make sure hospitals don’t “dump” emergency patients who may be indigent or uninsured by refusing to examine or treat them or by sending them to other hospitals. Instead, EMTALA requires that hospitals thoroughly screen all patients who report to emergency rooms and, if they are found to have a serious medical condition, to properly stabilize them before transferring or releasing them. Hospitals that fail to comply can be hit with significant fines. Additionally, the patient may be able to bring the hospital to court, obtain damages and have his or her attorney’s fees paid. Plus, depending on the state, patients may have more time to bring a claim under EMTALA than they would have to bring a standard malpractice claim in state court. Now a recent ruling by a federal judge in Rhode Is¬land suggests that EMTALA covers not only emergency-room visits, but also off-campus urgent-care clinics that are affiliated with hospitals. In that case, a 49-year-old woman reported to the urgent/walk-in care clinic at a local hospital complain¬ing of severe chest pain and pain in her right arm. Shortly beforehand, she’d texted co-workers that she was going to the “ER” to get checked out for possible heart-attack symptoms. The doctor diagnosed her with reflux and she was sent home with a “gastrointestinal cocktail.” She died the next day of cardiovascular disease. Her estate sued the hospital that operated the clinic for both malpractice and for violation of EMTALA. The hospital tried to get the case thrown out, arguing that EMTALA didn’t apply because the clinic wasn’t an “emergency care facility.” But the judge disagreed, finding that because it held itself out as treating emergency medical conditions on an urgent basis without a scheduled appointment, it fit the definition. In fact, the court said, this particular patient, based on her texts to co-workers, thought she was going to an ER when she visited the clinic. Thus her estate’s claim could proceed. If you wish to speak to an attorney and need free legal advice, Please call Charfoos & Christensen PC 313-875-8080

Hospital let patient sit in chair 18 hours after abdominal surgery!!

Plaintiff vs. Defendant Hospital Regarding Settlement $175,000.00 Settled following case evaluation, days before trial Facts: This is a medical malpractice action where Plaintiff, after abdominal surgery, was allowed to sit in a chair in his room from approximately 6:00 p.m. on the day of surgery until the following day at approximately noon, approximately 18 hours in a chair while on pain medication with an epidural in place. There was no indication in the notes that he was moved, shifted or whether skin integrity was assessed. Further, the nurses admitted this was the timing of the duration which he was sitting in the chair. As a result, Plaintiff developed severe and painful decubitus ulcers on his buttocks and feet, experienced numbness in his toes and impaired paresis of both lower extremities resulting in the need for extensive physical therapy, the need to wear braces and utilize a cane. Plaintiff was a vibrant 72-year-old at the time of this elective surgery for the resection of a benign gastrointestinal mass. He was working part-time in law enforcement, a job which required both agility and mobility on his feet. The defense was based on the testimony of the day and night shift nurses that Plaintiff refused to go to bed. The nurses indicated there was nothing more they could do. The nurse supervisor, however, indicated that the nurses could follow the chain of command and seek assistance to mobilize Plaintiff and return him to bed. The Plaintiff does not remember the events after surgery until he was lifted from the chair around noon – feeling skin ripping from his buttock. Plaintiff relied on the expertise of a registered nurse and a neurologist, who testified that it was below the standard of care to allow a patient to sit in a chair for over 17 hours, and that clearly the ulcerations and the nerve damages experienced was secondary to allowing him to remain in the chair without pressure relief. Plaintiff’s expert neurologist performed an IME examination and testified that as a direct result between the damages inflicted and the patient’s positioning, the Plaintiff sustained bilateral sciatic neuropathies as a result of being in the chair for a prolonged time. This resulted in direct damage to the sciatic nerve fibers and their blood supply, resulting in permanent neurologic impairment. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff had neurologic impairment to his lower extremities due to his diabetes prior to his admission, that Plaintiff had a history of refusing treatment a couple of times, and that on this day he refused to go to bed. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was working part-time as indicated, living at home with his wife. He was extremely independent, an avid photographer and artist, and enjoyed his law enforcement work. He had been married 53 years. His wife had developed Alzheimer’s, and as a result of his neurologic impairment he was unable to care for his wife, who then needed to be placed in a senior care nursing home. Rehab consisted of learning to walk again. Plaintiff’s right ankle would flex out to the right and make it difficult to walk. There was and is no feeling. Plaintiff has fallen and stumbles frequently due to inability to feel pressure of stepping on his foot and has a constant sense of losing his balance. The nerve damage is permanent.

Family Doctor Fails to Notice Limp Limb in Infant. Hip Dysplasia

Minor Plaintiff vs. Defendant Family Practitioner State of Michigan $127,500.00 settlement. This is a medical malpractice action based on defendant family practitioner’s failure to timely diagnose congenital hip dysplasia in minor Plaintiff. Minor Plaintiff was born with congenital hip dysplasia (“CHD”) that was not diagnosed until 14 months of age. Surgery ensued, casting, immobility and medical attention followed. As a result of the delay, minor Plaintiff was subjected to additional and more invasive surgeries, required additional medical follow-up and experiences disfiguration, has an abnormal gait, has increased risk of avascular necrosis and will likely need hip replacement when older. Defendant pediatrician saw minor Plaintiff routinely during her first year for well visits. During these visits defendant should have diagnosed hip dysplasia and did not. Congenital hip dysplasia occurs when a child is born with an unstable hip due to abnormal formation of the hip joint during the early stages of fetal development. Another name for this condition is developmental dysplasia of the hip. The ball and socket joint in the hip may sometimes dislocate. Statistics show one out of every 1,000 infants is born with a dislocated hip. The cause is unknown. The standard of care is to screen for congenital hip dysplasia from birth and throughout the first year of the child’s life. The most common screening method is a physical examination where the pediatrician will gently maneuver the child’s hips and legs while listening for clicking or clunking sounds that may indicate a dislocation. These tests are generally utilized for children up to three months of age. The instability worsens with age. Older babies’ findings that indicate CHD include limping, limited abduction and a difference in leg lengths if they have a single hip affected. Imaging tests can confirm a CHD diagnosis. If detected early enough, a child may be placed in a harness which abducts the hip by securing their legs in a frog-leg position. The baby may wear this harness for 6 to 12 weeks depending on their age and the severity of the condition. Also, the baby may need to wear the harness full time or part time. If the harness application is unsuccessful, surgery is generally indicated. After the baby’s hip is placed into position, their hips and legs will be casted for at least 1-2 months in a SPICA cast. In this case, minor Plaintiff was not afforded treatment at an early age, and therefore extensive open reduction surgery was necessitated. It is estimated that between 80 and 95 percent of cases identified early receive successful treatment, depending on the severity of the condition. The complicated and more invasive treatment is less likely to be necessary when the doctor identifies the CHD early and provides appropriate treatment. Once treated, the child will likely continue regular visits with an orthopedic specialist to insure the hip is growing normally. In this case, defendant pediatrician examined minor Plaintiff at 9 days, 14 days, 8 weeks, 4 months and 6 months. By the age of six months, the minor’s parents observed asymmetrical folds in her right thigh and buttocks area and informed defendant doctor of the same at the six month visit. There is no mention by defendant physician of the concerns conveyed to her. The abnormalities in skin folds were still present again at the nine month visit, and then the 12 month visit. Again, no mention was made in the record. Shortly thereafter, minor Plaintiff began to walk and had an obvious limp, was walking like she had one high heel on and noticed one leg was longer than the other. Plaintiff mother knew an orthopedic doctor and discussed the minor’s condition with him. An x-ray revealed “suggestive of congenital right hip dysplasia.” A physical examination revealed that the right leg was externally rotated with a mild limp. The note indicates that the parents noted asymmetric thigh folds approximately six months ago, and that this was brought to the attention of the pediatrician, who told them there was nothing to be concerned about. Surgical consultation was recommended. The procedure performed was a femoral shortening, right abductor tenotomy with right hip open reduction. Minor remained in a SPICA cast for the next 6 weeks and underwent physical therapy thereafter. At 18 months, minor could stand but not walk. Minor presented again with hip dislocation and further surgery was recommended, with a Salter or Dega osteotomy to obtain better coverage for the right femoral head. Minor underwent therapy and today continues to exhibit a limp when walking and gallops when running. Plaintiff relied on experts in family practice medicine, and a treating orthopedic surgeon. Defendant violated the applicable standards of care by failing to carefully evaluate the range of motion and flexibility of minor Plaintiff’s hips and legs during her well visits. Defendant failed to recognize that asymmetrical folds in the buttocks and/or thigh of the minor were suggestive of hip dysplasia and warranted further evaluation, early diagnosis of hip dysplasia and treatment. Had defendant performed the appropriate evaluation with careful detail as per the standard of care towards hip range of motion and flexibility, performing certain maneuvers, congenital hip dysplasia would have been diagnosed, an ultrasound or x-rays should have been performed, and a referral to a pediatric orthopedic surgeon should have been made. Defendant claimed that thorough examinations were done within the standard of care, and that the condition only presented itself at 6 month of age or later and surgery at that point would have been the same, with the same outcome. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s negligence, minor Plaintiff had an undiagnosed and untreated hip dysplasia which worsened significantly as she got older. Her risk of avascular necrosis, additional surgeries, abnormal growth of the femoral head, future delayed socket development and leg length discrepancy are all continued risks. Hip replacement surgery is most likely in the future, with revisions as she ages.

DISPOSING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

If you want to dispose of unused medications you should follow these suggestions:

• DO NOT FLUSH unused medications and DO NOT POUR them down a sink or drain.
• When discarding unused medications in your trash:
 Pour them into a sealable plastic bag. If medication is a solid (pill, liquid capsule, etc.), ass water to dissolve it.
 Add kitty litter, sawdust, coffee grounds (or any material that mixes with the medication to make it less appealing to pets and children to eat) in a bag.
 Seal the plastic bag and put it in the trash.
 Remove all and destroy ALL personal information (prescription label) from all medication containers before recycling them or throwing them away.

For more information go to www.smarxtdisposal.net

COLON CANCER SCREENING

COLON CANCER SCREENING
Saving your own life can be as easy as getting a colonoscopy screening.
Over 50,000 people died from colon cancer in 2010. Over 100,000 new cases of colon cancer were diagnosed that same year. Fortunately, there is a 90% survival rate when the cancer is treated early. Unfortunately, only 40% of colon cancers are found early.
Everyone 50 years old or over should have a colonoscopy if they haven’t had one yet. Most insurers cover this test.
Although the colonoscopy is painless, the 24 hour prep, although painless too, is not fun. The bowel preparation requires the patient to drink approximately 1 gallon of special liquid that cleans all fecal material from the bowel. This allows the colonoscopist a totally clear view of your bowel.
For people found with 1 or 2 small precancerous polyps, the next follow-up colonoscopy should be in 5 years. 3 years follow up is recommended for people will bigger or multiple polyps. For people with benign polyps or none at all, a colonoscopy is recommended every 10 years thereafter.
If you are 50 yrs old and have not had your first colonoscopy yet, do not put it off any longer. If you wait until you have symptoms, such as rectal bleeding, abdominal distension, or abdominal pain, your chances of recovery may be diminished.
As attorneys’ in the business of suing physicians and hospitals that fail in their obligations to patients, we are also mindful of patients’ obligations to themselves. For this reason we have inserted this little column.

J.Douglas Peters
5510 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 875-8080