Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Med Mal News

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
January 28, 2010

New York City Hospital Settles Notorious Case

The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) has reached agreements with the New York Civil Liberties Union, Mental Hygiene Legal Services and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to settle complaints concerning deficiencies at Queens, NY's Kings County Hospital Center. Mishandling of several patients' cases prompted the call for the reforms outlined in the agreement, most notably the death of Esmin Green in 2008. Green waited for more than 24 hours, largely unattended, to be admitted to the hospital. Her obvious medical distress was ignored or overlooked by staff members, and she died of a blood clot on the waiting room floor. The terms of the agreements were memorialized in a settlement signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York on Jan. 8. Judge Matsumoto will retain oversight authority in order to make sure that HHC complies with its pledges, which include, among others: 1) relieving overcrowding; 2) establishing a group to oversee reforms; 3) improving the triage system; and 4) discontinuing the practice of putting patients in isolation.

Doctor Indicted on Charges of Covering up Liver Transplant Patient Switch

Los Angeles surgeon Dr. Richard R. Lopez Jr. was indicted Jan. 6 for allegedly lying to the national organ transplant network about a liver transplant performed on a patient low on the national wait list. Dr. Lopez was the director of the liver transplant program at Los Angeles' St. Vincent Medical Center in 2003 when a liver was made available to a St. Vincent patient identified as A-H. Unfortunately, when the liver became available, A-H was visiting Saudi Arabia. The person next in line to receive the liver was at another hospital in the Los Angeles area. Rather than notifying the organ transplant organization that A-H was not present, Lopez allegedly approved the transplant of the liver to another patient at St. Vincent's. That patient was 52nd in line to receive a liver. Then, Dr. Lopez and his unnamed co-conspirators allegedly falsified records to show that A-H had indeed received the liver, causing him to be removed from the organ procurement organization's list of waiting patients. A-H, however, still believed that he was on the wait list. A-H died before ever receiving a liver transplant. In a release announcing the indictment, issued by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Glenn R. Ferry, Special Agent in Charge for the Los Angeles Region of the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health of Human Services, said, “Violating federal organ transplant rules and then taking steps to cover up his actions, Dr. Lopez exposed the public to substantial risk. This case sends a strong message that doctors must follow the rules in place to protect patients.”

New York City Hospital Settles Notorious Case

The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) has reached agreements with the New York Civil Liberties Union, Mental Hygiene Legal Services and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to settle complaints concerning deficiencies at Queens, NY's Kings County Hospital Center. Mishandling of several patients' cases prompted the call for the reforms outlined in the agreement, most notably the death of Esmin Green in 2008. Green waited for more than 24 hours, largely unattended, to be admitted to the hospital. Her obvious medical distress was ignored or overlooked by staff members, and she died of a blood clot on the waiting room floor. The terms of the agreements were memorialized in a settlement signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York on Jan. 8. Judge Matsumoto will retain oversight authority in order to make sure that HHC complies with its pledges, which include, among others: 1) relieving overcrowding; 2) establishing a group to oversee reforms; 3) improving the triage system; and 4) discontinuing the practice of putting patients in isolation.

Doctor Indicted on Charges of Covering up Liver Transplant Patient Switch

Los Angeles surgeon Dr. Richard R. Lopez Jr. was indicted Jan. 6 for allegedly lying to the national organ transplant network about a liver transplant performed on a patient low on the national wait list. Dr. Lopez was the director of the liver transplant program at Los Angeles' St. Vincent Medical Center in 2003 when a liver was made available to a St. Vincent patient identified as A-H. Unfortunately, when the liver became available, A-H was visiting Saudi Arabia. The person next in line to receive the liver was at another hospital in the Los Angeles area. Rather than notifying the organ transplant organization that A-H was not present, Lopez allegedly approved the transplant of the liver to another patient at St. Vincent's. That patient was 52nd in line to receive a liver. Then, Dr. Lopez and his unnamed co-conspirators allegedly falsified records to show that A-H had indeed received the liver, causing him to be removed from the organ procurement organization's list of waiting patients. A-H, however, still believed that he was on the wait list. A-H died before ever receiving a liver transplant. In a release announcing the indictment, issued by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Glenn R. Ferry, Special Agent in Charge for the Los Angeles Region of the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health of Human Services, said, “Violating federal organ transplant rules and then taking steps to cover up his actions, Dr. Lopez exposed the public to substantial risk. This case sends a strong message that doctors must follow the rules in place to protect patients.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.