Med Mal News

Hospital Seeks Right to Pull Plug on Vegetative Patient Based on Futility

A New Jersey appeals court heard arguments recently over whether a hospital can end life-sustaining treatment for a patient in a persistent vegetative state contrary to his family's wishes. A year ago, a Union County judge said no, granting an injunction requested by the comatose patient's guardian despite hospital doctors' opinion that further treatment would be futile. The hospital appealed, and though the patient has since died, the Appellate Division proceeded to invite briefs and schedule arguments in the case, Betancourt v. Trinitas Regional Medical Hospital, A-3849-08. The hospital's lawyer insists judicial guidance is needed because the case's circumstances are not uncommon and a similar situation is bound to recur. Equally interested are amici representing disabled patients, who fear a ruling in the hospital's favor would pave the way for caregivers to freely pull the plug in the interests of expediency and cost savings.

PA Court Rules Taking of Health Care Fund Money Is Unlawful

A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court panel held in April that the State's October 2009 transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Medical Care Availabililty and Reduction of Error Fund (MCARE) and the Health Care Provider Retention Account to the General Fund was unlawful. MCARE funds are intended to compensate medical malpractice claimants for amounts not recovered through a medical provider's insurer. The fund's existence allows medical caregivers to pay decreased insurance premiums. When the monies were transferred to the General Fund, the Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) brought suit to have them returned. Following the April 15 ruling that found the transfer unlawful, PAMED President James A. Goodyear, MD, said in a statement, “The Pennsylvania Medical Society is deeply gratified that the Commonwealth Court agreed with our argument that the state should not have taken money from the MCARE Fund and the Health Care Provider Retention Account that's intended to help compensate successful malpractice claims.” The decision thwarts the will of Pennsylvania's legislators and Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who had counted on the MCARE funds to help close the State's $500 million budget gap.

Hospital Must Pay Much of Award for Private Doctor's Malpractice

An Essex County New Jersey jury has awarded $18.5 million in a birth defect case, and the full amount is collectible only because of a landmark appellate ruling two years ago that makes hospitals liable for private physicians' malpractice in certain circumstances. Dr. Joan Lieser, a contract physician at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center with $1 million in coverage, was found liable for failing to give a timely Caesarean section during a delivery, causing cerebral palsy at the birth of Darius Morgan. Instead of being limited to the doctor's $1 million policy, the plaintiff can tap into the hospital's coverage of about $150 million, thanks to Cordero v. Christ Hospital, 403 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 2008), a case that says hospitals are liable if the patient has reason to believe the doctor's care is rendered on the hospital's behalf.

NJ Bill Would Restrict Med-Mal Affidavits, Make Statute of Limitations Absolute

A proposed change in New Jersey's affidavit of merit law ' including a provision criminalizing the making of false statements or material omissions ' is drawing the ire of bar associations, who say it will make the already difficult task of finding an affiant even harder. Affidavits of merit would have to state that the health care provider failed to meet a “commonly recognized standard of care” and be based on “objective scientific clinical evidence.” The measure ' S-760/A-1982, introduced earlier this year ' also would put an absolute four-year deadline on the filing of medical malpractice suits, which would not be tolled by the discovery rule, and a one-year limit on suits arising from foreign objects left in the patient's body. The Middlesex County Bar Association, leading the criticism of the bill, called it “a back door attempt at tort reform” and part of a “continued assault” on the right to a jury trial.

Hospital Seeks Right to Pull Plug on Vegetative Patient Based on Futility

A New Jersey appeals court heard arguments recently over whether a hospital can end life-sustaining treatment for a patient in a persistent vegetative state contrary to his family's wishes. A year ago, a Union County judge said no, granting an injunction requested by the comatose patient's guardian despite hospital doctors' opinion that further treatment would be futile. The hospital appealed, and though the patient has since died, the Appellate Division proceeded to invite briefs and schedule arguments in the case, Betancourt v. Trinitas Regional Medical Hospital, A-3849-08. The hospital's lawyer insists judicial guidance is needed because the case's circumstances are not uncommon and a similar situation is bound to recur. Equally interested are amici representing disabled patients, who fear a ruling in the hospital's favor would pave the way for caregivers to freely pull the plug in the interests of expediency and cost savings.

PA Court Rules Taking of Health Care Fund Money Is Unlawful

A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court panel held in April that the State's October 2009 transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Medical Care Availabililty and Reduction of Error Fund (MCARE) and the Health Care Provider Retention Account to the General Fund was unlawful. MCARE funds are intended to compensate medical malpractice claimants for amounts not recovered through a medical provider's insurer. The fund's existence allows medical caregivers to pay decreased insurance premiums. When the monies were transferred to the General Fund, the Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) brought suit to have them returned. Following the April 15 ruling that found the transfer unlawful, PAMED President James A. Goodyear, MD, said in a statement, “The Pennsylvania Medical Society is deeply gratified that the Commonwealth Court agreed with our argument that the state should not have taken money from the MCARE Fund and the Health Care Provider Retention Account that's intended to help compensate successful malpractice claims.” The decision thwarts the will of Pennsylvania's legislators and Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who had counted on the MCARE funds to help close the State's $500 million budget gap.

Hospital Must Pay Much of Award for Private Doctor's Malpractice

An Essex County New Jersey jury has awarded $18.5 million in a birth defect case, and the full amount is collectible only because of a landmark appellate ruling two years ago that makes hospitals liable for private physicians' malpractice in certain circumstances. Dr. Joan Lieser, a contract physician at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center with $1 million in coverage, was found liable for failing to give a timely Caesarean section during a delivery, causing cerebral palsy at the birth of Darius Morgan. Instead of being limited to the doctor's $1 million policy, the plaintiff can tap into the hospital's coverage of about $150 million, thanks to Cordero v. Christ Hospital , 403 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 2008), a case that says hospitals are liable if the patient has reason to believe the doctor's care is rendered on the hospital's behalf.

NJ Bill Would Restrict Med-Mal Affidavits, Make Statute of Limitations Absolute

A proposed change in New Jersey's affidavit of merit law ' including a provision criminalizing the making of false statements or material omissions ' is drawing the ire of bar associations, who say it will make the already difficult task of finding an affiant even harder. Affidavits of merit would have to state that the health care provider failed to meet a “commonly recognized standard of care” and be based on “objective scientific clinical evidence.” The measure ' S-760/A-1982, introduced earlier this year ' also would put an absolute four-year deadline on the filing of medical malpractice suits, which would not be tolled by the discovery rule, and a one-year limit on suits arising from foreign objects left in the patient's body. The Middlesex County Bar Association, leading the criticism of the bill, called it “a back door attempt at tort reform” and part of a “continued assault” on the right to a jury trial.