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 |
July 02, 2014

Government Settles Phoenix VA Death Claim

The federal government recently settled, in the amount of $800,000, a suit brought by the survivors of a U.S. Veteran whose death allegedly stemmed from the Phoenix Veterans Administration medical center's (VA) failure to render him the care indicated for his heart condition symptoms. The widow of Leonard Kitzinger allged that her husband, then in his early 60s, first sought care from the VA for his chest pains in February 2011. At that time, Kitzinger's blood pressure was a high 181/85, his electrocardiogram was abnormal and a chest X-ray indicated he was experiencing hardening and narrowing of the arteries. His cholesterol levels were also high, and he was a smoker.

Despite all these red flags, Kitzinger was sent home without medication and without a referral for further evaluation or treatment. Because he was still in pain a week later, Kitzinger returned for evaluation and was diagnosed with reflux issues and given medicine for that and for high cholesterol. No cardiac workup was ordered at that time. Six months later, still suffering from the same symptoms, Kitzinger went back to the VA, where a Physician Assistant referred him to a gastroenterologist and suggested he undergo a stress test to rule out cardiac causes for his distress. The follow-up consultation request she wrote indicated that Kitzinger should be scheduled for the “next available” stress test. Instead, he was given an appointment seven weeks later. In the intervening period, Kitzinger suffered a massive heart attack, resulting in brain death. His wife consented to end life support four days later.

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.