August 24th, 2007

Three Interesting New Blogs

This isn’t New York personal injury law, but interesting enough to note:

1. Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration, has become the first Cabinet-level official to blog.

2. The country’s first blogging coroner? (via Dr. Wes)

3. A fake law blog from the producers of the law show Damages with Glenn Close (via WSJ Law Blog), perhaps stealing a page from the Fake Steve Jobs. But if they really want to do it right, they would remove the references to the TV show that exist in the header, interact with the blawgosphere with outgoing links, and mingle real-world law and current events with their fictional show. Now that would be worth reading.

 

August 23rd, 2007

NY Suit Against Naomi Campbell Goes Forward

Model Naomi Campbell lost her bid to have a New York personal injury suit against her tossed out. The allegations of physical and psychological abuse were brought by her maid.

The motion to dismiss was brought before an answer was submitted so, for the purposes of the motion, the claims set forth in the complaint were accepted as true. Only the contract claim was tossed out, for lack of specificity, but the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and punitive damaged were not.

The New York Post reported the story here today.

I’ve procured a copy of the decision: Gibson-V-Campbell.pdf

Update: AP story here.

 

August 23rd, 2007

Injured New York Illegal Immigrant Can Sue

You can’t have it both ways. So says a New York judge in ruling that an undocumented alien can sue after an accident left him paralyzed, according to a New York Daily News story. If you want them on the work site because they are cheap labor, then a duty is owed to the worker to follow appropriate safety practices.

The plaintiff had previously been accorded summary judgment in this decision:
GomezSJ.pdf.

Related story: Court Nominee Withdraws Over Illegal Alien Claim (ABAJournal)

 

August 22nd, 2007

Overlawyered Adds Personal Injury Attorney To Blogroll

When pigs fly, I hear you say.

Would the oldest legal blog in America — dedicated to documenting the high cost of our legal system and, perhaps, savoring some of the outrageousness that exists (Pants Pearson, anyone?) for the anecdotal benefits — actually add a dyed-in-the-wool, 100% personal injury attorney to their blogroll? An individual that takes tort “reformers” to task every so often? One who is a guest contributor at Overlawyered’s arch nemesis, TortDeform? Well, yes. They would.

Has Overlawyered gone soft? Have they fallen under the spell of Judge Robert Bork’s new found convictions?

For reasons known only to those within the super-secret confines of the conservative Manhattan Institute (and senior fellow Walter Olson) that runs the site, they have added this trial lawyer (cough, cough, spit, spit) to their blogroll — apparently the only plaintiff’s PI attorney to appear there. And the blogger they added is still a rookie. Will Olson have to turn in his secret decoder ring for this? Will that trial lawyer guy be ostracized and banished from the PI Secret Society and have to turn in his own secret decoder ring?

Stay tuned. It seems that pigs can sprout wings.
——————————————————————————–

I don’t get around to updating my blogroll too often, but I think it’s time to add a few:

  • Overlawyered — Just for fun, I’ll place this entry right between TortDeform and The Tortellini. Excuse me while I grunt and flap my own new wings;
  • Kevin, M.D. — While Dr. Kevin Pho also has a position contrary to mine on some issues, he is a magnificent resource of stories and opinions from the field of medicine;
  • DeliberationsAnne Reed’s terrific blog on everything related to juries. Also a rookie;
  • Above the LawDavid Lat’s legal tabloid…need I really say more?
  • TortsProf — Brought to you by Prof. Bill Childs from Western New England School of Law, who does a great job rooting out tort cases from everywhere the sun shines, and some places it doesn’t.

 

August 21st, 2007

Medicare’s Medical Malpractice Fix

Medicare’s decision to withhold payment to hospitals when they commit certain acts of medical malpractice raises interesting legal issues. That decision, which I briefly mentioned in Round-Up # 24, has Medicare refusing to pay hospitals to fix preventable errors they cause. With this comes the hope of better care as malpractice continues to increase in some hospitals. This includes not only such res ipsa loquitor subjects as retained surgical equipment and wrong site surgery, but also severe bed sores and certain items that could be subject to debate.

According to the Medicare press release, the policy will apply for “never events” — errors in medical care that are clearly identifiable, preventable, and serious in their consequences for patients, and that indicate a real problem in the safety and credibility of a health care facility. Since the Institute of Medicine found in 1999 that up to 98,000 people die from medical errors each year, this is clearly an extraordinary problem.

For instance, from the list of “Never Events” is this:

Intraoperative or immediately post-operative death in a normal health patient (defined as a Class 1 patient for purposes of the American Society of Anesthesiologists patient safety initiative.

Now if that case came into my office it would be vigorously defended by the hospital. (Never mind if the defense has merit.) But it also raises an issue: What will be the forum to defend against Medicare’s decision?

Here is another from the press release:

Patient death or serious disability associated with a medication error (e.g., error involving the wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong patient, wrong time, wrong rate, wrong preparation, or wrong route of administration

While some medication errors are clear, they are nonetheless staunchly defended. There is no shortage of doctor-experts to come to the aid of their fellow physicians when accused of malpractice. And many dosage questions may not be so clear cut if the “wrong” dosage that was given was the same one that was prescribed. The defense to the “wrong” drug being given is that the doctor did it on purpose, thus making it a judgment call. (Medicare will need to clarify what it means by “wrong.”)

All this raises a bunch of questions:

How will Medicare implement the policy? If they sweep too broadly into absolutism, they will need a quasi-judicial forum to resolve the issues.

What will be the effect of a Medicare decision not to provide payment have on a court in a malpractice case?

What will happen to the patient when the hospital isn’t being paid? Will the patient suddenly become such a low priority for treatment that they get worse? Or die?

This story came out as I was returning from vacation, and others have already spoken on the subject. For more opinions: