While laws relating to medical malpractice claims vary from state to state, there are a few general rules of
    thumb that can be broadly applied to any medical malpractice claim. If you believe that an injury you had
    treated by a medical professional is worsening as a result of seeing that medical professional, seek a
    second opinion from another medical professional that practices in the same field as the first medical
    professional you visited. This is often the best first step you can take in figuring out whether or not you
    have a viable medical malpractice lawsuit to bring against the first medical professional in this example. By
    asking for a second opinion, the second medical professional should be able to tell you whether or not you
    received proper treatment for your injury.

    If the second medical professional agrees that the first medical professional was indeed negligent in their
    care of your injury, you should then contact legal help. A process known as discovery will then commence,
    meaning that both sides of the case will meet with each other to discuss the merits of the case. Depositions
    are done, witness testimonies are gathered, and expert witnesses are brought in to bear their considerable
    knowledge on the case at hand.

    In fact, a lawyer’s ability to procure expert witnesses in medical malpractice lawsuits is often one of the
    most important facets towards winning such cases. As you can well imagine, medical malpractice lawsuits
    are some of the most technical and complex kinds of personal injury cases that exist. As a result, having an
    experienced attorney that is capable of getting expert witnesses to help clarify the merits of your case is
    often crucially important towards a successful outcome. 

    Furthermore, bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit against a medical professional can prove difficult for a
    number of reasons, sometimes the least of which is the highly technical nature of the issue at hand. In
    many states across the country, laws have been put into place that have made it increasingly difficult to
    fully litigate medical malpractice claims against negligent medical professionals. While many of these laws
    were enacted in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits from patients or other entities seeking a quick payout
    from a large insurance policy, the laws have also made it somewhat more difficult for an injured claimant
    with a legitimate case to seek full compensation for their injury in a medical malpractice lawsuit. 

    However, this should not prevent you from seeking compensation for your injury if you have a legitimate
    claim for a medical malpractice lawsuit. With competent and experienced help, like the Law Offices of Annie
    B. Hirsch, LLC in Maryland, you can rest assured that your best interests will be looked after, expert
    witnesses will be procured on your behalf, and the truth of your case will be found out so that you have the
    greatest likelihood of receiving full compensation for your injury in a medical malpractice lawsuit. 

    -Austin Texas injury attorney, E. Michal Grossman

          When asked about the appeal, Hirsch stated that "This family has been waiting for this for an
     exceedingly long time.  They have undergone substantial pain and suffering from the moment their patriarch
     was hospitalized, through his death and an agonizing trial.  The last year and a half of waiting has been
     difficult for all of them.  It's time for this matter to be put to rest and to give this family what they what
     they are entitled to under the law, their verdict." 

          Oral arguments are set to be heard by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on January 12, 2011. Ms.
     Hirsch and Mr. Vettori, counsel for the Plaintiffs, are confident that this verdict will be upheld by the
     Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in the interest of fairness and justice.

    The Maryland Legislature banned texting while driving back in March of 2009, however the illegal
    nature of this activity has not stopped everyone from doing something which is so clearly
    dangerous for themselves and everyone else around them.  As we enter the hottest part of the
    summer many of us us are driving to the beach (or elsewhere) for our yearly break.  It is crucial that
    while we embark on these trips that we take the time to be safe and observant drivers for the sake
    of ourselves, our families, and everyone else on the road. 

    Ideally no one would use their cell phones while driving because it is hard to believe that anyone
    could be truly attentive to the road while chatting on their cell phone.  However, at the very least
    people should take a few simple steps to make the roads a little safer for the rest of us.  Use hands-
    free or ear pieces when driving and talking, never text while driving, never attempt to use any smart
    phone applications (especially those which require typing while driving), and enter your GPS
    destination in your phone or device prior to engaging your vehicle.  While some vehicles have a
    safety feature which prevents the entering of new destinations while the car is in drive, many people
    have taken to using smart phones and portable GPS devices which do not register the state of the
    vehicle when a destination is entered.  Finally, if you must text, search, or change your destination
    while on the road, please make sure to pull off to a safe spot such as a parking lot to do so. 

    This $664,000 verdict was prevantable.  This was a high price to pay for both the driver and the 
    victim.  And so for the rest of us, this verdict will serve as a simple reminder to take these relatively 
    simple, inobtrusive steps so we can all help ensure that we have a safe and enjoyable summer.

    The big news for defendants is that a $1,000 a day fine will be imposed for every day that passes beyond the deadline when the defendant is required to submit a report to Medicare which includes specified settlement related data.  Defendants have begun to utilize this reporting requirement as a crutch in settlement negotiations and in the rendering of payments for settlements.  Myths regarding how and when settlement checks must be issued have begun circulating, along with claims of set-aside requirements in liability claims, and propaganda regarding which penalties can be exacted for which infractions.  While Defendants use this penalty as an excuse to delay payment, plaintiffs continue to attempt to persuade Defendants that their fears of $1,000 a day fines are in no way related to the timing or the form of the settlement payments, and ONLY relates to the act of reporting required information regarding the settlement to Medicare, nothing else.

     This new statutory language regarding this new reporting requirement also has a penalty for the complete failure to render payment where a Medicare lien is properly asserted in a liability claim.  Here, double damages may be assessed against the defendant and any number of parties to the suit should this complete and utter neglect occur.  However, the likelihood of this occurring is extremely slim given the numerous failures that must occur over a substantial period of time, before this penalty is even addressed.  Plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys have been facing personal liability for the non-payment of Medicare liens for years.  The fact that an additional penalty against another party has been addressed by a statute changes nothing for us.  Whether it is $100,000 or $200,000, no plaintiff's attorney would risk having this kind of debt assessed against them by not addressing the Medicare lien upon the receipt of settlement funds, even if there is an addition of a defendant as a possible liable party.  It is for this reason the plaintiff’s attorneys have long held the practice of holding on to all funds from a settlement in their trust account, until they are assured that Medicare has confirmed the complete satisfaction and subsequent discharge of the lien.

     Finally, myths have begun circulating regarding Medicare now requiring set asides for Plaintiffs in liability claims.  (Set-asides are funds from a settlement that are “set aside” in order to pay future, claim-related, medical bills in lieu of Medicare.)  This is false.  Medicare has repeatedly reiterated that set asides are NOT required for liability claims.  Unlike worker’s compensation claims, Medicare has no formal system of evaluation for set-asides in liability claims.  Medicare's representatives have stated in multiple town hall teleconferences that designating a set aside in a liability claim remains solely voluntary.  There is no statutory requirement, nor is there even a published or recorded interpretation by Medicare (the beneficiary) that such a requirement exists.    

     To find out more about these new penalties, myths, and delay tactics by defendants and defense counsel, please go to our publication section and be the first to read the soon to be published article The New Medicare Reporting Requirement:  What's all the fuss about? By Annie B. Hirsch. 

"President Obama is widely expected to toss Republicans a bone at Thursday's health care summit, by publicly embracing what's known as "tort reform."

By tort reform, Republicans and medical professionals mean caps on non-economic punitive damages in lawsuits where patients or their survivors have proven in court that they were the victims of gross medical malpractice.

Proponents have long dominated the framing of the issue with their arguments that tort reform will lead to lower health care costs and will free doctors from practicing defensive medicine. But that narrative is flawed. And it completely neglects how punitive damages are essentially the only way that patients have of holding medical professionals and organizations accountable when they kill, maim or injure people through negligence or incompetence.

In a letter addressed to President Obama on Tuesday, the American Medical Association (AMA) maintained that tort reform would lower health care costs directly --by lowering insurance premiums, jury awards and administrative costs not covered by insurance-- and indirectly, by curbing the use of unwarranted tests and medical procedures to guard against lawsuits. Citing the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the AMA added that tort reform "would reduce federal budget deficits by about $54 billion during the 2010-2019 period."

What the association left out, however, was an earlier statement by the Congressional Budget Office putting that amount in context: Limiting malpractice payouts "would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009)," the office concluded in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

The CBO has also concluded that "so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients."

And what about those irrevocably and traumatically affected by gross medical negligence? Big-money malpractice verdicts are reached for a reason: The facts are horrible and the victims have no other recourse.

Consider Merlyna Adams, a school principal in Louisiana, who was shunted to four different hospitals and denied attention even after tests revealed an obstructive and potentially fatal kidney stone in her body. She subsequently experienced pulmonary, renal and congestive heart failure, resulting in the amputation of both her hands and her legs.

Or two-year-old Steven Olsen of California, who after being denied a CAT scan by an HMO after a hiking accident, incurred permanent brain damage and lost his sense of sight. Although initially awarded $7.1 million in non-economic compensation, an existing malpractice law forced his presiding judge to lower the amount to $250,000.

Consider the dependents of the 98,000 men and women who die every year on account of preventable medical errors, a figure put forward by the Institute of Medicine.

According to the American Association for Justice, the official trade group for trial lawyers, legislators ought to be focused primarily on reducing the frequency of malpractice, rather than malpractice litigation, since a mere 2 to 3 percent of all instances of malpractice lead to claims.

"The idea of bargaining away the life of injured patients is a very, very bad idea," President of the Association Anthony Tarricone told HuffPost. "Opponents of health care have seized on tort reform as a panacea....They're bankrupt of any real reforms. The only real solution is eliminating malpractice itself.""

- Shriram Harid, Huffingtonpost.com, February 24, 2010

    The charges from House members amplify the unprecedented scrutiny focused on the beleaguered
    automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In addition to three congressional
    committees, which are holding hearings beginning Tuesday, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed
    company documents relating to unintended acceleration, and so has the Securities and Exchange
    Commission, Toyota announced Monday.

    The allegations Monday from Energy and Commerce committee members frame what is expected to
    be one of the key questions before lawmakers, as well as consumers: Has Toyota really made its
    cars safe by recalling interfering floor mats and sticky pedals, as it has said repeatedly, or does the
    cause of the unintended acceleration episodes go deeper into engine electronics?

    Congressional investigators, along with safety advocates, victims' families and trial lawyers, are
    skeptical of Toyota's explanations. They think there is a problem in the electronic throttle systems. 

    The letters Monday from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to James E.
    Lentz III, president of Toyota Motor Sales USA, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused
    Toyota and federal safety regulators of overlooking evidence as far back as 2004 that the
    automaker's engine electronics had defects that could be causing unintended acceleration.

    In June 2004, the automaker and NHTSA officials discussed a chart showing that Toyota Camrys with
    new electronic throttles had 400 percent more complaints regarding "vehicle speed."

    Moreover, according to investigators, Toyota could have seen from its database of consumer calls
    that floor mats and sticky pedals didn't explain all the reports of unintended acceleration.
    Approximately 70 percent of the sudden unintended acceleration events in Toyota's customer
    database involved vehicles that are not subject to recalls.

    "Yet despite these warnings, Toyota appears to have conducted no systematic investigation into
    whether electronic defects could lead to sudden unintended acceleration," the Waxman and Stupak
    letter to Lentz said.

    The investigators also noted that in a Feb. 5 letter, a Toyota attorney reported to the committee that
    the causes of sudden unintended acceleration are "multiple" and "hard to identify."

    By assuring the public that new floor mats and pedals would fix the problem, Toyota had "made
    misleading public statements," Waxman and Stupak wrote.

    Toyota has strenuously maintained that it has checked its electronics and that the engines should
    self-detect and resolve electronics troubles. In internal documents cited by congressional
    investigators, Toyota officials blamed drivers for pressing on the accelerator when they thought it
    was the brake.

    Moreover, the automaker has sent Congress a report from a California engineering company,
    Exponent, that said it could find no troubles with Toyota engines. Waxman and Stupak criticized the
    report, which studied six Toyota vehicles.

    "It is well known that the phenomenon of sudden acceleration, while often deadly, is not so
    widespread that such simple tests with such extremely small sample sizes would uncover the root
    cause," University of Maryland engineering professor Michael Pecht told the committee.

    NHTSA, meanwhile, was woefully unprepared to decide whether engine electronics might be at fault,
    Waxman and Stupak said.

1.  If you're diagnosed with a serious illness, the first step is to educate yourself.  Make sure that your doctor is explaining everything to you, and that you understand his/her explanation.  If he/she can't, or refuses to explain your condition to you in terms which you can understand, then find another doctor, or patient advocacy group, that can.  No matter who you are, or what your level of education is, you are entitled to an understanding of what is happening to you.

2.  It is often crucial to get a second opinion when diagnosed with a serious illness.  Make sure your physician's diagnosis and treatment plan is confirmed by a specialist in that field.  Many diseases are diagnosed by doctors who are not specialists and don't regularly treat your type of illness.  For example: Urologists are doctors who often treat male cancers, but you should get a second opinion from an oncologist.  An OBGYN may diagnose breast cancer, but you should always follow up the diagnosis with a consult with an oncologist.

3.  At your first appointment with the specialist, bring a friend or family member with you.  When we listen to medical explanations and treatment options after we receive a serious diagnosis, it becomes difficult to focus on all of the details and ask all pf the necessary follow up questions.  Bringing a trusted friend or family member can help you get the information you need for when you come home.

4.  Bring a pad and pen with you to your appointments.  Jot down information, and write down questions you have ahead of time so that you don't forget them when you are caught up in the middle of the visit.  

5.  As your therapy/treatment is described to you, make notes and keep a diary throughout your treatment with observations, questions, and concerns.  Follow up with your specialist when you document anything that seems out of the ordinary, troubling, or upsetting.

6.  If you are used to going online, go online and try to research your disease. However, only do so after you have an undertsanding of what it is you have.  Trying to diagnose one's self with online information can be a dangerous practice and will often lead to upsetting the patient with no real benefit since many symptoms can be commonly found in countless illnesses. 

7.  When you go online, check out www.clinictrials.gov to see if there is a trial going on for the disease and the condition that's been described to you. If the treating physician has described to you a clinical trial, investigate the trial, find out if it's NCI-approved (National Cancer Institute), Department of Defense-approved, Veteran's Affairs-approved. Is it in trial in a hospital; if so, if the industry is putting it on.

8.  Reach out to a nonprofit disease group that has the kind of disease that you do and see what information they have about treatment options.

9.  Find out what your insurance provides for and that means you may have to go to the human resources department and get a copy of your insurance plan. If you're troubled by what it says or your don't understand what it says, either go see a human services representative in your own company to get them to explain the health care coverage to you or contact the Patient Advocate Foundation (www.patientadvocate.org), they interpret plan language for patients all day every day. Your doctor's office will sometimes have a person on the staff that can also help you understand what your insurance provides for.

10.  If you find there's a disconnect between what your insurer is going to pay for and what your doctor recommends that you have, contact an organization like the Patient Advocate Foundation to see if they can find a resolution for filling the gap. Be certain that as the patient, you find out what your financial responsibilities are going to be. What is the time commitment that you've got to make?

11.  Address with your family what your treatment is going to be and make certain that you keep them informed. Chances are, no matter what the illness is, you're going to need their love and support. It's important that they're informed early on as to what you're getting ready to do.

     If, after all of this, things do not progress the way you believe they should have, and you have
     concerns that this incorrect treatment caused the undesired outcome, then contact The Law Offices
     of Annie B. Hirsch, LLC.  Being an advocate for one's self can be an arduous task, and when things
     don't go as planned, we are here for you and your family to act as an advocate on your behalves. 

     The quality of medical care in this country can be improved, but it won't be through tort reform, or
     caps on non-economic damages.  Today we wait for medical organizations such as the AMA to
     find ways to regulate their own so the same physicians can't travel from state to state,
     repeatedly making the same mistakes.  However, we cannot afford to rely on these groups to do
     what has not been accomplished after years of follies.  Through patients who are willing to ask
     questions, challenge their physicians when their gut tells them to, and the appropriate
     implementation of the legal system through law firms such as The Law Offices of Annie B. Hirsch,
     LLC, we will see actual improvement in the quality of our country's medical care.