Personal Injury News: Pick Of Last Month: Nov-2022

Reading Hospital was sentenced by a Berks County jury to pay $1.3 million to a former patient who sued the hospital for medical misconduct.

According to court records, the jury held the hospital guilty of failing to detect and treat a carotid dissection experienced by the lady of West Reading in 2016.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital was irresponsible in her care, which resulted in her injuries. The hospital's owner and the staff working at the hospital had no comment on the ruling or the complaint.

In October 2016, the plaintiff went to Reading Hospital after suffering some stroke-like symptoms at home. With the exception of mild numbness and a headache, her symptoms had nearly completely subsided by the time she arrived at the hospital.

The ER doctors swiftly performed a CT scan on her, which was negative. The doctors did not request any more tests that would have shown the vasculature and arteries. Given her brief neurological symptoms and the necessity to rule out a carotid dissection, the lady argued this was a divergence in the standard of treatment.

She had an ischemic stroke in the hospital few hours later because her carotid dissection went untreated, causing a clot to lodge in her brain. Essentially, the hospital had a window of opportunity to detect and treat her disease before it caused a catastrophic stroke, but its professionals did not take advantage of it.

Reading Hospital denied any wrongdoing and disputed that any claimed wrongdoing caused or contributed to her injuries. According to the hospital, she had no lasting damage and had recovered to her neurological baseline.

The plaintiff demonstrated physical restrictions with her left hand, some facial palsy, and a disastrous shift in her voice, which is now robotic and lacking any discernible intonation. She further claimed that the injuries caused her emotional pain, shame, and disgrace.

The monetary award was just for pain and suffering; it did not cover lost wages or projected future medical expenditures.

On Tuesday, a local legal firm filed a revised case on behalf of a Palos Park man who became paraplegic after an indoor skydiving accident in January 2021.

According to the revised lawsuit, on January 21, 2021, the 63-year-old plaintiff was engaging in an indoor skydiving activity at iFLY in Rosemont when he became plainly unstable and the instructors and spotters responsible for his safety failed to intervene and protect him.

The plaintiff subsequently crashed into a wall inside the iFLY facility, rendering him quadriplegic, unable to move any of his limbs or torso from the neck down.

The plaintiff's counsel stated that iFLY should not sell this sport on its own website as highly safe and suitable for children as young as three years old, but then keep legal records that refer to iFLY indoor skydiving as an inherently dangerous activity. It is impossible for iFLY to have it both ways. You can't ask parents to hold birthday parties for children as young as three at iFLY and then declare it intrinsically unsafe.

The action, which is still continuing in Cook County Circuit Court, charges carelessness, wanton and deliberate wrongdoing, and false misrepresentation. The plaintiff's legal firm conducted a news conference where they presented a written statement from the plaintiff, the filed lawsuit, and videos and images of the incident.

Throughout response to the complaint, an iFLY representative stated that in the firm's more than 20 years of existence, over 15 million passengers have safely flown with iFLY across all sites, and the company will continue to prioritise the safety of all customers. iFLY feels deeply for the complainant and his family. The fatality was a very experienced, licenced skydiver with the US Parachute Association with over 80 jumps who was receiving training in the iFLY wind tunnel from another experienced skydiver from Skydive Chicago at their private event for experienced skydivers at the time.

The family of a 19-year-old teenager has filed a lawsuit against the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority officer who fatally shot him in 2020.

The wrongful-death action was filed in federal court in Cleveland by the deceased boy's mother against the CMHA officer. On Nov. 13, 2020, the officer shot the youngster after responding to a report that an armed robbery suspect was sitting in a vehicle at the King Kennedy apartment complex. CMHA officers were not wearing body cameras at the time, and a security camera that may have recorded what transpired was damaged.

A grand jury declined to indict the officer after an inquiry by Cleveland police and the Ohio Attorney General's office. The attorneys for the mother of the deceased boy accused the officer of employing excessive force.

The name of the murdered youngster was yelled at during rallies in Cleveland over police shootings that occurred both here and around the country. The inquiry was condemned by the victim's relatives, attorneys, and members of the Cleveland Community Police Commission. They also demanded that the incident be investigated by the federal government.

An autopsy revealed that the youngster was shot in the upper left part of his back, leading many to suspect he was shot while turning to flee from the cops or after he began running away.

The officer stated that he went to a call about a suspect in a vehicle and found the youngster brandishing a pistol. He was ordered out of the van by the cop. According to the cop, the boy jumped out and brandished a revolver at him.

According to the complaint, multiple witnesses, including youngsters and teens, informed investigators that they never saw the plaintiff have a pistol in his hands or aim it at the cops. Some witnesses claimed to have heard gunfire as the youngster fled from the cops.

The boy fainted after running around the corner of an apartment block. According to the complaint, police claimed to discover a pistol near his corpse, although witnesses informed investigators they never saw a gun.

According to the complaint, no crime scene photos showed the pistol near the deceased's corpse; instead, it was photographed in the back of a police car after other evidence was gathered.

The officer had previously been penalised for "behaviour unbecoming of a police officer," misusing sick leave, repeated absenteeism and tardiness, disrespectfulness and discourteousness, wilfully disregarding lawful instructions, and failing a gun-range test, according to the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the officer's supervisors stated during yearly assessments that he needed to enhance his work ethic, decision-making abilities, reliability, and responsibility.

Washington state has agreed to pay $2.75 million to a woman who was critically injured in a rollover accident on Highway 522 involving a state Department of Transportation vehicle.

On March 5, 2018, a mother from Monroe was travelling east on the highway near Maltby in her Jeep Cherokee with her young son in the back seat. When a Washington State Department of Transportation truck performed an unlawful U-turn, she didn't have time to halt, according to her complaint. Her car took off into the air and turned over twice.

Her kid was unharmed, but the lady sustained terrible injuries, including traumatic brain damage, according to the lawsuit. 

She filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation in 2019. In court documents in September, the state admitted blame for the collision. The lawsuit was quickly resolved for $2.75 million. A WSDOT representative verified the settlement in an email but declined to say further.

The two-lane route between Paradise Lake Road in Maltby and the Snohomish River Bridge is notorious for major accidents. A couple in one automobile and an infant in another were killed in a head-on collision in 2014, sparking a lawsuit that labelled the route "inherently unsafe." The state agreed to a $3 million settlement without admitting fault in that case.

Prosecutors accused a woman in August of vehicular murder in a highway collision that killed one and critically wounded another in 2020. This year's big transportation package authorized by the state Legislature contains millions of dollars to expand Highway 522 in that region.

Two hospitals in New York have agreed to pay more than $165 million to 147 former patients who accused a former doctor of sexual assault and misconduct.

The arrangement was announced by Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian. The two institutions reached an agreement last year to establish a $71 million compensation fund with 79 former patients.

After being convicted in state court on sex-related crimes in 2016, the accused doctor relinquished his medical licence but was not sentenced to jail. He is presently on trial on separate federal allegations of sexually assaulting scores of young and vulnerable female patients over a two-decade period.

The resident of Englewood, New Jersey, has pleaded not guilty to six charges of persuading individuals to travel to participate in illicit sexual activities. Prosecutors have labelled the doctor a "predator in a white coat," accusing him of targeting young and naïve victims, including a small girl he had delivered at birth.

Among others who accused the doctor was the wife of a previous presidential contender and New York City mayoral candidate. In 2020, she went public with claims that the doctor abused her when she was a patient of his in 2012.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center administrators stated that they truly regret the agony that the accused doctor's victims endured and hope that these resolutions give some kind of assistance to the ladies he harmed. Everyone that comes out should be applauded.

In an email, one of the doctor's patients stated that New York's Adult Survivors Act will provide a route for countless additional survivors. The statute provided a one-year opportunity for sexual assault claims that would have otherwise been precluded under the law.

A Stark County jury awarded $4.25 million to a widower who sued a former Mercy Medical Center doctor for medical negligence and wrongful death.

According to her husband's attorney, a 43-year-old Dennison resident died in November 2018 after the doctor cut the inner wall of her artery during a catheter procedure to check for heart disease. Another doctor attempted to open the resulting artery blockage but failed as the victim was not placed on a heart support pump within an hour.

The lawsuit was filed against the doctor, several other doctors, Mercy Medical Center, and Stark Medical Specialties in November 2019. According to Stark County court records, Mercy and the other doctors were later dismissed from the case. The trial took place in September, and the jury of six men and one woman deliberated for over three hours before ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Mercy Medical Center was absorbed into the Cleveland Clinic health system in 2021, and its name was changed to Cleveland Clinic Mercy Hospital. One of the issues with how the case was handled, according to the plaintiff's attorney, was that the doctor decided who to call for help and there was no set procedure to follow.

Mercy hospital practises, according to the attorney, should have improved under Cleveland Clinic leadership. He said the lawsuit did not affect the defendant doctor's medical license. According to a spokesman for Cleveland Clinic Mercy Hospital, the case predated the clinic's ownership of Mercy, and the clinic is not involved in the lawsuit.

The state has agreed to pay a North Liberty couple nearly $4 million after their almost 2-year-old son died in 2018 from an undiagnosed strep infection after visiting University of Iowa-affiliated clinics and facilities, including a UI Quick Care and the UI emergency room.

The State Appeal Board unanimously approved a $3.99 million settlement with the infant's parents. The parents sued the state, UI Children's Hospital and its affiliated Pediatric Associates in 2019, and then a UI nurse practitioner and UI Community Medical Services in 2020 for negligence in the same incident.

UI Physicians, a medical and surgical clinical practice based at the UI Carver College of Medicine with over 1,000 physicians, will pay two-thirds of the settlement, or $2.7 million. According to the agreement, the remaining $1.3 million will be paid from Iowa's general fund.

The defendants and their employees and agents who interacted with and provided medical evaluation, assessment, care, treatment, and advice to the child regarding his medical condition, according to the couple's lawsuit, were negligent and violated the standard of care.

According to the couple's lawsuit, the family's concerns began in February 2018, when the infant, who was just days away from his second birthday, developed a fever and raspy breathing. On February 15, 2018, they took him to a UI Quick Care in North Liberty, where he was seen by an advanced registered nurse practitioner and diagnosed with croup.

At the time, the boy was given a steroid and sent home. That night, at 1:25 a.m. on February 16, the child awoke with a fever of 104 degrees Fahrenheit, prompting his parents to dial the UI nurse line.

According to the lawsuit, a UI-affiliated doctor advised the couple to alternate giving their son Tylenol and ibuprofen, as well as cool baths. The parents took him to UI-affiliated Pediatric Associates at 8:30 a.m., where a doctor diagnosed him with "fever" and possible constipation and sent him home with instructions for a liquid laxative.

According to the lawsuit, the boy's parent called another on-call nurse about his ongoing symptoms at 8:12 p.m. that evening and received no new instructions. According to the lawsuit, a registered nurse on that call expressed no concerns.

The infant's condition was not improving, and his cough was worsening, so his parents took him to the UIHC emergency department around 2:30 p.m. on February 17, 2018, according to the lawsuit. Following an examination in the emergency room by doctors, the parents were informed that the child's lungs were "great" and that there was "no concern for pneumonia or any secondary infections."

The family was sent home around 3:30 p.m. with an "upper respiratory infection" diagnosis and a dose of ibuprofen. According to the lawsuit, the parents were told to keep alternating Tylenol and ibuprofen until the illness passed.

Not even two days later, on February 19, at 6:08 a.m., the child's parent called an on-call nurse, concerned that the boy was struggling to breathe. They were instructed to dial 911 or drive the child to the emergency room "if they felt they could safely do so."

The parents began driving the infant to the UIHC emergency room right away, but he became unresponsive on the way. His mother attempted to resuscitate him, but by the time they arrived at 6:27 a.m., the child had gone into "full cardiopulmonary arrest." According to the lawsuit, resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful, and the child was pronounced dead at 6:49 a.m. on February 19, 2018.

His cause of death was "overwhelming undiagnosed Group A Streptococcus infection," which can manifest in minor to fatal illnesses ranging from strep throat to toxic shock syndrome or rheumatic fever, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The lawsuit accused UIHC and its employees of negligence and failure to properly assess, examine, test, diagnose, and treat their son in a timely manner, among other things.

The plaintiffs agreed to release UIHC and its medical personnel from any and all liability for their son's death as part of the settlement. The payment, according to the agreement, does not constitute an admission of liability.

A lawsuit filed this month in Olmsted County District Court claims that Mayo Clinic Hospital-Saint Marys medical personnel inadvertently overdosed a patient with an opiate, causing a brain injury.

The plaintiff from Shoreview, Minnesota, claims that in January 2021, he was a patient at Mayo Clinic suffering from shortness of breath, alcohol withdrawal disorder, and abnormally low sodium levels in his blood. During his hospitalization, he received an overdose of the opiate lorazepam, resulting in a brain injury. Mayo Clinic denied that the hospital caused his injuries or that he was given an opiate overdose.

According to the Mayo Clinic Communications Manager, patient care is a top priority at the clinic, and the clinic takes these responsibilities seriously. The claims in this situation are being investigated by officials. A request for comment from the plaintiff's attorney was not returned.

The plaintiff claims that multiple Mayo Clinic employees were negligent in their treatment of him and deviated from the standard medical care provided by medical professionals in similar circumstances.

The plaintiff arrived at Mayo Clinic on January 8, 2021, suffering from a variety of ailments but with otherwise normal vital signs, according to the court filing. Mayo staff became concerned about electrolyte derangement caused by his alcohol withdrawal about two hours after he arrived.

The plaintiff claims that the next morning he was given multiple doses of lorazepam to help him cope with the agitation caused by his alcohol withdrawal.

Lorazepam is a medication used to treat anxiety disorders. It is also used to provide short-term relief from anxiety symptoms or anxiety caused by depression. Lorazepam is a benzodiazepine that works in the brain to alleviate anxiety symptoms. According to the Mayo Clinic, benzodiazepines are central nervous system (CNS) depressants, which are medications that slow down the nervous system.

According to his court filing, following the administration of lorazepam, the plaintiff collapsed and suffered respiratory failure, necessitating a series of medical interventions such as the placement of a stomach tube, prolonged sedation, and a tracheostomy, a hole cut into the windpipe to allow a tube to be inserted to assist in breathing.

In his filing, he claims that multiple Mayo employees wrote in his medical records that his injuries, including his brain injury, were the cause of an unintentional lorazepam or benzodiazepine overdose as a result of his alcohol withdrawal.

Plaintiff's injuries are permanent and severe, and he is unlikely to regain any function lost as a result of his injuries, according to a portion of the court filing. He claims that he needed help from others after being discharged from Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic has denied that the plaintiff received an overdose of medication while a patient there.

According to a portion of the Mayo Clinic's court filing, the care provided by plaintiff's Mayo-employed providers was reasonable and appropriate, complied with accepted standards of care in all respects, and was not the cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries.

The plaintiff is seeking a monetary award in excess of $50,000, as well as court costs. The Mayo Clinic wants a jury trial, but the court should dismiss the case and award the hospital court costs instead.