- Perspective: Strolling blissfully down the garden path…
- “What is an emergency physician’s duty?”
- Medical Economics: Plaintiff Attorney gives advice
- Autism lends itself to questionable medical practices
- VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section) is safe
- State Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Practice of Medicine Case
- Nurses cleared in whistleblowing case in TX
- Georgia Supreme Court: One for you, one for me, one for you, one for me
- Firefighters with stupid ideas: No “amicus curiae” here
Perspective: Strolling blissfully down the garden path…
“Always trust your first impression.” We’ve all heard it time and time again, but is it really true? Especially in medicine, should it ever be true? Falling in love with one’s first impression of a patient’s presenting problem known as “anchoring,” can be catastrophic for both patients and physicians. More ->
“What is an emergency physician’s duty?”
William Sullivan MD JD asks this question in “Emergency Physicians’ Monthly.” He explains that since “duty to treat” is foundational in any malpractice case, fully defining the extent of that duty, particularly in the Emergency Department, is crucial. He urges care when providing specific answers to broad questions about the concept and provides an excellent summary applicable to both plaintiff and defense.
Medical Economics: Plaintiff Attorney gives advice
Barry Lang MD JD garnered front page coverage in the March 19 issue of Medical Economics with an article pointing out to physicians how they can be their “own worst enemy” in a malpractice trial. Particularly interesting reading for defense attorneys… and their clients.
Autism lends itself to questionable medical practices
Anyone involved in autism might find this blog post interesting. Questionable treatments abound, and the diagnosis has become rampant, knocking ADHD from first place in behavioral disorders among children.
VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section) is safe
The Agency for Healthcare Quality recently published an “evidence-based practice summary” showing that VBAC is “a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean.” The data was compiled by Oregon Health Sciences University and addresses the 1.5 million childbearing women who have cesarean deliveries each year. There is also evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans.
State Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Practice of Medicine Case
On March 18, 2010 the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that Benton Franklin Orthopedic Associates did not violate the state’s corporate practice of medicine doctrine by employing physical therapists. In Columbia Physical Therapy v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Associates, the court found that state statute permitted Orthopedic Associates to engage in the professional service its members were licensed to practice – medicine. Taya Briley, reporting for the Washington State Hospital Association, says the court “further found that employment of physical therapists was permitted because physical therapy is ‘one aspect of’ the practice of medicine.
Nurses cleared in whistleblowing case in TX.
Two nurses who reported a doctor to state authorities for unethical conduct were then sued by the physician for their action. The nurses recently won their case when the jury took less than an hour to find them innocent.
Georgia Supreme Court: One for you, one for me, one for you, one for me
If it were Olympic gymnastics, the Georgia Supreme Court would easily win the balance beam competition for its recent rulings. In a single week in March they first struck down a $350,000 cap on medical malpractice awards because it “clearly nullifies the jury’s findings of fact regarding damages and thereby undermines the jury’s basic function,” according to Chief Justice Carol Hunstein. As an added bonus to plaintiffs and their attorneys, the ruling applies retroactively to all cases not yet resolved. (Illinois recently had a similar ruling.) In a second ruling the justices upheld a higher standard of proof in medical malpractice cases against emergency healthcare providers. Guess which ruling was “condemned by doctors and Republican lawmakers.” A third case upheld as constitutional a provision that provides for “loser pays” legal fees in some cases. The cases are a response to Georgia’s 2005 Tort Reform Act, which was championed by the health care and medical insurance industries. (Legislators in Florida are hoping to further restrict that state’s already stringent rules on suits against emergency providers.
Firefighters with stupid ideas: No “amicus curiae” here
The union for Louisiana firefighters proposed a law that would exempt them from medical oversight and discipline for emergency medical activities. The purpose of the current oversight is to to ensure that EMTs are properly certified and review how well they deliver medical care. In an action that would have to be called an “enemy of the court” (what’s the Latin for that?), nearly all of their non-firefighter colleagues, as well as several national organizations representing emergency care providers have labeled this a stupid idea (my language).