States

July 17, 2022

Pennsylvania Birth Injury Verdict Overturned: Charlton v. Troy

In Charlton v. Troy, a Pennsylvania Superior Court nixed a $40 million verdict, ordering a new trial in a birth injury lawsuit alleging excessive traction caused a severe spinal injury.

Facts of Charlton v. Troy

The case revolves around the events that occurred during the birth of the Charlton twins. Mrs. Charlton underwent routine prenatal testing at the hospital when she was 37 and a half weeks pregnant with twins. The ultrasound revealed that “Twin B” was 25 percent smaller than “Twin A,” indicating discordant growth and some tachycardia in Twin B.

February 9, 2022

Montana Supreme Court Medical Malpractice Opinoin

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Montana Supreme Court decided Higgins v. Augustine yesterday. This lawsuit involved a dispute over whether a doctor had breached the standard of care during a circumcision.

The lawsuit alleged that the doctor was negligent in performing the procedure, causing the child to suffer an injury, and sought damages. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor. However, the plaintiff appealed the District Court’s decision to exclude specific evidence related to a witness’s expert testimony.

During the trial, the expert witness testified that the injury suffered by the child was not consistent with the use of the correct tools and suggested that the doctor may have used incorrect scissors or misused the correct scissors. However, the plaintiff had not adequately disclosed the witness’s opinion promptly, leading the defendant to move for its exclusion. The District Court agreed, and the plaintiff appealed this decision.

January 16, 2022

Emergency Room Malpractice in Georgia

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Many states are trying to carve out malpractice caps and different standards of care for emergency room doctors in medical malpractice cases.

The thinking starts out okay. Emergency department doctors should be given the benefit of the doubt because things are happening so quickly. But ER doctors are always getting the benefit of the doubt from jurors. There is statistical evidence of this.

More importantly, the standard of care already bakes in the fact that things are sometimes happening at the speed of light in the ER. That is why reasonableness is always based on all the facts and circumstances. Continue reading

March 25, 2021

New Mexico Supreme Court Blesses Malpractice Cap

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last week, in Siebert v. Okun, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state’s damages cap in medical malpractice cases was constitutional, concluding the law did not violate the right to a trial by jury. This ruling struck down the Bernalillo County District Court’s 2018 ruling on Siebert v. Okun.

New Mexico’s Medical Malpractice Act

The New Mexico legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Act in 1976. The law caps damages in medical malpractice cases at $600,000. It applies to lost wages and pain and suffering. The cap excludes punitive damages and compensation for medical and rehabilitative treatments.

October 9, 2020

Whistleblower Lawsuits for Unnecessary Hospitalizations (Winter v. Gardens Regional)

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Earlier this year in Winter v. Gardens Regional Hospital, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived a False Claims Act case filed by the Director of Care Management in a California hospital that claimed nearly $1.3 in Medicare claims that sought reimbursement for inpatient hospitalizations that were not medically necessary.

The U.S. District Court of Utah dismissed the case, without leave to amend, for failing to state a claim under the FCA. Specifically, the court believed that the qui tam plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action under the FCA because the allegations as a matter of law were “subjective medical opinions” that demonstrated a mere “difference of opinion” as to the medical necessity of inpatient hospital admissions.

Facts of Winter v. Gardens Regional Hospital

August 25, 2020

Georges v. Ob-Gyn Servs. | Birth Injury Appellate Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In Georges v. Ob-Gyn Servs., P.C. the defendants, a midwife, and a medical practice, unsuccessfully attempted to overturn and $1.6 million in interest that accumulated as the result of the defendants’ refusal to accept an offer of compromise after a $4.2 million jury award.

Facts of Georges v. Ob-Gyn Servs.

The plaintiffs’ birth injury lawyer filed their original complaint alleging that the defendants committed malpractice during the mother’s pregnancy, labor, and delivery of her child. The plaintiffs claimed this malpractice caused the child to suffer severe and permanent injuries. The lawsuit claims that as a result of the defendants’ medical malpractice in managing shoulder dystocia, a young girl sustained a severe, permanent injury to her right brachial plexus.

April 11, 2019

Failure to Diagnose Fetal Macrosomia Costs Minnesota Midwife $8.9 Million

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In October, an $8.9 million birth injury malpractice payout was awarded against a Minnesota midwife. This case underscores the danger of failing to accurately estimate the fetal size and weight before delivery.

This post looks at this Minnesota birth injury lawsuit and provides sample fetal macrosomia settlement amounts and jury awards.

Our lawyers handle fetal macrosomia lawsuits throughout the country. If you want to bring a claim or have a question about your claim, call our birth injury attorneys at 800-553-8082.

February 26, 2019

New York Statutes of Limitations for Child Abuse Victims

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In February 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Child Victims Act into law. It extends the statute of limitations for victims of child abuse. Child sex abuse victims are now allowed to file criminal charges against their abuser before they turn 28. Victims are allowed to file civil charges against their abuser before they turn 55. Previously, victims had to file both civil and criminal charges before they turned 23. The law also allows a one-year period for individuals to file cases that happened longer than what the statute of limitations would have allowed. It also requires judges to have some training on how to handle child sex abuse cases.

What are statutes of limitations, and why do we have them?

Statutes of limitations (SOL) are a predetermined period that the state is allowed to charge someone with a crime. Different crimes have different extended periods of time when one can file charges against someone. However, the same crime may have a different SOL depending on the state. There are SOL laws because of concerns that witness testimony might be unreliable. A victim may not necessarily remember enough about their abuse that the jury may not find them credible. Physical evidence may also deteriorate over time, which further questions credibility.

Why extend the statute of limitations if someone might not remember what happened to them?

DNA, audio or video recordings, emails, and texts do not disintegrate over time, making them more credible forms of evidence over a longer period. Society has also improved their understanding of the trauma that victims of child sexual abuse experience. People now understand that it can take many years or even decades before someone finally comes forward. While laws on statutes of limitations are put in place to ensure credibility, there are exceptional cases such as child sexual abuse which necessitates lengthened the statute of limitations.

October 1, 2018

$31 Million Awarded for Circumcision Malpractice in Georgia

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This post is about a significant verdict in Georgia after an awful circumcision mishap caused a boy severe and permanent injuries. In this post, I talk about this tragic case and take a deep dive into the statute of limitations in Georgia in birth injury cases.

The Big Verdict

A jury in Clayton County, Georgia, awarded a mother and her four-year-old son $31 million for a circumcision gone wrong. This malpractice incident occurred at an OB/GYN and pediatric clinic. This is a significant verdict for the most common surgical procedure in the country and one that is rarely the subject of a malpractice lawsuit.

February 9, 2018

Average Personal Injury Case in Minnesota

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The average verdict in a personal injury case in Minnesota is $271,577. The national average is $885,600.

Does this mean Minnesota juries are not sympathetic to personal injury victims? I think it might, actually. In fact, I think the statistics might actually underestimate how stingy Minnesota juries can be.

Why? The biggest driving force in personal injury verdicts is car accidents because is the most common type of personal injury case. So the state’s law in dealing with car accident claims will make a more meaningful impact on personal injury statistics.