As originally reported by John Hochfelder, March 12, 2002 was a fateful day for Thomas Dockery. Dockery was a Verizon employee and generally healthy 34 year old.

Sadly, while sleeping one night, he suffered from a grand mal seizure and was hurried to the hospital.

According to Hochfelder:

“At the hospital, a CT scan was interpreted as normal. An MRI two days later, though, was interpreted as showing a lesion that seemed to be a glioma (a central nervous system tumor) and Dockery was immediately referred to M. Chris Overby, M.D., a neurosurgeon, who concurred. A second opinion from Philip Gutin, M.D. of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan corroborated Dr. Overby’s diagnosis and surgery was set for March 25th.

A pre-surgical MRI on March 24th, though, indicated an inconsistent massive edema of the brain and Dockery underwent a craniotomy the next day during which pus in the lesion area was removed and found to be a non-tumorous abscess that had grown rapidly during the prior several days and caused an edema that produced herniation of the brain.”

Unfortunately, despite the treatment, Mr. Dockery suffered from severe aphasia which damaged his comprehension of language and ability to retain memory.

Dockery sued the two doctors who were responsible for his treatment, men by the names of Dr. Overby and Dr. Gutin.

Throughout a complicated trial process, an original finding of over $100 million dollars was eventuall reduced to just over $5 million. The general consensus was that Mr. Dockery’s injuries warranted compensation, but that some of the original monetary values were grossly inflated.

One of the large takeaways from this case is the unpredictability of brain surgery, and the difficulties faced by both patients and doctors throughout these procedures.

* * *

If you’d like to learn more about the legal aspects of brain surgery, or if you need a representative, consult The Brain Injury Defense Attorneys at Dolan Legal.

March 10, 2010

By Russell Carter, Womack Publishing Service

A Gretna woman filed a $15 million lawsuit Thursday in Pittsylvania County Circuit Court on behalf of her 12-year-son who drowned in 2008 at Smith Mountain Lake State Park.

Dora Mae Henley is suing Sycamore Baptist Church and the Commonwealth of Virginia, along with lifeguards, chaperones and a park ranger.

Henley’s son, Marvin Strickland Jr., was at Smith Mountain Lake State Park with a youth group from Sycamore Baptist Church when he drowned Aug. 7, 2008.

Strickland was found in 6-7 feet of water around 20 feet from the shore.

The Virginia Conservation and Recreation Department, which investigated the drowning, estimated Strickland had been missing about 15 minutes before lifeguards began searching for the youth.

After Strickland was reported missing, lifeguards removed everyone from the water and began diving in the area the boy was last seen.

He was found 20-30 minutes later.

In addition to Sycamore Baptist Church, the lawsuit names Kathy Mohilan, director of youth programs for the church, as well as adult chaperones Lonnie Rowland, Cindy Rowland and Annie Rowland Jones.

Others named in the lawsuit include Anna Woodford, the head lifeguard at the park; lifeguards Joey Nance and Austin Wood; and park ranger Meredith Bennett.

According to the lawsuit, Strickland was among six children from Sycamore Baptist Church who went swimming at the state park.

“When taking the youth group, including Master Strickland, on the trip to the state park, the adult chaperones, and each of them individually, expressly or impliedly assumed duties to supervise and care for Master Strickland for the duration of the trip,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims the chaperones were responsible for Strickland’s care on the trip, lifeguards were responsible for watching the boy while he was in the park and the park ranger was responsible for making sure lifeguards were properly trained.

Henley, who is represented by the Roanoke law firm of Crandall & Katt, is seeking $15 million for sorrow and grief, loss of her son’s income and his funeral expenses.

The plaintiff also asked for $350,000 in punitive damages.

By Jan Jarvis

February 4, 2010

It began with a tingling sensation, as if her foot was going to sleep.

Then numbness set in. It crept up to Elizabeth Gilley’s calf and onto her thigh.

Over the next six months, the Mineral Wells woman grew weaker, her skin turned pale, and she could barely walk across the room without gasping for breath.

When she collapsed in 2007, Gilley was taken to a hospital.

“The doctor didn’t know how I was still conscious,” Gilley said.

At first, doctors told her that she had leukemia, but tests didn’t confirm cancer. CT scans, MRIs and blood tests followed. Still Gilley was no closer to a diagnosis.

After a year of seeing doctor after doctor, she finally found out what was causing the symptoms, but she could hardly believe what the physician was telling her.

“Within five minutes of seeing him, he asked me if I wore denture cream,” said Gilley, 26, who was forced to get dentures as a teenager after a genetic condition ruined her teeth. “I handed him the tube; he told me to stop using it.”

By then the damage was done. Gilley could no longer walk, drive a car or get around without a wheelchair. Once an active young woman who had recently gotten married, she was rarely able to leave her home.

Gilley joined a growing number of people nationwide who have filed lawsuits alleging that the makers of some denture creams knew about the health risks associated with high levels of zinc in their products and did nothing about it. Fixodent and Super Poligrip are named in class-action lawsuits filed in Tennessee last year.

Gilley’s suit against GlaxoSmithKline was recently filed in Philadelphia, where the manufacturer is located. About 20 other claimants have also filed suits in mass tort court in Pennsylvania.

GlaxoSmithKline declined to comment on the litigation. But on the Web site for Super Poligrip, the manufacturer addresses issues surrounding zinc.

Both GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Poligrip and Super Poligrip, and Procter & Gamble, the maker of Fixodent, have said that their products contain zinc at levels recognized as safe. GlaxoSmithKline’s label now states that there have been reports of serious health effects from increased zinc intake over a long period. But the company notes that small amounts swallowed during normal use are not harmful and that consumers should not apply the product more than once a day.

In addition, the Food and Drug Administration classifies the creams as medical devices and does not require zinc to be listed as an ingredient.

But dozens of people have been permanently disabled after using the cream for years, and at least one person has died, said Ed Blizzard of Houston, Gilley’s attorney.

“I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “I think a lot of people out there have neuropathy and don’t know it could be connected to their dentures.”

Being accused of a crime is a very serious matter, and one that brings a lot of stress into people’s lives. A critical part of the legal process when accused is finding and meeting a good criminal defense attorney. The Illinois Truck Accident Attorneys at Dolan Legal recently created a blog post with advice on how to handle your first meeting.

In their post they say: “Despite the importance of a first meeting, criminal defendants need not feel anxious about the meeting. The meeting is nothing more than a conversation.  Your lawyer will ask you about the circumstances of the incident(s) leading to the arrest, discuss the charges against you, and the potential penalties that may be imposed if you are convicted.  Together, you will explore your defense and you will develop a plan to move forward with your case.  Of course, any pressing issues such as bail or restraining orders will be addressed and all of your questions will be answered.”

One of the most important things to remember is that your attorney will not be trying to incriminate you. They will ask questions, but the goal of which will be to establish the facts about the case and develop as strong a defense as possible. It may feel awkward and uncomfortable revealing all the details surrounding your situation, but is important not to lie or withhold on your attorney.

At first meeting, it is also key to get a sense of how committed your attorney is for you. If you are getting the impression that he/she is “phoning it in”, it may be in your best interest to find someone else who will take an active interest in your case. To be certain you are finding someone who is both competent and ethical, it can be valuable to go through a service that recommends lawyers (free of consultation charge). They can give you the best advice on how to proceed and who to pursue.

You criminal defense attorney will be your most important line of defense in securing the best result possible in court and preserving your good name. Give the situation your best effort and try to maximize results even from the very first  meeting. Be prepared, open minded, and ready to communicate.

NEW YORK, Jan 14 (Reuters) – Three personal injury lawsuits were filed against Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Thursday, claiming its smoking cessation drug Chantix caused attempted suicides and death.

The lawsuits, filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, claim that at the time the plaintiffs took Chantix, Pfizer did not tell doctors and patients about dangers it allegedly knew were related to the drug, including depression and thoughts of suicide.

Although Pfizer subsequently added warnings to its package insert, the law firm that filed all three lawsuits alleged the drug’s label is still inadequate.

Pfizer introduced Chantix in the United States in 2006, hoping it would become a multibillion-dollar product and revive flagging profits. The drug’s sales have fallen off as concerns about side effects increased.

Chantix sales fell 15 percent to $155 million in the third quarter of 2009.

Attorney Marc Grossman alleged in the lawsuits that the company “intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently concealed, suppressed, omitted, and/or misrepresented the risks, dangers, defects and disadvantages of Chantix.”

Grossman is with Sanders Viener Grossman LLP in Mineola, New York.

Two lawsuits claim the plaintiffs tried to kill themselves as a result of using Chantix. The third is a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of Indiana resident Annette Pine, claiming she committed suicide after using Chantix.

The lawsuits seek trials by jury, punitive and compensatory damages, medical and legal expenses, and, in Pine’s case, funeral expenses.

Pfizer issued a statement defending the drug, approved in some 86 countries as a smoking cessation aid.

“At all times, Pfizer has clearly communicated important information about the safe use of Chantix, which is available only with a prescription,” Pfizer spokeswoman Sally Beatty said in the statement.

“We intend to vigorously defend this medicine,” she said, adding that Chantix has helped many smokers to quit.

The lawsuits claim that each of the plaintiffs used the drug properly. They also claim that in each case the plaintiffs and their doctors were “not aware and through diligent efforts were not able to discover the risk of serious injury, and/or depressed mood and/or suicide associated with and/or caused by Chantix.” (Reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Bill Berkrot; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Wednesday, January 06, 2010, Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court could put more of a bite on dog owners taken to court for injuries caused by their animals.

In a case from northeast Ohio’s Summit County, the court ruled 5-2 Wednesday that owners may be sued both under the state’s dog bite law and for more general negligence.

The decision is a victory for the family of a 12-year-old girl who was mauled by a dog and was hurt on the head.

A trial judge had allowed the girl’s mother to sue the owners only under the dog bite statute, limiting the money award in the case. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $5,000 for the girl’s medical bills and other costs.

The Supreme Court says the mother should also have been allowed to pursue a negligence claim and possible punitive damages.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

By Katherine Sayre, www.al.com

 A Mobile County jury awarded $20 million this week to the family of a woman who plaintiffs’ lawyers said died after receiving improper anesthesia care.

The jury returned the wrongful death verdict against medical group Coastal Anesthesia, Dr. Randall Boudreaux and Don Ortego, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, court records show.

Paulett Pettaway Hall, a 32-year-old wife and mother of two, died Jan. 16, 2006, after receiving anesthesia prior to exploratory surgery, according to Cunningham Bounds, the law firm that represented Hall’s estate.

Hall, who had been suffering from severe abdominal pain, breathed bile from her stomach into her lungs, the lawyers stated in a news release. She died at Springhill Medical Center.

Coastal Anesthesia, Boudreaux and Ortego denied the claims in the lawsuit, according to court records.

Defense lawyer Wesley Pipes, speaking on behalf of his clients, said, “We were disappointed in the jury’s verdict, and we’re disappointed that they did not seem to understand the evidence we tried to present.”

Pipes declined further comment.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Boudreaux and Ortego did not examine Hall’s abdomen or look at her medical records prior to the exploratory surgery, which would have identified her risk factors for breathing fluid into her lungs, according to the Cunningham Bounds news release.

Medical malpractice is any action or omission by a medical professional that injuriously deviates from accepted standards and practices or causes accelerated injury or death. As such, malpractice can be considered those actions or inactions that cause damage that would have otherwise been avoided.

From that definition, we are able to dive into the complex world of medical malpractice. Often legal suits entail unfortunate complications with loved ones and emotions run very high. From a family perspective, perceived errors by a doctor can prompt individuals to pursue legal action. From a doctor perspective, prevalency of medical lawsuits can actually lead to lack of treatment or hesitancy to make critical decisions.

With both sides trying to do what’s best for their interests, it can be difficult to know when pursuing a malpractice suit is advisable. That being the case, let’s examine some of the most common situations where legal action is appropriate:

Kinds of Medical Malpractice

* Medication Errors. This can involve medicines given on site in the hospital or prescribed for extended use.

* Medical Misdiagnosis. If a medical problem is misdiagnosed the treatment (or lack of treatment) can have drastically injurious effects on a patient.

* Failure to Diagnose. Similar dangers to misdiagnosis, only mostly focused on a lack of treatment.

* Anesthesia Mistakes. Anesthesiologists have a rigorous amount of credentials to accrue in order to begin practicing. The reason why is because anesthesia is a hotbed of potential complications.

* Birth Injuries. The birthing process is complex and requires many on-the-spot decisions, leading to potential error.

* Surgical Errors. When in surgery, it is a surgeons responsibility to follow proper protocols and avoid preventable complications.

There are more of course, and medical malpractice can span out to a great variety of issues.

Malpractice Verdict and Award Examples

To better understand how the process of suing for malpractice takes place, here are three examples of the legal system in action.

*VICTIM’S FAMILY AWARDED $19.8 MILLION IN MALPRACTICE SUIT*

In what is believed to be one of Massachusetts’ biggest medical malpractice awards, a Plymouth County jury ordered a Brockton doctor to pay $19.8 million to the family of a Wareham woman who died after her undiagnosed cervical cancer spread. Cervical Cancer is among the most curable forms of the disease if found early, but Higgins argued that McCormack’s lapses allowed the cancer to spread. Wood died June 17, 1993.

Higgins said the size of the award demonstrates “that people don’t want to be treated by a doctor from across the room.” “People want doctors to take their signs and symptoms and complaints seriously,” he said.

*TENNESSEE MAN SUFFERS STROKE WHILE UNDERGOING CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT*

DreamLegalTeam.com was contacted for a referral by a young woman from a small town in Tennessee whose husband suffered a brain stem stroke while undergoing manipulation at his chiropractor’s office. The chiropractor practiced in Mississippi. After this stroke, the 36 year old man sustained injuries that left him blind, unable to speak clearly or walk/drive/function normally.

The woman was looking for the best medical malpractice attorney in her area to answer her questions with regard to current and future medical care, rehabilitation, lost wages and compensation for the pain and suffering her husband was experiencing. DreamLegalTeam.com referred the woman to a specialist lawyer in Memphis. The lawyer secured prolonged medical care and attention for the effects of the accident and also a large financial settlement.

*27 YEAR OLD MISSOURI WOMAN DIES DUE TO MALPRACTICE*

DreamLegalTeam.com received a request for a free online consultation from a gentleman from Little Rock, Arkansas.  A few months earlier, his 27 year old wife was taken to a hospital in St. Louis, Missouri because she was short of breath and dizzy.  The doctors sent her home and said nothing was wrong with her.  Two days later, she died with blood clots in her lungs.
 
This young man contacted my office as to how he could find the best medical malpractice attorney in the St. Louis area.  We referred this client to a person uniquely qualified to evaluate this potential claim, a nationally acclaimed attorney who is also a medical doctor.  The attorney evaluated and accepted this case.
 
Although nothing can truly compensate this heart-broken young widower, he did receive a large financial award.

Securing Proper Legal Representation

As you can tell from the examples, the key to success in a malpractice case is securing representation in your area that understands the intricacies of medical law. The lawyer needs to be nearby and accessible in order to properly asses the history of the medical practitioners in question, understand the variable laws of your state, and gather the proper details from you regarding your case.

In the state of Illinois alone 415 dry cleaners have been identified as potentially polluting nearby water sources with the toxic solvent perchloroethylene (PCI).

DolanLegal.com, a team of Illinois civil rights lawyers, recently reported on this significant health risk. According to their article, the Chicago Tribune reported that “the state has found problems in nearly every Illinois city or town that has a dry cleaning business”.

-

The health risks of PCI include cancer, liver damage, neurological problems, and more.

-

This health matter should be of interest to all citizens, especially those living in a city or near a dry cleaner. The statistics for Illinois are no doubt indicative of a larger problem, and sloppy health practices there should be considered in your state as well.

-

If you do live near a dry cleaner, be sure to do as much research as possible regarding their dumping and waste management, and check to see if you share a water source with their facility. Finally, if you are experiencing ill health effects consistent with those described here, contact your physician and a medically inclined attorney as soon as possible.

-

For more information on the original article by DolanLegal.com, visit here – http://www.dolanlegal.com/dry-cleaning-dangers/

Posted December 1, 2009

By: Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a record $83-million judgment in favor of a San Diego County woman who was paralyzed when her Ford Explorer rolled over and its roof partially collapsed.

The justices rejected an appeal from lawyers for Ford Motor Co., who argued that the punitive damages were unfair and unconstitutional because the design of the sport utility vehicle met all the government and industry safety standards.

The jury had been told, however, that Ford could have strengthened the roof and possibly avoided such a catastrophic accident had it spent an extra $20 per vehicle.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups had joined Ford in appealing the case. They urged the justices to take a more skeptical look at the notion of juries imposing punishment on manufacturers. But without comment, the court refused to hear the appeal.

In January 2002, Benetta Buell-Wilson, a 46-year-old mother of two, was driving on Interstate 8 east of San Diego when she swerved to avoid a metal object that fell from a vehicle in front of her. Her Ford Explorer rolled four times. She sustained spinal damage.

She and her husband sued Ford, and her lawyers argued that the Explorer was dangerously prone to rollovers and its roof was defectively weak.

In 2004, a jury in San Diego handed down a verdict of $369 million in her favor, one of the largest to date against a manufacturer. About one-third of the award was to compensate her for her losses, and two-thirds was to punish Ford for its “conscious disregard” of the safety of its customers.

Both the trial judge and a California appellate court reduced the verdict. In 2006, the state appeals court set the verdict as $27.6 million in compensatory damages and $55 million in punitive damages.

In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ford’s lawyers challenged only the punitive damages.