5 Common And Dangerous Surgical Errors

Posted by on Jan 18, 2013 in Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury Law | 0 comments

Going into surgery can be frightening and can leave many wondering if they are safe. While most surgeries are performed by surgeons who are safe and careful, sometimes surgical errors do occur. Many surgical errors are due to accident, and are not maliciousness, but patients can still suffer terrible consequences as a result. Victims of surgical errors might be contending with huge medical costs because of the error, including emergency medical treatment, future surgeries, dependence on prescription medication, subsequent medical visits, and physical therapy costs. All of these costs can make daily living and paying bills difficult.

There are many ways that a surgery can go wrong, especially if a surgeon is not extremely careful in performing his or her duties. Some surgical errors, however, are seen more often than most. Five of the most common surgical errors are those that involve:

  1. Surgery on the incorrect site
  2. Surgery on the incorrect patient
  3. Anesthesia errors
  4. Leaving surgical tools in the body
  5. Failure to sterilize surgical equipment

All of these situations could have traumatic effects on an innocent patient, and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, sometimes surgeons forget particular protocols, or neglect to give them the attention they deserve. Frequently, this inattention or negligence leads to serious surgical errors.

Facing the effects of surgical error can be scary and difficult, especially if youre dealing with costs of medical treatment after the error occurred. However, legal recourse is often available to those who suffer from medical malpractice, like surgical errors. If you or someone you care about has been victimized by a careless or negligent surgeon, you could qualify for legal compensation. Contact an experienced medical malpractice lawyer today to discuss the specific situation in which you find yourself and options for pursuing legal action against the person who put you there.

Read More

The Dangers of Dialysis

Posted by on Dec 27, 2012 in Medical Product Failure, Tort Litigation | 0 comments

Dialysis is a serious medical procedure necessitated by individuals suffering from serious kidney damage or failure. When a person’s kidneys are no longer able to remove toxins from the blood on their own, they may need to undergo dialysis treatment in order to effectively remove dangerous elements from their blood stream.

Dialysis in and of itself is a serious medical procedure – many individuals undergoing dialysis experience significant pain as a result of the procedure and are already in a state of compromised health. Additionally, it is a procedure that must be regularly undergone in order to be effective. Dialysis procedures make use of different medical devices and products, one of which is GranuFlo. GranuFlo is a medication that is used in dialysis procedures that involves the adding of bicarbonates into a patient’s blood to help rid it of toxins. Unfortunately, this increase in bicarbonates can result in serious complications for a patient, including heart attack, stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, and even death in the most severe of circumstances.

Sadly, many patients were prescribed GranuFlo who were unaware of the potential dangers that this medication posed. For these victims and their families, they have found themselves facing overwhelming medical bills and significant pain and suffering as a result of the effects of GranuFlo use. Many individuals who have suffered adversely to this medical product have chosen to take legal action against the medication’s producer in the form of a GranuFlo lawsuit.

While nothing can erase the damage that an individual has suffered because of a dangerous medical product, in some cases, victims of GranuFlo use have been able to secure the financial assistance they need to cover their related losses after being harmed by GranuFlo. Although the FDA has issued a Class 1 recall of GranuFlo, this warning comes too late for many individuals who have already taken and suffered because of GranuFlo use.

Read More

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Posted by on Dec 26, 2012 in Business | 0 comments

When a womans pelvic muscles are no longer capable of supporting her urethra (a tube inside her body which takes her urine from the bladder out of her body) and bladder (a sac where liquid like urine is stored) the typical result is SUI, or stress urinary incontinence, which, in turn, causes problems controlling bladder and bowel movements. In the past SUI and POP (pelvic organ prolapsed, a condition wherein the uterus or other organs collapses or slips away from its place) were surgically treated by having tissues, taken from the patients themselves, sewn to support the collapsed organ.

To do away with the problems from hysterectomy and alternative curative processes, the transvaginal/vaginal mesh implant/treatment was introduced. This surgical procedure required the implanting of an absorbable biologic material or porous synthetic material in women to help ease the pain and discomfort associated with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Its introduction as a low-risk procedure immediately made it the preferred solution for SUI and POP conditions. By 2010, as many as 300,000 women had already been given the implant, this in spite of the 2008 health warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about the safety of the product. The warning was repeated in July of 2011 due to the continuous use of the materials. According to the FDA the transvaginal mesh had various and serious complications, like adverse effects in spite of its removal, difficulty in complete removal as the material is partly absorbed, wearing away of the material within a year after surgery, pain and discomfort due to incontinence becoming more frequent and a lot more. In fact, from 2008 to 2010, more than 2,874 complications were reported, including seven deaths.

Hundreds of women are still suffering from transvaginal mesh complications, but have not come to the open yet. So many transvaginal mesh lawsuits have already been filed, the blame being hurled against the product manufacturers who may have released the materials in the market and pronounced them safe or low-risk, but without fully testing the products. Though manufacturers may redirect the blame to the surgeons instead by accusing them of poor surgical performance, one fact remains: so many women are suffering and someone ought to take responsibility for the great harm done.

Due to the complications, the quality of lives of the affected women has dramatically changed. Infection, more frequent pains, urinary problems, vaginal scarring, bladder, blood vessel and bowel perforation and recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence are just some of the many serious physical discomforts affected women are undergoing today. If you have had a transvaginal mesh implant in the past and are suffering from pain, do not hesitate to come out. Stand up for your right and make the guilty realize what theyve done by filing a transvaginal mesh lawsuit for your sake and your love ones.

Read More

Bankruptcy Exemptions

Posted by on Dec 18, 2012 in Bankruptcy Law, Business Law | 0 comments

For individuals with overwhelming debt and financial pressures, bankruptcy protection is often one of the only available options for obtaining financial relief and getting back onto the path of financial solvency. However, bankruptcy has deeply negative connotations for many individuals. Most assume that, by filing for bankruptcy, they may lose everything that they’ve spent their lives working for, and that they’ll never be able to recover what they’ve lost. This is actually not the case however.

In reality, there are many different ways for debtors filing for bankruptcy to keep many of their most important belongings, making bankruptcy much less disruptive than many people believe it to be. One of the easiest ways to do this is through the use of various exemptions written into the bankruptcy code to help make it possible for those who pursue this type of legal protection to keep their lives intact.

Common Bankruptcy Exemptions

There are a number of different bankruptcy exemptions which an individual may pursue. However, a few stand out as being particularly common. These include the following:

* Homestead exemption – this allows homeowners to exempt a certain amount of equity in their homes from bankruptcy proceedings.
* Vehicle exemption – this allows vehicle owners to exempt a certain amount of equity in their vehicles.
* Wilcard exemption – this allows debtors to exempt a certain amount of any type of property they wish to keep.
* Pension exemption – this allows debtors to exempt most of their retirement savings from bankruptcy.

These are just some of the many different exemptions that debtors may be able to seek under bankruptcy proceedings. However, there are a number of other exemptions, which vary from state to state, that a debtor can use to protect certain property and assets during bankruptcy. Talk to a contract lawyer to learn more about what you can do to protect your property in bankruptcy.

Read More

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Posted by on Dec 4, 2012 in Society | 0 comments

One common misconception amongst accident victims is that they can only take legal action and recover financial compensation if they were 100 percent not at fault in the accident. Not every case has one person who is completely at fault for the accident. In fact, there are many cases where both parties share some of the blame. Fortunately, accident victims who were partially at fault still have a chance to take legal action in many states.

State law decides who can and who cant take legal action following an accident. Many people involved in an accident may also have been at fault and if they arent aware of the law, they may not pursue legal action.

Different Types of Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence is when a judge assigns a percentage of the blame to different individuals involved in the accident. After assigning a percentage of blame, the victim can then sue for that amount of damages. There a number of different types of comparative negligence used across the country depending on what state you live in. They include the following:

* Pure comparative negligence This is the most basic form of comparative negligence and is currently in 13 states. In this system, you can still recover damages even if you were 99 percent at fault for the accident.
* Modified comparative fault (50 percent rule) Currently the law in 12 states and is where a victim can only recover damages if he or she was less than 50 percent at fault.
* Modified comparative fault (51 percent rule) This is present in 21 states and gives victims the ability to take legal action as long as they are less than 51 percent responsible for the accident.

If you were found to be 40 percent responsible for an accident and were awarded 1,000 in damages, you could only recover 60 percent of it, or 600. For more information about your case, contact a Wisconsin personal injury lawyer today.

Read More