Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Courts May Be only hope in Insurance Regulation Power Imbalance - Thursday, January 17, 2008

In the fight against bad faith insurance practices, consumers have it all uphill. As only individuals coming up against a multibillion-dollar industry whose profits have recently soared, they have very limited resources. They are supposed to receive help from the state regulatory boards that ostensibly govern the practices of insurance companies. However, there's only one problem: the regulatory boards are themselves too small and are easily overpowered or corrupted by the insurance industry.

Consider, for example, the case of an Albuquerque, New Mexico woman who contracted lupus, a life-threatening autoimmune disorder that could only be cured with a bone marrow transplant. If she did not receive the transplant, her doctors said, she would be dead in six months. Unfortunately, the woman's health insurance company, Lovelace Sandia Health System, Inc, told her the transplant was not covered. It is unclear what kind of medical insurance policy would not cover a life-saving treatment without flagging that fact to policyholders, but when the woman appealed to the state regulatory agency, her appeal was denied by a board appointed by New Mexico Insurance Superintendent Eric Serna. Although Serna claims there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest, income tax documents show that Serna's private foundation, Con Alma, received over $60,000 in contributions from the insurance company. The same commissioner also spontaneously reduced a $400,000 penalty for an insurance company down to $25,000.

Although in neither case has the attorney general accused the (now former) Insurance Superintendent of wrongdoing, something certainly seems amiss. And what is striking is how paltry are the sums involved. The $60,000 contribution to the charity paid for itself in the case of the one marrow transplant, and who knows how many other favors may be in the offing.

If you are failed by the regulatory bureaus, the only place you can find help is through the court system. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to find a local personal injury lawyer who is willing to take your fight to the insurance company.

Labels: bad faith insurance, corruption, state government

Zetia Approved Despite Ineffectiveness, Risks - Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The big story this week has been that Merck (the same drug makers who profited from the deadly Vioxx drug) and its partner firm Schering-Plough have been concealing evidence from studies showing that their popular anti-cholesterol medication Zetia is not only ineffective in reducing fatty plaques that clog arteries as the companies claim, but that the drugs may cause liver damage. One of the studies was completed several years ago, but the data was never published. A troubling component of the study's results is that the drug is apparently far more dangerous when combined with other anti-cholesterol drugs called statins, while Merck has been extensively marketing a pill that combines both Zetia and the statin Zocor.

What is even more troubling about these studies is what they tell us about the drug approval system in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). How can a drug be approved which has not been proven effective in its advertised claim? Why are drug companies allowed to conceal data that reveals a drug is potentially hazardous in combination with another drug, then put that hazardous combination together as a single product for marketing purposes? This despite the fact that one FDA reviewer said the drug should not be cleared for use in that combination. And why, now that people are suffering severe liver damage from the drug combination, is the drug allowed to remain on the market.

The answer seems to be that the FDA is indeed too close to the drug manufacturers and has ceded too much of its control over the approval process to the industry itself. This means that we are likely to face more and more deadly drugs, and if the Supreme Court sides with drug manufacturers, there may be nothing we can do about it. If the FDA is powerless to stop pharmaceutical manufacturers from putting defective pharmaceuticals on the market, the tort system seems to be the only part of the process that can keep us safe from dangerous drugs. If you or a loved one has been hurt by a serious side effect of Zetia or another dangerous drug, you have a responsibility to use the tort system to punish drug manufacturers making profit on your suffering. Contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with an experienced pharmaceutical injury lawyer who can take press your fight to protect you, your family, and the rest of us from reckless profiteering.

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, FDA

No Evidence for Autism-Vaccine Link - Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Autism is one of the most tragic developments parents can see in their children, because it takes a child who appears to be developing normally, with normal interests and joys, and suddenly tears away many of the possibilities for that child. Although autism does not take away the love that parents feel for their children, it often takes away one central component of having a child: hope. Once a child is diagnosed with autism, the hopes that parents have for their children are rapidly diminished. Although many autistic adults can live full and complete lives, it is hard for parents to see this. Because of the tragic nature of the diagnosis of autism in a child, parents ask why, why did this happen. Unfortunately, unlike many developmental disorders, no answers yet exist. It would be nice if, like cerebral palsy, there were a scenario for birth injuries that could give one the consolation of a medical malpractice suit. People reaching for answers often gravitate to the emotionally-significant moment of vaccinating their child as a possible cause. Other than a correspondence between increasing vaccination rates and increasing autism rates, there is no evidence to support the conclusion, and there is a good deal of reason to doubt the conclusion.

One piece of evidence that works against the supposed vaccine-autism connection is that, since the removal of the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal from vaccines, there has been no attendant decrease in autism rates. The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, shows that although thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1999, and the last doses of thimerosal-containing vaccines were used by 2002, autism rates continued to climb through 2007. This means that it is unlikely that thimerosal was a cause of increased autism rates.

Critics of the study have charged that since thimerosal was replaced with another, possibly equally dangerous, preservative, the lack of a decline does not prove that no connection exists. However, another study, published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, tested whether any positive correlation existed between thimerosal and autism. This study focused on Rh protein shots given to expectant mothers who are Rh-negative, or lacking in the Rh protein on the surface of their red blood cells, a condition that can lead to the death of the newborn. The Rh protein shots that were given to mothers also contained thimerosal. However, research indicated both that children with autism were no more likely to have received Rh protein injections via their mothers and that Rh-injected mothers were no more likely to have autistic children than the general population.

With these two studies, it seems unlikely that thimerosal is a cause of rising autism rates in children. There are two other likely explanations. The first is that the majority of new cases of autism are as a result of new diagnostic guidelines, not a real increase in autism rates at all. The second is that some other, more insidious, environmental factor is to blame.

There are many other circumstances under which your child may suffer injury as a result of medical malpractice. If your child has suffered as a result of the negligence of a doctor, contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a local lawyer prepared to take your case.

Labels: autism, birth injury, medical malpractice, vaccines

Virginia Supreme Court to Reconsider Malpractice Immunity for Charitable Doctors - Monday, January 14, 2008

If a doctor is doing charitable work for the poor, it seems reasonable that he or she should be exempt from medical malpractice suits, or at least some portion of it. After all, the doctors are giving free or inexpensive medical care to those who would otherwise be unable to obtain it. And the doctors are making a personal sacrifice, when they could be making very good money in private practice. This very issue is at stake in a Virginia Supreme Court case that is to be heard this spring.

If the court decides on immunity for charitable doctors, tax-exempt physicians' foundations in Virginia, which employ about 1200 doctors and provide support for three major medical schools in the state. The problem is that these tax-exempt foundations may be anything but charitable. According to arguments by lawyers representing three plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits, including one birth injury suit, the so-called charitable institutions are actually highly profitable ventures. For example, one of the Foundations generates about $215 million a year in revenue, but expends only 1 percent of its costs in doing charitable work. In addition, it employs over 200 people in its billing office and aggressively seeks judgments for nonpayment against patients. Finally, the doctors do not seem to be making any personal sacrifice in providing this care, as one of the doctors earned $850,000 in bonuses (above and beyond salary) in 2005. This certainly does not sound like charity in any sense of the word I know.

In their defense, the foundations argued that profitability is the only way they can promise to provide medical care to anyone walks in the door. Bonuses are seen as the only way the foundations can attract and retain qualified doctors to provide instruction at the schools.

It seems then, that if the best doctors are being attracted, they should not need immunity from malpractice lawsuits. In addition, with only 1 percent of their expenses going toward charitable care, they have plenty of room to afford taking responsibility for when that charitable care may go awry. Finally, the threat of medical malpractice suits seems the only way to ensure that the foundations are not exposing the poor to surgical error and calling it charity.

If you or someone you love has suffered as a result of medical malpractice, contact PersonalInjury.com today to get in touch with a local personal injury lawyer who will take up your case, no matter what the scenario under which you suffered.

Labels: medical malpractice, state government, tax-exempt practices