Boise Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case to Stand

Shannon Weidemann — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:54:43 GMT

A judge has ruled there was no jury misconduct in the medical malpractice case against Dr. Anita Krishna Das. The jury ruled in her favor.

The plantiffs sued on the grounds that one of the jury members had a spouse that had worked at the doctor's former practice.

In a lengthy ruling released earlier this week, Judge Larry Smukler, sitting in Belknap County Superior Court, said because the record does not support the plaintiffs' claims of juror misconduct their request to overturn the verdict and seek a retrial was denied.
"The defendants' initial argument is that the plaintiffs' motion is not supported by competent evidence. Specifically, the defendants cite the rule that juror evidence cannot be admitted to impeach a verdict. The defendants are correct," Smukler ruled.

The judge interviewed the juror in question and found that his wife had not worked at the practice and ruled that there was no misconduct. He is letting the original ruling stand.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Junk Lawsuits Harder to Find Than Weapons of Mass Destruction

Staff Writer — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:20:02 GMT

The Greedy Trial Lawyer has an excellent post up about these mysterious "junk lawsuits" we all keep hearing about, but never actually seem to find. Despite no evidence that "junk lawsuits" are actually a problem, or even exist at all, President Bush and his big business allies continue to push ahead with their campaign of "tort reform." The question becomes: how long will this go on before we actually see examples of these "junk lawsuits"?

From the post at Greedy Trial Lawyer:

I propose a special task force to search for any relationship between the proposals of the President and his fellow tort reformers and the elimination of junk lawsuits. We could use the experts who scoured Iraq for the WMD. Every litigator already knows that tort reform is not intended to eradicate junk lawsuits, but the bait and switch by the President continues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

House considers doctor apologies for medical malpractice

Staff Writer — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:29:10 GMT

The Idaho House of Representatives is currently considering at bill that would allow doctors to apologize to their patients without having those apologies used against them in Court. Idaho law currently allows such expressions of sympathy and apology to be admissible against doctors except "in certain circumstances." The bill's supporters say that patients who receive an apology and sympathy from their treating physician might be less inclined to sue. The bill is expected to pass in some form, although a single word in the bill has caught the attention of the Idaho Trial Lawyer's Association.

From the article at MagicValley.com:

"This is the start of the healing process," said Bob Seehusen, a spokesman for the Idaho Medical Association. "It's not going to stop lawsuits, but it may minimize some of those that can be dealt with by explanation and conversation and communication."
In the past few years, almost two dozen states have adopted similar laws, said McClure. Idaho's legislation also includes the word "explanation" along with the expressions of sympathy, condolence, and compassion that a health care provider could safely utter under the proposed law. Barbara Jorden, a lobbyist for the Idaho Trial Lawyers' Association, said her group supports the bill - except for that one word. She said doctors' explanations should be admissible in court.
"If the doctor explains what happened in the unintended outcome, that information should be included if the case should actually go forward," Jorden said. "We don't want the medical professional to exclude the explanation
Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Group Home Operator Gets 30 Years for Slavery

Staff Writer — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:19:02 GMT

The operator of a group home for the mentally ill in Witchita, KA, was sentenced today to 30 years in federal prison. Arlan Kaufman, 69, was convicted this past November of more than 30 criminal counts for his actions, including enslaving his residents, forcing them to work in the nude, and perform sex acts. His wife Linda was sentenced to 7 years for her role in the crimes.

From MagicValley.com:

Prosecutors contended the Kaufmans controlled the lives of their residents, including deciding who could wear clothes and forcing them to fondle each other and commit other acts that Arlan Kaufman videotaped.
"Rather than lawfully and responsibly carrying out their duties as caregivers, the Kaufmans used physical force and threats to intimidate the residents, to isolate them from their families and to sexually humiliate them," U.S. Attorney Eric Melgren said in a statement.

Read the full article here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Malpractice Lawsuit Settlement Upheld

Staff Writer — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:22:00 GMT

The Idaho Supreme Court recently upheld a lower-court ruling that awarded $500,000 to a man who lost his eyesight after being treated for an injury by an eye doctor. Frank Newberry was working

on his car when something hit him in his right eye. After being taken to the emergency room, Newberry was treated by Dr., Laurence Martens who didn't find anything in the eye and sent Martens home with antibiotics.

The day after his second visit to the doctor, Newberry experienced extreme pain in his eye and increased vision disturbances and went to Dr. David Leach, a local ophthalmologist, who found a small piece of metal deep in Newberry's eye and sent him to Salt Lake City for specialized treatment. Doctors in Salt Lake City performed surgery, but were unable to restore his vision. It was later determined that Newberry lost his sight in his right eye due to the metal shard and a bacteria called bacillus-cereus, according to court documents.
Newberry sued Martens and the Twin Falls Clinic and Hospital for medical negligence, but the hospital was dismissed from the stipulation. The case went to trial and the jury ruled in Newberry's favor. Martens appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that jury instructions were in error, first because they allowed the jury to hold Martens liable by meeting the "substantial factor" test instead of the stricter "but for" test. What that means is the jury only had to determine that Martens' treatment of Newberry contributed to the damage instead of having to prove it was the sole cause of the damage. Martens argued he was not liable for Newberry's loss because Newberry would have lost his eye even without his negligence.

Read more about the medical malpratice lawsuit from magicvalley.com

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer