USA Today published an article on August 20, 2013, that described the failure of the nation’s state medical disciplinary systems to police doctors who repeatedly cause patient harm through negligence and error.
CMG’s Gene Moen has been selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in the Medical Malpractice – Plaintiffs practice area in the Seattle metropolitan areas by The Best Lawyers in America 2014. Only one attorney in each practice area is selected for this honor from peer-review assessments. Gene is also listed as a Best Lawyer in the Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs category.
Gene Moen and Paul Chemnick were once again named to the 2013 Super Lawyers list as among the top attorneys in Washington State. No more than 5 percent of the state’s attorneys are selected by Super Lawyers.
One thing that is constant in medical malpractice cases of all kinds is the need for expert testimony. Experts are required by the court rules when there is an issue that ordinary jurors do not have the experience or knowledge to judge.
When a patient undergoes a surgical procedure, an unexpected outcome can be a nerve or skin injury caused by improper positioning. The surgical team is responsible for ensuring that the patient is positioned in such a way that there is not excessive pressure on any particular part of the body and a nerve is not stretched to the point of injury.
Many, particularly those in the health industry, believe a major barrier to the openness and transparency necessary to reduce medical errors is malpractice litigation. However, it seems the opposite is true: malpractice claims are seemingly improving hospital transparency and reducing medical errors.
It is not uncommon for a patient who undergoes surgery or any invasive procedure to develop an infection. Although operating rooms are meant to provide a sterile field for a surgery, there are many ways in which a bacterial organism can invade the body through an opening.
Alleging a radiologist missed something on a film and caused you harm can be tricky. Often the “miss” is not obvious to the untrained eye (otherwise they wouldn’t have missed it), and the defense is usually that, only with the benefit of hindsight, can you now “see” the finding.