The Verdict - The Lombardi Law Firm Blog
Here at the Lombardi Law Firm we add blog content that is personal to those involved in accidents. We write this way so you have an understanding of how we think and handle cases - your case. We invite you to call us if you think we can help you resolve your legal problems. We settle most of our cases, because we do the basic legal work necessary to understand the facts of your case. We offer on our website, relevant and concise information that you will be helpful to you as you get ready to settle or to try your case.
We can and will do the same for you. That's my promise. So call us today!
Steve Lombardi, 515-222-1110 or firstname.lastname@example.org
A Haifia woman who received the wrong type of blood during surgery to reset a broken leg died of respiratory and cardiac insufficiency two weeks after the blood transfusion.
"The patient was an 84-year-old woman who, like many people at her age, had prior conditions including lung and heart disease... The error [in the type of blood supplied by the blood bank] was discovered quickly and the transfusion was stopped shortly after was given," Ramban wrote in its response.
The record is not clear whether or not the incorrect transfusion caused the conditions that resulted in her death.
Probably the most dangerous reaction from being transfused with the wrong blood type is an immediate hemolytic transfusion reaction. This type of mistake is almost always the result of what is called "administrative error".
“When it does happen, the infused red cells are hemolyzed, and the patient experiences chills and fever, a fast heart beat, possibly a drop in blood pressure and, sometimes, kidney failure. The transfusion must be discontinued as soon as this is recognized and the patient given IV fluids to promote good kidney function. Tests are then done with the blood to determine the extent of the problem.”
Wyeth, an American company manufacturing baby formula, is accused by a Chinese consumer of melamine contamination. Wyeth has tested and denies any contamination with melamine. A consumer surnamed Li has provided a list of 19 Chinese babies who are claimed to have kidney stones.
What are the possibilities with this claim?
1. There is melamine in the formula and it was introduced during the manufacturing process. This is highly unlikely.
2. There is melamine in the formula, but it was added after the consumer purchase. The baby’s do have kidney stones but not from melamine in any of Wyeth’s formula. They drank formula manufactured from Sanlu. Wyeth is now being targeted because these parents know they can’t get compensation from the Chinese manufacturer and help in the Chinese Courts.
3. There are no kidney stones or melamine in the children’s formula.
So what do would we want to see? We want to see the formula for Wyeth to examine it and determine if it was manufactured in their plants. To determine if in fact there is melamine in the formula. And the babies examined by a physician of Wyeth’s choosing. And finally produce the parents for questioning.
The last request would be free speech in China; freedom to criticize the Chinese Communist Party and government officials. Along with an investigation into the officials that looked the other way when melamine was added by Chinese milk producers. Without that America will never believe this claim against Wyeth. It looks more like simple retaliation by the CCP or desperation by the parents who need more than a mere $12,500 US in compensation to care for their sickened babies.
The Chinese government would be wise to closely investigate this claim.
In what can only be described as practicing medicine without a license two Tampa, Florida area women were injected with what is believed industrial silicone by a “fake doctor”. One suffered total kidney failure and the other multiple organ failure. According to friends of the women the two were looking to enhance the size and shape of their buttocks for something resembling Jennifer Lopez.
This is incredibly naïve, or so it seems. One is reported to have received 40 shots in a 90—minute period, the other 20 shots. Police report the substance was described to the women as ‘Hydrogel’. The patients’ names are Andrea Lee, 30 and Zakiya Teagle, 33. The person conducting the injections goes by the name Shardonda Lindsay, 32.
According to police, Shardonda Lindsay, who has no medical licence or cosmetic surgery experience, performed the 'butt shots' at her home last month. A search using the Iowa Board of Medicine “Find a Physician” found no doctor by the name Shardonda Lindsay. A general Google search was unable to locate any information online using that name.
“Ms Lee and Ms Teagle paid more than £300 to have a series of silicone injections that they hoped would enhance the shape and size of their bottoms.”
The European Journal of Plastic Surgery, Volume 28, Number 7/ February, 2006 reports adverse reactions following injection with a permanent facial filler polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid).
Abstract - Background Polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid), an atoxic non-immunogenic gel of the non-resorbable type, has gained widespread popularity as an injectable filler for facial augmentation. However, adverse events (AEs) have occurred, the nature of which seems obscure because of negative findings on culture and a pattern of foreign-body response on microscopy.
Similar findings are reported in Dermatologic Surgery, Volume 33, Issue s2, pages S199 – S206, Dec. 2007. There is a discussion of unfavorable findings following breast augmentation using injected polyacrylamide hydrogel in the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 114(7):1967-1968, December 2004. Lee, Choong Jae M.D.; Kim, Sun Gu M.D.; Kim, Lucia M.D.; Choi, Matthew Seung Suk M.D.; Lee, Se Il M.D.
On the other side of the aisle is this article published in Journal Watch Dermatology, October 25, 2005. Polyacrylamide Hydrogel Soft-Tissue Filler Is Safe and Effective. No permanent soft-tissue filler is currently approved for soft-tissue defect correction in the U.S., although Artefil is in the FDA approval process. George J. Hruza, MD Published in Journal Watch Dermatology October 25, 2005 Covering Plast Reconstr Surg 2005 Sep 15
I was not able to locate any news releases on the U.S. FDA site.
China banned polyacrylamide hydrogel in breast augmentation.
“From 2002 through November 2005, the SFDA claims to have received 183 reports of adverse effects from the use of polyacrylamide hydrogel implants. Of those, 161 involved breast-implant patients who suffered infections, deformation, and hardening.
As a result of the reports, the SFDA has taken the position that it can no longer vouch for the safety of implants using the substance and thus, the compound will no longer be certified and registered as an approved material.
Polyacrylamide hydrogel will no longer be permitted to be manufactured, sold, or used in China and all existing supplies of the substance and products containing it are to be recalled and destroyed under SFDA supervision. Any failure to comply with the SFDA mandate will result in criminal prosecution according to a government spokesperson. “
Some reports indicate if done improperly silicone injections can lead to pulmonary problems.
University of Miami, School of Medicine and Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd, Miami Beach, FL 33140, USA.
Liquid silicone is an inert material that is utilized for cosmetic procedures by physicians as well as illegally by nonmedical personnel. We present a case report and collated clinical findings of 32 other patients who were hospitalized after illegal silicone injections. Symptoms and signs of the "silicone syndrome" included dyspnea, fever, cough, hemoptysis, chest pain, hypoxia, alveolar hemorrhage, and altered consciousness.
Can you imagine a civil justice system where a milk producer would be allowed to manufacture infant baby formula so poisonous that your infant would develop kidney stones or go into kidney failure and the Courts would dismiss your case; or the government that is supposed to protect your child, orders the responsible companies to pay you a measly $290.00 USD (2,000 Yuan) or if your child was really sick with kidney failure $4,350.00 USD (30,000 Yuan).
This is pathetic. Chinese lawyers sued 63 defendants seeking 14 million Yuan in compensation ($2,030,000.00 USD) and the Chinese Courts dismissed the case. The Associated Press reports the following:
“Lawyers seeking to bring a lawsuit against the companies involved say they understand that most children who suffered kidney stones from the tainted milk would get 2,000 yuan ($290), while sicker children would be paid 30,000 yuan.
Chinese courts have rejected all claims filed by the victims' families, including a lawsuit initiated this month by lawyers representing 63 defendants that sought nearly 14 million yuan in compensation from Sanlu.”
This is exactly the system tort reformers want you to buy into. Whether it’s the American Tort Reform Association, What is Tort Reform, Anyway or the American Chamber of Commerce if left unchecked they would do exactly what the Bush Administration did to the banking regulatory system in this country.
Food Safety: How do we keep our children safe without knowing the country of origin?
Here is the problem. This is the label of the powdered coffee whitener at our office. It clearly demonstrates the consumer’s problem in determining the country of origin (COO). And leads one to think our own government is working to maintain the difficulty of consumers determining COO. So if I’m wrong then how about the FDA or someone from the FDA telling me I’m wrong or telling us how to determine COO.
I did search the FDA site for “COO + country + origin + consumer + products + UPC + Code”.
Yes. Unless excepted by law, the Tariff Act requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States conspicuously indicate the English name of the country of origin of the article.
Section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 304)
FDA does not have regulatory authority over such statements. The U.S. Customs Service regulates country of origin marking (i.e., "Made in the U.S.A.") as authorized by the Tariff Act of 1930. Their website is www.customs.ustreas.gov.
The UPC bar code may be obtained from the Uniform Code Council. Their website is www.uc-council.org. Click on the button that says "I Need a UPC Bar Code."
Here are labels from Nestle coffee whitener in our office. As you can see there is no way to tell country of origin. If we are supposed to assume that unless indicated it's MADE IN THE USA, that is inadequate and not a safe assumption.
Medical Malpractice - Iowa Supreme Court allows patients to give the doctor the benefit of the doubt before definitive diagnosis is made.
Iowa Supreme Court Decision – Med. Malp. – Breast Cancer Detection Case Allowed to Proceed
Pamela Rock developed a lump on her breast. She went to the doctor who later diagnosed breast cancer. She alleges malpractice in the detection process and what was told to her about her condition. Allegations are just that and will need to be proven. The District Court and the Iowa Court of Appeals found she filed her case too late; two days late. The Iowa Supreme Court in a decision that backs away from the Court’s latest pronouncements for tort deform held her case could proceed.
“Previously, we held the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the plaintiff knew or should have known of the physical or mental harm for which damages are sought. Schlote v. Dawson, 676 N.W.2d 187, 194 (Iowa 2004); Langner, 533 N.W.2d at 517. In Rathje v. Mercy Hospital, 745 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 2008), we acknowledged our past cases may not have correctly captured the intent of the legislature. Rathje, 745 N.W.2d at 447.”
This is good news for patients and doctors. Patients are given the benefit of the doubt in trusting their doctors and to allow them to do the job they’ve been trained to do. It’s good news for doctors because patients aren’t being forced to second-guess every medical decision and test and to seek second opinions.
“Pamela Rock noticed a lump in her left breast in May 2002. She called Dr. Warhank at the Family Medical Center in Blue Grass to have it examined. Rock was referred to the Center for Breast Health for a bilateral mammogram, which was performed on May 28. Rock had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Warhank on June 3. Dr. Warhank palpated Rock’s left breast and located the lump. Dr. Warhank told Rock the mammogram was normal and not to worry about the lump. Sometime on June 3 or 4, Rock received a call requesting she come in for additional views of her right breast. Rock went to the Center for Breast Health on June 4 and had additional views of the right breast taken. A technician told Rock an ultrasound was not necessary because what was seen in the earlier mammogram was no longer present. Rock reminded the technician she had a lump in her left breast and not her right breast. The technician assured Rock nothing was seen on the earlier mammogram of her left breast so she should not worry about the lump anymore. Dr. Hartung reviewed the radiology report of the right breast and advised Rock in a letter dated June 5 that the additional views of the right breast showed no sign of cancer. In September 2002, Rock was still concerned about the lump in her left breast. She made an appointment with Dr. Kelly at the Family Medical Center. Dr. Kelly told Rock the lump was “probably benign.” Nevertheless, Dr. Kelly recommended a surgical consult and referred Rock to Dr. Congreve. Dr. Congreve performed a fine-needle aspiration on September 25. Two days later, Dr. Congreve called Rock and told her the test was not normal and she needed to have a biopsy of her left breast. On October 8, 2002, Dr. Congreve performed the biopsy and diagnosed Rock with breast cancer.”
Rock filed suit on October 5, 2004. The Iowa Supreme Court held: “Rock could not have known, and should not have known, of her injury and its factual cause until the day she was diagnosed with cancer at the earliest.”
This common sense reasoning respects the various roles of doctor and patient. It allows and encourages the patient to respect the doctor’s every decision before a definitive diagnosis is determined. It also respects the doctor’s decision making process without forcing the patient to second-guess the decision making process and trying to force the medical decision-making process.
PAMELA G. ROCK and
KEITH A. ROCK,
ROSE WARHANK, BLUE GRASS FAMILY
MEDICAL CENTER a/k/a FAMILY MEDICAL
CENTER OF BLUE GRASS, ROBERT
HARTUNG, CENTER FOR BREAST HEALTH,
and GENESIS MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 05-1753, November 21, 2008.