Posts tagged Med Mal
And the Survey Says: Active EMR Use May Significantly Reduce Malpractice Liability
Nov 24th
A peer-reviewed article published today indicates that physicians who adopt and actively utilize electronic medical records (also known as “electronic heath records”, “EMR” or “EHR”) are almost 50% less likely to have a history of a paid medical malpractice claim.
| The survey, which was published in today’s issue of Archives of Internal Medicine concluded the following: | |
|
|
The survey concerning EMR adoption and usage involved a random sample of 1,884 healthcare providers (with a response rate of 71.4%) in Massachusetts. The settlement data were gleaned from the mandatory public disclosures of settlements that are contained on the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (BRM) Web site.
While the results of this survey are consistent with the anecdotal evidence and widely-held beliefs of public policy makers and the healthcare community, the authors acknowledged that confirmatory studies are required.
Disclaimer: The information contained within the MTBC® Learning Center is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The author of the Learning Center does not represent the Web site user or the individual submitting a particular question. Please seek the advice of legal counsel to address any specific questions you may have regarding your particular facts or circumstances
Jury Awards Deaf Patient $400,000 for Doctor’s failure to Provide Interpreter
Oct 24th
In a remarkable development, a New Jersey jury has just awarded a deaf patient $400,000 for her doctor’s failure to provide an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter.
According to the complaint filed by the patient, Irma Gerena, she was referred to a Jersey City-based rheumatologist in 2004. She 
alleged that she visited the rheumatologist for her Lupus approximately twenty times during the next two years. During the trial, she testified that her requests that the doctor hire an ASL interpreter fell on deaf ears and thus she was forced to rely upon the imprecise interpretation of her domestic partner and minor child.
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the rheumatologist-defendant testified that the cost for an ASL interpreter would have been $175-200/hour. He further testified that the healthcare insurance reimbursement would have only been approximately $49 per visit. Therefore, he argued that it would be unreasonable to require him to pay an ASL interpreter in view of the economics of the situation.
The patient-plaintiff argued that her rheumatologist had a duty to provide an ASL interpreter under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“NJ LAD”). She alleged in her complaint that his failure to comply with these anti-discrimination laws left her with “no clear understanding of her condition, treatment or prognosis” and caused her to experience “shame, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, and discrimination.” Ultimately, the jury sided with the patient and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
In an upcoming blog, we will consider the requirements of the ADA and similar state laws. We will also explore the ramifications of these laws for healthcare providers who treat physically or mentally challenged patients.
Disclaimer: The information contained within the MTBC® Learning Center is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The author of the Learning Center does not represent the Web site user or the individual submitting a particular question. Please seek the advice of legal counsel to address any specific questions you may have regarding your particular facts or circumstances
North Carolina to Publish Data Regarding “Confidential” Med Mal Settlements
Sep 2nd
Under a new North Carolina regulation, details regarding North Carolina medical malpractice settlements will soon be posted online for patients to view.
Confidential out-of-court settlements have long been the option of choice for medical malpractice defendants in North Carolina and elsewhere. However, if the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners gets its way, North Carolina providers will be required to provide details regarding every medical malpractice settlement pursuant to which the provider or his or her insurance carrier paid the plaintiff $25,000 or more. Likewise, information must be provided regarding litigation that results in the entry of a monetary judgment. These details will then be posted on the Medical Examiner’s website so that the data can be reviewed by patients and other members of the public.
Under the new law, the following information must be provided regarding all settlements dating back to October 1, 2007, regardless of whether or not the parties’ settlement agreement contained a confidentiality provision:
- The date the judgment or settlement was paid.
- The specialty in which the doctor was practicing at the time the incident occurred that resulted in the judgment or settlement.
- The total amount of the judgment or settlement in United States dollars.
- The city, state, and country in which the judgment or settlement occurred.
- The date of the occurrence of the events leading to the judgment or settlement.
The North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners estimates that the new information will be available online in approximately one year. However, according to news reports, it is possible that North Carolina’s legislature will take action invalidating the new regulations before this information becomes available to the public.
Disclaimer: The information contained within the MTBC® Learning Center is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The author of the Learning Center does not represent the Web site user or the individual submitting a particular question. Please seek the advice of legal counsel to address any specific questions you may have regarding your particular facts or circumstances