Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog
So far, I have carefully selected about a three medical malpractice cases against Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center. In each of these cases, the client contacted me either after getting a letter from St. Joseph Medical Center stating that he or she received an unnecessary stent or after reading articles in the newspaper about Dr. Midei and St. Joseph.
To date, there have been seven articles about this fiasco in the Baltimore Sun, consisting of the following:
1/15/10 Patients learn they might have unneeded stents.
1/22/10 Heart-stent popularity is costly in many ways.
1/23/10 Suit alleges heart implant unnecessary.
1/28/10 Lawyers see profits in stent cases.
1/29/10 Lawyers look for clients in cases of possibly unneeded stents.
2/20/10 Senators launch fraud inquiry of Md. hospital.
2/21/10 St. Joseph acts to put stent crisis behind it.
Rumor has it that St. Joseph Medical Center has a group of five leading cardiology experts reviewing all of Dr. Midei’s cardiac catheterization and stent procedures during a certain time frame, and if all five doctors agree that the study was misread and the stent was unnecessary the patient gets a letter from St. Joseph. The problem with that methodology is that it only looks at a certain time frame and it takes five doctors to agree on the misread.
So far, St. Joseph has sent out 389 letters to patients, but I understand that they are now sending out additional letters. In my personal opinion, by the time they review all of the cases, the number of unnecessary stent cases will be in the thousands. I also believe that Dr. Midei eventually will be charged criminally with fraud.
One case that I have is illustrative of the other cases. In this case, the client had chest pain about five years ago and went to the St. Joseph Medical Center emergency room where his all of his tests were normal. He underwent a catheterization the next day by Dr. Midei and was told he had blockages that required two stents. The St. Joseph Medical Center cardiac catheterization report of that procedure, which was signed by Dr. Midei, states that one of his cardiac arteries was 80% narrowed, for which a stent was put in. A leading cardiac catheterization expert has reviewed the images of that study and informed me that the artery which Dr. Midei claimed was 80% narrowed actually was only 30% narrowed, and did not require a stent (generally, stents are not put in unless the artery is more than 70% narrowed). Dr. Midei also claimed in the report that another of the patient’s cardiac arteries was 90% narrowed, and needed a stent. According to our expert, that second artery was only 50% narrowed, and did not require a stent. In other words, the Dr. Midei lied to this patient, leading him to believe that a stent procedure was necessary when in fact he simply should have been treated with medication. For the past six years, this patient has had a diagnosis of major heart disease when in reality he has no such thing. He must take a blood thinning medication daily for the rest of his life, which requires him to avoid certain food, undergo regular blood testing and increases his susceptibility for hemorrhage if he falls or is injured. Interestingly, this patient has yet to receive a letter from St. Joseph.
As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer / attorney who specializes in medical malpractice cases, I have handled numerous medical malpractice cases involving cardiac issues. These cases are perfect examples of medical malpractice. These people deserve compensation. In fact, I believe they have been victims of fraud.
I also believe that people who have been victimized by Dr. Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center are best served by lawyers like me who carefully and individually look at each case and treat each case separately, as opposed to the lawyers who are advertising in the newspaper, on television and the radio, simply trying to grab as many cases as they can. Many of these lawyers are trying to scoop up these cases for the sole purpose of referring them to other attorneys in exchange for a percentage of the attorneys’ fee in the case (sharing attorneys fees with a referring attorney is legal, but advertising for cases you don’t handle is misleading). Others will be forced to lump a large number of cases together, because there is simply no way that these small firms can give these cases the individual attention that they require and deserve, let alone bring them to trial if necessary. If you want to talk to a secretary or paralegal each time you call, or have your case handed off to some attorney unknown to you, and to be known simply as one of dozens and dozens of cases, call one of these lawyers. If, on the other hand, you want to speak to a lawyer each time you call (who knows your name and your case), contact someone like me who treats each case as if it were my own. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.
Contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786