Over $850 Million in Verdicts and Settlements
AV Preeminent badge
Super Lawyers badge
Avvo Rating badge
Best Law Firms badge
TNTL badge

The Maryland Court of Appeals just issued its decision in the Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia case regarding whether to abandon the doctrine of contributory negligence (if a plaintiff is the least bit negligent, the plaintiff loses) in favor of the doctrine of comparative negligence (if a plaintiff is negligent, the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s negligence). Those on the victims’ side will say that this decision is a refusal to move from an antiquated doctrine to a modern doctrine. Those on the corporate and insurance side will consider this a win.

Despite the continued national focus on patient safety, medical malpractice (medical errors) and other adverse events occur too frequently in Maryland hospital admissions. Hospitals in Maryland are required to report serious adverse events that occur to the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality (MOHCQ). MOHCQ then issues a yearly report regarding those reported events. In its recently-released report for fiscal year 2012, the report revealed that major adverse events (medical malpractice) still occur at an alarming frequency in Maryland.

Unfortunately, some of the most common medical malpractice lawsuits involve a doctor of hospital’s failure to diagnose a patient properly. When a patient seeks medical help, he or she trusts that their doctor or hospital will perform the necessary steps to diagnose what is causing their symptoms ultimately provide the proper treatment.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates prescription drugs and medical devices to ensure that these products are safe and effective for their intended use. Frequently, medical professionals see clinical uses for medical devises that lie outside of the FDA-approved labeling. This is a practice known as “off label use.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates medical devices and prescription drugs to make sure that they are safe and effective for their intended use. Frequently, doctors see clinical uses for medical devices and drugs that lie outside of the FDA-approved labeling. This is a practice known as “off-label use.” The off-label use of a medical device is, in most cases, completely legal. The FDA understands that doctors have the right to make their own treatment decisions, including decisions about off-label uses, based on clinical experience and knowledge. However, the off-label use of medical devices can be a source of increased liability when such use falls short of patients’ expectations.

There are many hidden and unknown dangers in the very places we expect to heal; for example, hospital beds. Many of these hospital beds have rails, typically made of metal, that run along the side of the sleeping space. These bed rails operate to prevent someone from rolling off accidentally.

It is not uncommon for a business to require a parent to sign a waiver before their child may participate in any of the business’s activities. By signing such a release, a parent agrees that the business is not responsible for any injuries that the child sustains as a result of the child’s participation in an activity. These releases also often have language indemnifying the business from any claim brought on behalf of the child. Until now, the law in many states has allowed these businesses, although responsible for the injury, to rely on this waiver and avoid all liability. But in a recent case of first impression, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that such agreements are void and unenforceable on public policy grounds.

The New York Times recently ran a fascinating op ed by Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA. The subject was a study that Professor Schwartz did on the value of medical malpractice litigation in reducing medical errors. Professor Schwartz’s conclusion was that medical malpractice claims and lawsuits actually don’t result in doctors and other health professionals hiding problems and, in fact, such suits actually encourage improved practices.

Severe and permanent nerve injuries due to medical malpractice unfortunately can occur. These cases can be challenging to win because there often is not clear evidence of exactly how the nerve injury occurred. Recently, I successfully concluded a case of a nerve injury that allegedly was caused by malpractice. That case involved a severed sciatic nerve which occurred during orthopedic surgery. The surgeon denied that he severed the nerve; however, the patient walked into the hospital on the morning of the surgery and woke up with the severed nerve.

Most medical malpractice, wrongful death and personal injury lawyers in Maryland are hired by clients through a contingency fee agreement. In such an arrangement, the law firm generally is paid a legal fee based upon a percentage of the total amount recovered in the case plus expenses. If there is no recovery, there is no legal fee or expense. But what happens when the client fires the lawyer before there is any recovery.

This past week, Marylanders were stunned and sickened by news that Johns Hopkins’ gynecologist, Dr. Nikita Levy, allegedly used still cameras and video recording devices to capture surreptitiously his gynecological examinations of potentially hundreds of his patients, and that he allegedly collected massive amounts of those images and videos on multiple media storage devices (computers, thumb drives, etc.). What Dr. Levy did with these images is not yet clear. Local, state and federal law enforcement have begun a large-scale cooperative investigation, and, according to reports, officers have searched Dr. Levy’s home and office, seizing multiple media storage devices pursuant to search warrants issued by Baltimore County and Baltimore City Judges. But in the Dr. Levy case, which involves electronic surveillance and electronic privacy crimes, potential child pornography, voyeurism, and invasion of the privacy of hundreds and hundreds of women, law enforcement faces obstacles far more complex than a physician sexually assaulting one or more patients.

 

Read more at: https://www.marylandcriminalattorneyblog.com/johns_hopkins_gynecologist_levy/ Continue Reading →

As news continues to unfold about the now-dead Dr. Levy’s alleged use of still cameras and video recording devices to capture surreptitiously his gynecological examinations of potentially hundreds of his patients, the entire Baltimore and Maryland community is reacting to and struggling to understand how an invasion of privacy of this magnitude occurred. In a nutshell:

• Women everywhere are thinking hard about their privacy-and cringing as they visualize what happens when they hop on a gynecological examination table and reveal their most intimate body parts to a medical care provider;
• If interviews with dozens of Dr. Levy’s patients can be taken as representative of the whole, the hundreds and hundreds of women examined by Dr. Levy are experiencing the trauma commonly associated with such an abusive invasion of their sexual privacy and are experiencing emotional distress as they imagine what pictures and videos might exist and whether those videos and images are floating about on the Internet;
• Horrifically, some of Dr. Levy’s teenage patients may be possible victims, raising the question–was Dr. Levy creating child pornography;
• Federal and state law enforcement are working diligently to investigate, gather, sort, catalog and evaluate massive amounts of electronic evidence and identify victims from that evidence;
• Prosecutors are considering what electronic privacy laws, criminal laws, child pornography laws, and medical privacy laws may come into play;
• Johns Hopkins is reaching out to former patients while trying to conduct its own internal investigation and handling a PR crisis; and • Medical malpractice attorneys have rushed to the courthouse filing suits for millions in damages for medical malpractice when not a single victim has yet to be identified, although make no mistake-victims will be identified when there is this much electronic evidence.
Continue Reading →

A number of news organizations are reporting today that lawyers in Baltimore are racing to the courthouse to file lawsuits against Dr. Nikita Levy and Johns Hopkins Hospital. When I heard that, I sadly chuckled. The only thing that these lawyers know now is what the media is reporting. There is no other information available from Dr. Levy’s family, Johns Hopkins, the Baltimore County Police who executed the search warrant, the Baltimore City Police who are leading the investigation or the FBI which is assisting the Baltimore City Police with the forensic evaluation of the electronic evidence.

Contact Information