Month: March 2020

“….Supreme Court of Kentucky has ruled that in malpractice cases involving complex medical conditions, such as strokes, the jury must rely on the testimony of expert witnesses, rather than relying on common knowledge to adjudicate their decisions….American Medical Association, Top court: In medical liability cases, expert testimony is a must, Tanya Albert Henry, 2019.“

This judgment goes a long way in protecting the physicians from false lawsuits and any bias or prejudice from the jury in cases such as the following:

An appellate court in Kentucky recently allowed a plaintiff, David Shackelford to proceed with a claim against a physician and hospital stating that he would have suffered less harm from a stroke had it been detected earlier. During the trial, no expert testified that the physician exercised or did not exercise the required prudence in detecting the stroke.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky disagreed with the appellate court and overturned its decision citing lack of expert testimony.

If ever there was an example of walking the extra mile, this would be it.

Middletown-based counsels Meghan Woods and Amado Vargas travelled to Lima, Peru covering a distance of 3,700 miles to meet and protect the interest of their client, shooting victim and quadriplegic Peru native Hernando Pezo who was shot in the neck while carrying out his job as a delivery driver for a pizza company.

In the process, the attorney-duo negotiated a $2.5 million workers’ compensation settlement with their client’s insurance carrier.

56-year-old Hernando Pezo had been shot in the neck during his first day on the job as a delivery driver for New Haven’s USA 1 Pizza.

Attorneys Woods and Vargas didn’t need to make the trip to Peru to adequately represent him in the U.S., but they did so anyway to ensure that he was adequately protected and for their own peace of mind, as Woods later said. In Peru, they spent their time meeting Peruvian housing officials, doctors, nurses, lawyers, bankers and financial managers to secure Pezo’s interests.

The two attorneys are deservingly getting much praise and accolades for going well beyond their prescribed duty to help their client’s interests.

A decision by the Baltimore jury last year to award an extraordinary $229.6 million to the family of a baby who suffered brain injury during birth at Johns Hopkins Bayview has rattled Maryland’s health care providers.

There is a lingering fear that the judgment not only sets a dangerous precedent in similar cases but also makes hospitals like Johns Hopkins struggle to cover malpractice insurance costs that will rise manifold.

So a legislation has been proposed that seeks to balance the odds for both the health care providers and the rights of those who suffer injury during administration of health care. The legislation proposes that instead of awarding a lump sum amount towards a victim’s future medical costs, the victim would receive a guarantee of lifetime care under a proposed Maryland Infant Lifetime Care Trust. Hospitals that deliver babies would contribute, and the trust would then cover victims’ medical bills.

It is expected that this would eliminate the need to speculate or assume the future costs of medical care as well as inadequate coverage. This would also help the hospitals keep the insurance costs to a minimum helping them stay in childbirth business.