MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AWARDS: An Update

This update is brought to you by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still committed. Still working. Still here to make a difference."

$4,300,000.00 SURGERY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AWARD FOR LACERATED AORTA DURING BARIATRIC SURGERY

_________________________________________________________________________

In this surgery medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant surgeon was negligent during bariatric surgery (weight-loss surgery) in lacerating the plaintiff's aorta (the largest artery in the body) resulting in massive blood loss and cardiac arrest (heart attack).

The plaintiff, age 62, suffered as a result profound hypotension (low blood pressure) which resulted in kidney failure, thus requiring the plaintiff undergo a kidney transplant. The plaintiff also suffered severe cognitive defects (mental retardation). --- Massachusetts case.

$3,000,000.00 CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE - FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE AND TIMELY TREAT FATAL SEPSIS FOLLOWING KNEE SURGERY; WRONGFUL DEATH OF 70-YEAR-OLD WOMAN

_________________________________________________________________________

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff's estate alleged that the defendant medical facility was negligent in its treatment of the plaintiff's decedent during post-operative care and treatment. The decedent died of sepsis (severe response to bacteria or other germs to the body) following knee surgery.

The defendant denied the allegations and disputed the plaintiff’s injuries, causation and damages.

The 70-year-old female plaintiff suffered from gastric ulcers and came under the care of the defendant medical facility for a total knee replacement. Following the surgery, the plaintiff’s decedent complained of persistent abdominal pain. The decedent continued to experience abdominal pain, and an abnormal pulse rate and blood pressure readings, as well as decreased renal function in the 36-hour period following the surgery. The decedent had a surgical consult when a chest X-ray showed free air in the decedent’s abdomen.

The decedent was operated on again, which disclosed stomach wall perforations. She was then treated in the intensive care unit for sepsis and gastrointestinal complications.

The plaintiff died approximately one month later from septic complications.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleging negligence. The plaintiff contended that had the defendant recognized the signs of internal bleeding and sepsis immediately they could have appropriately treated the decedent.

The parties mediated the plaintiff’s claim and arrived at a confidential settlement of $3,000,000.00 to resolve the case. --- Massachusetts case.

[www.medicine.net.com; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/hypotension; www.mayoclinic.com; www.jvra.com/verdict; www.emedicinehealth.com/cognitivedefects; www.webmd.com/hypotension/arota/cardiacarrest]

WHISTLEBLOWER PAYDAYS INCREASE: $104,000,000.00 AND COUNTING!

This information update is sponsored by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

"Whistleblowing" --- i.e., the disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing --- is the new big money-maker for some employees.

Since the 1960s, the public value of whistle-blowing has been increasingly recognized. For example, federal and state statutes and regulations have been enacted to protect whistleblowers from various forms of retaliation. Even without a statute, numerous decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on grounds of public policy. In addition, the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C.A. § 3729) will reward a whistleblower who brings a lawsuit against a company that makes a false claim or commits Fraud against the government.

Persons who act as whistleblowers are often the subject of retaliation by their employers. Typically the employer will discharge the whistleblower, who is often an at-will employee. An at-will employee is a person without a specific term of employment. The employee may quit at any time and the employer has the right to fire the employee without having to cite a reason. However, courts and legislatures have created exceptions for whistleblowers who are at-will employees.

Whistleblowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer's activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Federal whistle-blower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that he or she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.

Former UBS Bankers Gets $104,000,000.00 From the IRS For Whistleblowing

After serving two and a half years in federal prison, former UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) banker and whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld has now received an award of $104,000,000.00 from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service).

The award comes because of Birkenfeld's insider information to IRS revealing how thousands of rich Americans were hiding their money in Swiss banks (such as UBS) to avoid U.S. taxes.

Former Glaxo Smith Kline Quality Assurance Manager Files U.S. False Claims Act Case And Is Awarded At Least $96,000,000.00 For Whistleblowing
________________________________________________________________

Cheryl Eckard was terminated from her job as a Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) Quality Assurance Manager in 2003 allegedly for "redundancy" related to the merger of GSK and SmithKline Beechan PLC. In reality, though, Ms. Eckard was terminated for complaining to her supervisors about her concerns over serious deficiencies in a GSK manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico. In July 2012, Ms. Eckard was rewarded with $96 million for her whistleblowing activities.

[legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/"Whistleblowing"; "Do Good and Get Rich: Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing and the False Claims Act", by Elletta Sangrey Callahan and Terry Morehead, Villanova Law Review 37 (1992); Whistleblowing: A Federal Employee's Guide to Charges, Procedures, and Penalties, Federal Employees News Digest/ Reston, Virginia (2000); False Claims Act: Whistleblower Litigation, by James B. Helmer, Lexis/Nexis, 3rd ed. (2002); "The Year of the Whistle-Blowers", by James Kelly, Time (December 30, 2002); articles.nydailynews.com/ 2012-09-12/news/bradley-birkenfeld; www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-16/ "Whistleblower Wins $118 Million in Bank Accord"; abcnews.go.com/Business/biggest-whistleblower-rewards/story; online.wsj.com/article/ October 28, 2010/ "Whistleblower's Long Journey"]

GEORGE STANLEY MCGOVERN: July 19, 1922 - October 21, 2012

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in".

HEART ATTACK MISDIAGNOSIS: NEW YORK JURY AWARDS $126,600,000.00

The national law office of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, and is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

Background

Each year about 5 million people in the United States visit emergency rooms with heart attack symptoms, including chest pains. Since heart attack symptoms are similar to a number of common on-life threatening conditions, physicians may fail to realize the severity of the patient's situation and may even misdiagnose the patient's medical condition.

Three (3) of the more common mistakes made during the diagnosis of a heart attack include:

(1) Relying on a regular ECG to gauge the presence or lack of a heart attack. Some studies have shown that a significant number of misdiagnosed heart attacks occur due to improper reading of a patient's ECG.

(2) Many younger patients suffer heart attacks that remain undiagnosed.

(3) At least 2% of heart attacks may be incorrectly diagnosed by medical professionals. And, women may be at least seven or eight times more likely to have their heart attack misdiagnosed than men.

New York Jury Awards $126,600,000.00 for failure by medical staff to diagnose heart attack:

A New York woman who claims she sat unattended in a New York hospital for hours while medical personnel negligently failed to diagnose her heart attack has won a $126.6 million jury verdict.

The woman, an office manager and former horse trainer, claimed she suffered permanent injuries after the medical staff of the Hospital failed to recognize she was having a heart attack.

"In a nutshell, the jury didn't believe the hospital's expert, and awarded her damages for pain and suffering and her tremendous future medical expenses," said the woman's malpractice attorney.

[see, New England Journal of Medicine/ "Heart Attack Misdiagnosis"; Lawyersusaonline.com/ 10/18/2012; dailyalert_USA@lawyersweekly.com/ 10-18-2012/ "Jury Awards $126.6 Million For Failure To Diagnose Heart Attack"]

RECORD DISMISSAL OF 6,732 DEBT COLLECTION CASES BY MARYLAND STATE DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE

Provided by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

"Telephone-Gate": Joan Pratt and Peter Angelos versus Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos is representing Baltimore Comptroller Joan M. Pratt without charge (pro bono) in her civil suit against Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the City Council of Baltimore seeking to stop Baltimore City from moving forward with a controversial new telephone system because of a lack of competitive bidding.

[Joan M. Pratt, et al. vs. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Civil Case Number 24C12006018, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case filed 10/12/2012]

6732 Debt Collection Cases Dismissed

Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn of the District Court of Maryland has dismissed 6,732 debt collection cases against Maryland residents within the past four months.

On July 10, 2012, Chief Judge Clyburn ordered the dismissal of 3,564 of the debt collection cases after a settlement agreement was entered with the debt collection agencies LVNV and Resurgent Capital Services.

As part of the agreement reached with the Maryland State Collection Agency Licensing Board, LVNV and Resurgent will pay $1 million to the state and agreed to the dismissal of cases pending in Maryland District Court. Also, $3.8 million in credit will be applied to the accounts of 6,246 consumers whose cases have been adjudicated or settled. The settlement came after claims that LVNV and Resurgent violated state and federal laws about licensure and submitting false or misleading claims or affidavits in court.

On October 10th, 2012, Chief Judge Clyburn dismissed 3,168 debt collection cases against Maryland residents.

Judge Clyburn's order follows a settlement and final order in a federal class action against Worldwide Asset Purchasing and its affiliates issued by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett. In that case, it was alleged that Worldwide Asset Purchasing and its affiliates were not properly registered or licensed, misstated amounts owed and improperly stated Social Security numbers in state court filings, and filed collection lawsuits after the statute of limitations had expired.

Judge Clyburn dismissed the 6,732 cases with prejudice, which means they cannot be re-filed. The order also states that judgments in the cases are marked as "satisfied" and judgment liens are released.

LVNV, Resurgent Capital Services, and Worldwide Asset Purchasing are part of a new industry called "debt buying", that has clogged the dockets of small claims courts in Maryland and throughout the country, particularly during the current recession. Debt buyers specialize in buying debts that have been abandoned by the original creditors, usually credit card companies, for a tiny fraction of the amount owed. Debts may be sold to other debt buyers several times, and the documentation to prove the debt is owed sometimes is little more than the person’s name, last known address and Social Security number.

Defendants whose cases have been dismissed will receive written notification from the District Court of Maryland. To get more information, Maryland residents should contact the local District Court location where the debt collection case was filed. In addition to sending written notices to the people affected by this order, the District Court is directing that court records and the Judiciary Case Search public records website be updated to show the dismissals. The records should be updated within the next month.

[see, Winemiller, et al. v. Worldwide Asset Purchasing, et al, Civil Case No. 1:09-CV-02487-RDB, U.S. Dist. Court-Maryland; www.bizjournals.com/ 10-12-2012; www.courts.state.md.us/press/2012/pr20121011.html; www.courts.state.md.us/press/2012/pr.20120711.html]

MARYLAND LEGAL UPDATES: "TELEPHONE GATE" --- Pratt and Angelos versus Rawlings-Blake; 6732 Debt Collection Cases Dismissed

Provided by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

"Telephone-Gate": Joan Pratt and Peter Angelos versus Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos is representing Baltimore Comptroller Joan M. Pratt without charge (pro bono) in her civil suit against Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the City Council of Baltimore seeking to stop Baltimore City from moving forward with a controversial new telephone system because of a lack of competitive bidding.

[Joan M. Pratt, et al. vs. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Civil Case Number 24C12006018, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case filed 10/12/2012]

6732 Debt Collection Cases Dismissed

Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn of the District Court of Maryland has dismissed 6,732 debt collection cases against Maryland residents within the past four months.

On July 10, 2012, Chief Judge Clyburn ordered the dismissal of 3,564 of the debt collection cases after a settlement agreement was entered with the debt collection agencies LVNV and Resurgent Capital Services.

As part of the agreement reached with the Maryland State Collection Agency Licensing Board, LVNV and Resurgent will pay $1 million to the state and agreed to the dismissal of cases pending in Maryland District Court. Also, $3.8 million in credit will be applied to the accounts of 6,246 consumers whose cases have been adjudicated or settled. The settlement came after claims that LVNV and Resurgent violated state and federal laws about licensure and submitting false or misleading claims or affidavits in court.
On October 10th, 2012, Chief Judge Clyburn dismissed 3,168 debt collection cases against Maryland residents.

Judge Clyburn's order follows a settlement and final order in a federal class action against Worldwide Asset Purchasing and its affiliates issued by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett. In that case, it was alleged that Worldwide Asset Purchasing and its affiliates were not properly registered or licensed, misstated amounts owed and improperly stated Social Security numbers in state court filings, and filed collection lawsuits after the statute of limitations had expired.

Judge Clyburn dismissed the 6,732 cases with prejudice, which means they cannot be re-filed. The order also states that judgments in the cases are marked as "satisfied" and judgment liens are released.

LVNV, Resurgent Capital Services, and Worldwide Asset Purchasing are part of a new industry called "debt buying", that has clogged the dockets of small claims courts in Maryland and throughout the country, particularly during the current recession. Debt buyers specialize in buying debts that have been abandoned by the original creditors, usually credit card companies, for a tiny fraction of the amount owed. Debts may be sold to other debt buyers several times, and the documentation to prove the debt is owed sometimes is little more than the person’s name, last known address and Social Security number.
Defendants whose cases have been dismissed will receive written notification from the District Court of Maryland. To get more information, Maryland residents should contact the local District Court location where the debt collection case was filed. In addition to sending written notices to the people affected by this order, the District Court is directing that court records and the Judiciary Case Search public records website be updated to show the dismissals. The records should be updated within the next month.

[see, Winemiller, et al. v. Worldwide Asset Purchasing, et al, Civil Case No. 1:09-CV-02487-RDB, U.S. Dist. Court-Maryland; www.courts.state.md.us/press/2012/pr20121011.html; www.courts.state.md.us/press/2012/pr.20120711.html]

MARYLAND LEGAL UPDATES: HOWARD COUNTY SCHOOLS, PIT BULLS

Provided by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."

"Pit Bull" Lawsuit

Joseph Weigel, a resident at Baltimore's low-income Armistead Gardens housing development has filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court asking the federal court to strike down a recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest state court) that pit bull dogs are "inherently dangerous".

Weigel argues that the ruling is unconstitutional and forces him and others at Armistead Gardens into eviction.

Defendants in the lawsuit now include, inter alia, the Chief Judge as well as the Court of Appeals, the Governor of the State, and the Attorney General for the State.

Howard County Schools

In a trend towards the increase use of outside legal counsel, the Howard County (Maryland) Public School System has announced the elimination of its in-house legal department. The school system says this decision will save it at least $200,000 in initial estimated costs for the coming year.

The decision was announced by the school system's new superintendent, Renee A. Foose, to the Howard County Board of Education. Foose says the elimination of the school's in-house legal department is part of her plan to restructure the school system's organization during her first 90 days on the job.

[Maryland Daily Record, October 16, 2012; thedailyrecord.com/2012/10/16]