Saturday, May 31, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFE...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . "Here to make a difference". Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columb...
AIDUIA" BEST "HOWARD COUNTY,MARYLAND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS/LAWYERS
www.charlesjeromeware.com. "Here to make a difference".
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columbia, Howard County, Maryland-based boutique criminal defense law firm that is locally and nationally ranked as one of the " 10 BEST" criminal defense firms in Maryland. The firm's premier peer recognition comes from such respected organizations as the "National Trial Lawyers : Top 100' organization, the " American
Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys " (AIDUIA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Bar Association (NBA), the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association ( MCDAA), et al., for its general excellence in law, impeccable client satisfaction, extremely high degree of professional achievement, stellar ethics in practice, and enormous success in representation of clients.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Columbia, Howard County, Maryland-based boutique criminal defense law firm that is locally and nationally ranked as one of the " 10 BEST" criminal defense firms in Maryland. The firm's premier peer recognition comes from such respected organizations as the "National Trial Lawyers : Top 100' organization, the " American
Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys " (AIDUIA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Bar Association (NBA), the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association ( MCDAA), et al., for its general excellence in law, impeccable client satisfaction, extremely high degree of professional achievement, stellar ethics in practice, and enormous success in representation of clients.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact the firm at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPR...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPR...: www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference." Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-...
ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA (ACC): MARYLAND ENT MALPRACTICE ?
www.charlesjeromeware.com " Here to make a difference."
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm and clearinghouse for the evaluation of medical malpractice cases, research and study of medical malpractice law firms, selection of medical experts, and the provision of all of the above in promising cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice nor medical advice.
This medical malpractice case involves a 35-year-old female who was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the salivary gland by her dentist. The dentist promptly referred the patient to an ear-nose-and throat (ENT) physician/surgeon who, as it happens, had never operated on a patient with ACC nor had ever seen a patient with ACC.
The ENT decided to perform a surgical procedure on the patient with an internist and a radiation oncologist assisting. The radiation oncologist had advised the ENT doctor on two separate occasions to monitor the patient with chest x-rays on an annual basis. The treating ENT -- even though his group practice had closed--- still forwarded letters to the treating ENT office every year for over 13 years recommending that chest x-rays be performed on the patient annually. The ENT, however, failed to advise the patient of the radiation oncologist's recommendations, and never gave the patient an option or recommendation to have the chest x-ray done.
The ENT maintains his belief that a chest x-ray in the circumstances of this case was not in line with the standard of care for this patient --- but, instead, he maintains that it was standard of care to wait until the patient became symptomatic for chest x-rays.
The patient never missed an appointment and routinely followed up with this same ENT as her treating physician. The patient eventually began to develop respiratory distress and presented to the ER. At that time she was diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer in both lungs, as well as metastatic disease in her brain and kidneys.
Question for Expert Consideration: Should a chest x-ray have been ordered for this patient, given her past medical history of ACC (Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma) along with the recommendations made by the radiation oncologist ?
Our Otolaryngology Expert opines: Yes. " This type of cancer requires long-term monitoring for metastatic disease including routine chest x-rays or CT scans ...."
[http://www.theexpertinstitute.com/case-studies/otolaryngology-expert-witness-advises.../May 28, 2014/ Faiza Patten]
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national medical malpractice law firm and clearinghouse for the evaluation of medical malpractice cases, research and study of medical malpractice law firms, selection of medical experts, and the provision of all of the above in promising cases. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice nor medical advice.
This medical malpractice case involves a 35-year-old female who was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the salivary gland by her dentist. The dentist promptly referred the patient to an ear-nose-and throat (ENT) physician/surgeon who, as it happens, had never operated on a patient with ACC nor had ever seen a patient with ACC.
The ENT decided to perform a surgical procedure on the patient with an internist and a radiation oncologist assisting. The radiation oncologist had advised the ENT doctor on two separate occasions to monitor the patient with chest x-rays on an annual basis. The treating ENT -- even though his group practice had closed--- still forwarded letters to the treating ENT office every year for over 13 years recommending that chest x-rays be performed on the patient annually. The ENT, however, failed to advise the patient of the radiation oncologist's recommendations, and never gave the patient an option or recommendation to have the chest x-ray done.
The ENT maintains his belief that a chest x-ray in the circumstances of this case was not in line with the standard of care for this patient --- but, instead, he maintains that it was standard of care to wait until the patient became symptomatic for chest x-rays.
The patient never missed an appointment and routinely followed up with this same ENT as her treating physician. The patient eventually began to develop respiratory distress and presented to the ER. At that time she was diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer in both lungs, as well as metastatic disease in her brain and kidneys.
Question for Expert Consideration: Should a chest x-ray have been ordered for this patient, given her past medical history of ACC (Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma) along with the recommendations made by the radiation oncologist ?
Our Otolaryngology Expert opines: Yes. " This type of cancer requires long-term monitoring for metastatic disease including routine chest x-rays or CT scans ...."
[http://www.theexpertinstitute.com/case-studies/otolaryngology-expert-witness-advises.../May 28, 2014/ Faiza Patten]
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates...: Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national law firm that features as one of its core practice areas th...
MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates
Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national law firm that features as one of its core practice areas the representation of Black farmers in Maryland and throughout the United States. For an initial courtesy consultation to discuss your legal issues , contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. We are "here to make a difference."
The firm has been successfully involved in several major cases and issues regarding the welfare of Black farmers, including the major Black Farmers Class Action Cases : TIMOTHY PIGFORD, Et AL., v. ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and CECIL BREWINGTON, ET AL. v. MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Class Action Cases, Numbers 97-1978 (PFL) and 98-1693 (PLF), 1977 -1999, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There are still multi-millions of dollars set aside by Congress for the benefit of Black farmers and farms who can survive the arduous and difficult process outlined in the U.S. District Court Order and Consent Decree of the parties of April 14, 1999 to recover it. Most unfortunately, too few Black farmers have been able to survive this difficult process to receive their just compensation for the severe wrongs suffered by them and their ancestors.
Attorney Charles Ware was one of the few select attorneys who filed motions to modify the Court's flawed Order and Consent Decree of the parties. However, the fight for justice goes on ; particularly since the fund is still there for disbursement.
As a reminder to the readers of this blog, the PIGFORD class action consent decree and order established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those Black farmers and their families seeking relief. The most widely used option has been "Track A", which provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. It is a cumbersome and difficult process. An even more difficult option is the so-called "TRACK B" process., in which claimants must prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence ( i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The major problem with this process, however, is the difficulty in finding and producing the necessary documentation to get relief. The advantage here is the fact that the claimant is not restricted to just $ 50,000 in relief.
The firm has been successfully involved in several major cases and issues regarding the welfare of Black farmers, including the major Black Farmers Class Action Cases : TIMOTHY PIGFORD, Et AL., v. ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and CECIL BREWINGTON, ET AL. v. MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Class Action Cases, Numbers 97-1978 (PFL) and 98-1693 (PLF), 1977 -1999, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There are still multi-millions of dollars set aside by Congress for the benefit of Black farmers and farms who can survive the arduous and difficult process outlined in the U.S. District Court Order and Consent Decree of the parties of April 14, 1999 to recover it. Most unfortunately, too few Black farmers have been able to survive this difficult process to receive their just compensation for the severe wrongs suffered by them and their ancestors.
Attorney Charles Ware was one of the few select attorneys who filed motions to modify the Court's flawed Order and Consent Decree of the parties. However, the fight for justice goes on ; particularly since the fund is still there for disbursement.
As a reminder to the readers of this blog, the PIGFORD class action consent decree and order established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those Black farmers and their families seeking relief. The most widely used option has been "Track A", which provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. It is a cumbersome and difficult process. An even more difficult option is the so-called "TRACK B" process., in which claimants must prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence ( i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The major problem with this process, however, is the difficulty in finding and producing the necessary documentation to get relief. The advantage here is the fact that the claimant is not restricted to just $ 50,000 in relief.
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND's SECOND BEST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: MARYLAND's SECOND BEST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNE...: We select and work with the best, locally and nationwide, as co-counsel and secondary counsel. We win ! Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys an...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)