Personal Injury – Soft Tissue Injury: Conditions & Common Causes
December 28, 2011
By far the most common type of injuries we encounter are soft tissue injuries resulting from automobile car accidents, slip and falls, trip and falls and other traumatic events causing personal injuries in Chicago or Evanston.
Soft tissue injury is damage to four different types of tissue: muscles, ligaments, tendons or nerves.
Soft tissue injury is caused by direct or indirect trauma. Direct trauma may happen in connection with sports or other accidents, being struck by an object or falling. Indirect trauma commonly stems from overuse of the tissue. For instance, assembly line or factory workers often suffer from this type because of the many repetitive movements they have to do many times a day.
Types of soft issue injury
Soft tissue injuries include ligament sprains e.g. sprained ankle, tendon strains, repetitive stress injury and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Treatment
Immediately after the event causing the injury, you should use ice packs, rest, bandaging and elevation. You should see your doctor if you can’t move normally or if the pain and swelling are still present after a couple of days.
Treatment options might include:
- Physiotherapy exercises to promote healing, strength and flexibility
- Electrotherapy
- Manual techniques such as mobilization and massage
Information via Soft Tissue Injury: Conditions & Common Causes.
Patient Safety Reform Better For Patients And Doctors
April 21, 2010
RAND Study – Patient Safety Also Benefits Doctors
That common sense conclusion is the recent finding from the RAND Corporation, a think tank and research center.
In a recent study, the group finds that when patient injuries were reduced in California hospitals there were fewer medical malpractice claims.
The cries for tort reform to limit a patients’ ability to bring an injury claim, frequently fail to look at the impact an improved patient safety picture can have on reducing malpractice claims against doctors.
The research group analyzed medical malpractice insurance records in California from 2001 to 2005. California was chosen because it initiated medical malpractice reform 35 years ago and any fallout would not be recent. It also has a large and diverse population.
Researchers studied medical malpractice claims – that is claims by patients who had received poor care such as contracting a hospital infection, having a surgical instrument left in them, and receiving the wrong medication, among other preventable adverse events.
Using the records from four of the largest medical malpractice insurers in the state, researchers analyzed 365,000 adverse safety events and 27,000 malpractice claims that followed.
98,000 People Die Each Year From Preventable Medical Errors.
February 9, 2010
Medical Error Leads to Congressman Murtha’s Death
While various news outlets have described the death of Congressman John Murtha’s (D-PA) as resulting from “complications following gallbladder surgery,” the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting that the “complications” involved an error by Murtha’s surgeons.
Illinois Supreme Court Finds Caps on Damages To Be Unconstitutional
February 4, 2010
Much to the delight of all victims of medical malpractice and consumers in Illinois in general, the Supreme Court found that caps on non-economic damages as legislated by Illinois lawmakers was an unconstitutional interference of the legislative branch with the judicial branch of the government. This is a great victory for all victims of medical malpractice in Illinois. regrettably, the fight does not stop here and will now be focused, at least for us, to the Federal arena where Tort Reform is still a threat to all consumers and victims of malpractice.
Illinois Supreme Court to rule on medical malpractice cap
The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state’s medical malpractice law today, saying it violates separation of powers by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a judge’s ability to reduce verdicts.
The much-anticipated ruling, which challenged the constitutionality of damage caps for doctors and hospitals, is being watched closely by the health care industry and employers that see caps on damages as a way to tame rising health care costs.
The ruling could figure in the national health care debate of stalled health care legislation. In the U.S. Senate where Republicans have opposed existing health care reform legislation, the GOP has been vocal about the need for tort reform and caps on damages.
Tort Reform And Its Questionable Success
January 16, 2010
Tort Reform: Questionable Success and Obvious Shortcomings
How are patients limited by tort reform?
The core of many tort reform bills is the limitation of non-economic damages. This includes compensation for pain and suffering. What happens when a malpractice victim faces no immediate economic damages? For example, what of elderly and young victims who are not employed? What of grieving families who face life without a loved one?
Charles and Shirley Ethier’s son was admitted to a San Francisco emergency room with a head laceration after being struck in the head with a surfboard. Despite the possibility of a serious head injury, the doctor who treated him failed to order a CT scan or even palpate the wound. Instead, the physician simply stitched him up and sent him home.
He wasn’t there for long. The Ethiers’ son had fractured his skull, and was suffering from extensive cerebral hemorrhaging. The sustained pressure on his brain eventually rendered him brain dead and he later died.
The jury quickly found for the Ethiers and awarded them $3 million in wrongful death damages — which the judge was forced to immediately reduce to $250,000, the amount allowed under MICRA for non-economic damages.
A Step in the Right Direction
December 31, 2008
Last year, besides giving away nearly $16 billion in free drug samples to doctors, pharmaceutical companies spent more than $6 billion on “detailing” – an industry term for the sales activities of drug representatives including office visits to doctors, meal-time presentations and branded pens and other handouts, according to IMS Health, a health care information company.
The industry code also permits drug makers to pay doctors as consultants “based on fair market value” – which critics say means that companies can continue to pay individual doctors tens of thousands of dollars or more a year.
“We have arrived at a point in the history of medicine in America where doctors have deep, deep financial ties with the drug makers and marketers,” said Allan Coukell, the director of policy for the Prescription Project, a nonprofit group in Boston working to promote evidence-based medicine. “Financial entanglements at all the levels have the potential to influence prescribing in a way that is not good.”
About 40 drug makers, including Eli Lilly & Company, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, have signed on to the code. Representatives of several pharmaceutical makers said their companies intended to comply with the guidelines, but they declined to discuss past marketing programs involving branded gifts.
About the McDonald's Case
September 11, 2008
I hear a lot about the McDonald’s case and how frivolous lawsuits are hurting consumers. Of course no one is in favor of frivolous lawsuits. But, generally, frivolous lawsuits get dismissed or never get filed. Where attorneys work on a percentage of recovery basis, no attorney would want to spend time and money on a case where he knows there will be no recovery at all or chances of recovery is slim to none. It simply would not make sense to throw money away… And attorneys are not in the business of throwing money away.
Here is the story behind the McDonald Case:
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive through window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement reatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.
Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreased toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to the temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it here. However, the company’s own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a “reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 – or three times compensatory damages – even though the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.
After an appeal, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
If Only the FDA Would Do Its Job!
August 4, 2008
Lawmakers to Consider Unbiased System to Compete with Drug Marketers
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — Congress is kicking around the idea of funding ostensible truth squads to disseminate unbiased reports on prescription drugs in an effort to counter claims made by drug company representatives.
A bill, introduced in both congressional chambers yesterday, would set up a grant program to send healthcare professionals to physicians’ offices armed with independent data about the relative risks, benefits, and costs of the drugs.
The bill stipulates that the healthcare field representatives — most likely nurses or pharmacists — would be barred from receiving money from any drug company.
“This bill will provide an important alternative to the way doctors currently get their information about drugs — from the drug companies themselves,” said Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), the sponsor of the Senate bill. “By providing physicians with thorough, independent research on all the drugs available to them, we believe we can improve the quality of healthcare and reduce the cost of prescription drugs in America.”
The bill would provide grants to academic medical centers, government entities, nonprofits, or research institutes to create educational materials on prescription and non-prescription drug information safety, effectiveness and costs, compared with other alternatives.
The bill would provide 10 grants for a public entity, a nonprofit, a private company, or an academic institution to develop a curriculum and to train those with appropriate clinical backgrounds to visit physicians’ offices to discuss medications.
“For far too long, most of the information physicians receive to make prescribing decisions has come from the drug companies’ marketing reps, not independent experts,” said Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the House version of the bill. “This important legislation will go a long way toward giving doctors another, less biased perspective.”
The bill is backed by the Prescription Project and the National Coalition for Appropriate Prescribing, which are calling the move toward a more education-based approach to prescribing “academic detailing.”
“We need a program like this to counter the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing free-for-all,” said Robert Restuccia, executive director of the Prescription Project. “Academic detailing programs already exist in other countries and in several states, and they’ve been shown to improve care and generate savings.”
The bill contains no projected price tag.
