Articles Posted in Defective Medicine

Published on: | by

About one out of every 400 Americans born is diagnosed with Cerebral palsy. If your child suffers from Cerebral palsy that developed during the early stages of life or during childbirth contact our law firm Borchardt Law Firm to discuss your legal options. Cerebral palsy is a complex affliction that involves damage to the part of the brain that controls posture and movement. While the precise cause of Cerebral palsy may be difficult to identify, many experts believe that medical negligence during the birthing process can cause or exacerbate the severity of the diagnosis. According to a Cerebral palsy source, Cerebral palsy is classified into four categories: Spastic, Athetoid (dyskinetic), Ataxic and Mixed.

•Spastic Cerebral palsy affects 70 to 80 percent of patients and is characterized by stiff or permanently contracted muscles.

• Athetoid Cerebral palsy affects 10 to 20 percent of patients and is characterized by uncontrolled, slow, writhing movements.

• Ataxic Cerebral pasly is a rare form that affects 5 to 10 percent of patients. This form of cerebral palsy affects the sense of depth and perception and results in poor coordination and difficulty with quick or precise movements.

• Mixed Cerebral palsy occurs when a patient has symptoms of two or more of these forms. Many combinations are possible, but the most common mixed form is a blend of the Spastic and Athetoid forms.

To learn more about Cerebral palsy, please watch the following video.

Though it can be uncommon, one of the most severe causes can happen due to a medical malpractice during childbirth. In 2002 an Illinois mother was given medication in order to induce her labor to her son. However, the medication caused severe stress on her baby causing his heart rate to drop dangerously low. The mother should have received an immediate C-section by her OBGYN but rather her primary care physician attempted to deliver the baby himself. Tragically, the delivery was unsuccessful and the OBGYN stepped in and performed a C-section. “The boy had already been seriously deprived of oxygen, causing him to suffer from the irreversible brain damage that resulted in his severe Cerebral Palsy.” (cerebralpalsysource.com) His condition is so grave he will never be able to walk, talk or feed himself. He will need constant medical care for the rest of his life. After taking this case to court, the mother was recently awarded a $5.5 million settlement which includes the cost of long-term care for her son. (Read the full article)

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In June of 2011, just two days after Actos was pulled off the shelves in France and Germany, the FDA warned doctors and patients in the U.S. about the increased risk of bladder cancer while taking the medicine for over a year. Takeda, the largest pharmaceutical company based in Japan, is now facing hundreds of defective prescription drug lawsuits and a severe loss in sales as patients are warned about the drug. The once-a-day pill was created to help control blood sugar levels for patients with type 2 diabetes.

actos.jpg

According to the American Diabetes Association, type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes; it affects millions of Americans every day. With type 2 diabetes, the body does not produce enough insulin or the cells ignore the insulin. Insulin is necessary for the body to be able to use glucose for energy. When you eat food, the body breaks down all of the sugars and starches into glucose, which is the basic fuel for the cells in the body. Insulin takes the sugar from the blood into the cells.

Untreated patients with type 2 diabetes may experience constant fatigue, weight loss, blurred vision, increased thirst and several other serious side effects. “Actos focuses on two of the common problems that lead to high blood sugar in type 2 diabetes. The medication helps your body better use the insulin it makes, and also stops your liver from making more sugar when it doesn’t need to. By treating these problems, the sugar in your blood can get to where it needs to go so it doesn’t continue to build up in the bloodstream” (Actos Website) Actos appeals to patients due to the ease of taking it and the short term results but now the drug proves to have much more serious long term side effects that Takeda failed to mention to their patients. “The FDA analyzed data from the first five years of a 10-year Actos safe study Takeda begun in 2001 and concluded this June that the risk of bladder cancer was 40 percent higher for patients taking Actos for at least a year, although still small: an extra 28 cases a year for every 100,000 people taking it.” (CBS News)

(Visit the Mayo Clinic site to read more about bladder cancer symptoms)

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On July 1, 2011,the Supreme Court of Texas modified long existing common law known as the collateral source rule in such a manner as to inhibit the victims of car wrecks, truck wrecks, defective products and bad drugs from getting a fair recovery from a jury in Texas. In the case of Haygood v. Escobedo, Tex. Sup. Ct. No. 09-0377, July 1, 2011, the Court concluded that health care providers make it a practice to set their full charges as high as possible in order to attempt to influence private insurers and medicare to increase reimbursement rates. As a result, the Court concluded that juries should ignore these charges by health care providers in determining the award of reasonable and necessary medical expenses and only consider what the health insurance carrier or Medicare actually paid under its reimbursement agreement. While innocuous on its face, the Court well knows that the amount of medical expenses presented to the jury during trial impacts the award of other elements of damages such as pain and suffering. By refusing to allow the jury to consider the full charge of the health insurance carrier in determining damages and only allowing the amount paid under a reimbursement agreement with the private health insurance carrier or Medicare, it can be concluded that jury verdicts in cases where the victim of personal injury has private insurance will be smaller.

The collateral source rule was intended to prevent the wrongdoer to benefit from a person having insurance independently purchased from a third party. In my opinion, what is wrong with this opinion is that a person who did not purchase private health insurance will continue to be able to submit the full amount of the bill charged by the health insurance provider and as a result will in all probability have disparately higher jury awards when compared to the victim with the good judgment to purchase such coverage. As a result, in my opinion, the Haygood opinion accomplishes exactly what the collateral source rule was designed to prevent. It has the effect, whether unintended or not, to influence jury verdicts against wrongdoers lower in cases where the personal injury plaintiff did the prudent thing by purchasing health insurance.

Mike McGartland