According to the Fresno Bee, The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the death of Dean Patrick Witt and its connection to the legal doctrine that shield military personnel from lawsuits, on June 23, 2011. Mr. Witt’s widow, Alexis, has filed a military malpractice case after Witt died from having a breathing tube placed in his esophagus instead of his trachea in October 2003.

Mr. Witt is a native of Sacramento Valley and married Alexis in September 2001, the article said. It continued with the retelling of how Witt died: in October 2003, he was at Travis Air Force Base, preparing to move his wife and two children from Utah. He was diagnosed with acute appendicitis at David Grant Medical Center and had a successful operation. After the surgery he began having difficulty breathing and a nurse, first, mistakenly tried to open his airways with pediatric equipment and, second, placed the (correct) breathing tube in his esophagus instead of in his trachea. The incorrect placement of the breathing tube starved Mr. Witt’s brain of oxygen, leaving him in a vegetative state. He was taken off of life-support on January 9, 2004.

Also according to the article, the supervising nurse surrendered her license after the incident. Mrs. Witt did receive insurance benefits and is receiving a monthly tax-free stipend for her and her children from the military.

While if Mr. Witt had been a civilian, his family would have had an open and shut medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit, however, in the 1950s the Supreme Court ruled that military personnel could not sue for injuries occurring “incident to service.” While Congress could change these rules, it would be quite expensive.

It is estimated that medical malpractice lawsuits by military personnel could add 750 lawsuits annually and cost the government $2.7 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office and as cited by the Fresno Bee article.

It is interesting to weigh the options of would it be worth it to allow active-duty military medical malpractice suits with keeping the current standard. What do you think?

Bronx County Supreme Court Justice Douglas E. McKeon began a “judge-directed negotiations” program by sending judges to a mini-medical school approximately three years ago, according the Sunday New York Times and a modernmedicine.com article. The mini-medical school program for judges includes classes that teach anatomy, biomechanics and human locomotion. This allows judges to play a more active role in helping negotiate settlements in medical malpractice cases. The goal for “judge-directed negotiations” is to settle medical malpractice suits as quickly as possible, getting the best possible outcome for those involved.

Since its beginnings the “judge-directed negotiations” program has spread and now includes New York, Kings and Queens Counties as well. According to the article, the program will also be evaluated by the Harvard School of Public Health with the goal of eventually expanding to a nation-wide program.

According to the modernmedicine.com article, this program will probably be good news for physicians for three reasons. They are:

• “More medically-knowledgeable judges, who also have the option of consulting with clinical experts, can dispose of frivolous suits before they clog up the court system;
• Even when lawsuits are found to have merit, the system is designed to settle them early in the process before a lot of administrative costs are incurred;
• The presence of the judge can keep discussion more rational and often avoids a jury trial, which can result in astronomical judgments against medical practitioners.”

A medical malpractice claim can be brought against a doctor, a hospital, physical therapist or a clinic. In Utah, you are only permitted two years to file a claim against a medical provider. The statue of limitations is one year for a claim against a state entity like the University of Utah hospital or the Utah State Hospital.
bringing-a-medical-malpractice-claim-part-i

To file a medical malpractice claim, certain rules and regulations must be followed. First, you must file a notice with the medical provider. You should check the Utah regulations to verify who needs to receive notice. Second, you arrange for a hearing date through the Utah Department of Licensing and they will in turn schedule a meeting time. During the meeting, both parties show up with representation, you with your attorney and the medical provider with his or her attorney. Both sides are given a chance to present their sides story. Following that process, typically a week or so later, you will receive a letter stating you have complied with the process and can begin your claim.

The current system is advantageous to the medical provider. The process creates “hurdles” that prevent many people from filing claims against the medical provider. You must  make sure to follow all the necessary steps to ensure your case is not dismissed before it enters a court room.