You can file this under, “Are you kidding me?” According to a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer dated November 9, 2008, dentist and oral surgeon Thomas Laney has been sued for disfiguring a young woman during a breast reduction surgery that was performed in 2005. Laney has a questionable record as a dentist and oral surgeon. In 2005 he was licensed and practicing in Seattle, despite having 10 lawsuits filed against him, as well as the death of a patient.

My uncle was a pharmacist for 50 years, and I remember him telling me that if aspirin had been discovered today, it would definitely be a prescription medication because of all its different applications. But, as multi-faceted as aspirin is, aspirin maker Bayer may have gotten a bit carried away with its health claims.

Does the Food and Drug Administration’s fast-track policy for new medical devices help or hurt? According to an article in the New York Times from October 27, 2008, the FDA approval process for medical devices is simple at best. The FDA does not check for evidence of effectiveness but only that the device performs as stated and is not dangerous. After a medical device is approved, medical facilities are free to use the devices and are not obligated to reveal information about the newness of the technology to patients.

Well, cold season is fast upon us, and for many that means scouring the medicine aisles for cold remedies. Not so fast, my friends! Particularly for those of you who have young children, caution is the key when administering cold medication. Drug manufacturers announced plans to add a warning on labels against administering cough and cold medicines to children under the age of four. Drug makers are voluntarily adding the warning but were influenced by the Food and Drug Administration, according to an October 15, 2008, Associated Press story.

OHSU was among several state organizations that enjoyed protection against hefty lawsuit damages, but that ended in December 2007 when the Oregon Supreme Court removed the $200,000 cap on damages. As a result, OHSU finally settled six ongoing cases—cases that were filed in 2001 or earlier—agreeing to pay damages totaling $38.5 million. The settled cases included an award of $9.3 million for the family of Jordaan Clarke, who suffered permanent brain damage as a result of a botched operation in 1998, as well as an $11.8 million award to Christian Wright and a $8.3 million award for Adam Cristopherson, both of whom sustained permanent damage from surgeries.

A story that appeared in the September 15, 2008 New York Times reports that E.R. patients often leave the E.R. confused about how to care for themselves after they are released. A Michigan study tracked 140 E.R. patients and their comprehension in terms of their diagnosis, their treatment in the E.R., their instructions for self-care once they got home from the E.R., and how to determine when and if they should go back to the E.R. or seek medical treatment. Self-care was the most confusing for the E.R. patients, with many unclear on which or how much medication to take, how to take care of wounds, and when to check in with their doctors or specialists. The problem with such confusion is the safety of the patient could be jeopardized.

In contrast to the recent post about restrictive caps on noneconomic damages, this post is about Oregon’s trial lawyers and Oregon Health & Science University’s (OHSU) agreement to increase liability caps for damages caused by government (OHSU falls under the umbrella of the state government) negligence. According to a story in the Oregonian, the caps would increase from the current $200,000 to $1.5 million and also discard the $100,000 cap on what are known as “intangible” harms. The state legislature will not make any decisions about altering the law until next year, and the agreement must still be considered by other governmental groups, such as the governor’s office.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of barring lawsuits against Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, pharmaceutical companies will be quite pleased. Earlier this year the Supreme Court reinterpreted a 1976 amendment that had originally been intended to protect the public against dangerous medical devices by requiring the FDA to review and approve such devices before they could be sold to the masses. The reinterpretation led the Supreme Court to bar lawsuits against FDA-approved medical devices. Now the Supreme Court may extend this ruling to FDA-approved drugs. If this happens, some tens of thousands of lawsuits will be dismissed, and the public will have no recourse or protection when harmed by pharmaceuticals.

Twenty-four states now have caps on the amount of noneconomic damages a plaintiff can get in medical malpractice cases. Why? Many feel such cases are often frivolous, that plaintiffs ask for more money than is reasonable, and that greedy lawyers are to blame for escalating damages. According to an article by David A. Hyman in Forbes Magazine, however, these caps are hurting more than helping–they are hurting those who truly cannot afford the economic consequences of negligently caused injuries.

Expanding on the blog post from August 25 about serious medical errors, also known as sentinel events or “never events,” MSNBC recently reported that hospitals in about half of the nation’s states have decided not to bill for such events. This is a sweeping change since February, when MSNBC reported that only about 11 states chose not to bill for egregious medical mistakes. Hospitals will follow guidelines to determine which medical errors should be exempt from billing, and these guidelines will vary from state to state.