Medical Malpractice Attorneys and Lawyers

I need a lawyer to appeal summary judgment in medical malpractice suit. I got expert, too late. My bad.? I hired an attorney after losing a toe from gangrene, she drug her feet, and finally asked to be released. She said she could not find an expert witness to testify. I had trial date postponed to March 2, 2010, so I could find a new attorney. Opposing lawyer filed motion for summary judgment. I filed opposition and now began search for expert orthopod. I hired Medical Experts, USA. They got me a good one. He said the gangrene was caused by loss of blood because of k wire that should have been removed in recovery room when toe didn't pink up. Opposing attorney filed another motion demanding action. Judge granted it. I wrote judge asking to present signed affidavit, which was enclosed. I said the doctor would get a notarized copy and fax it to the court. He did. On the morning of the hearing. The judge said I should have had the affidavit with the opposition. I tried to explain how I, an ignorant plaintiff, did not know that. The court clerk read my opposition. I asked her if it was okay. She said it looked good. I asked what happenens next. She said the judge would either call for oral arguments, or leave the trial date. The judge looked sympathetic, explained that Oregon Law is explicit about everything being completed in 20 days. I said I accomplished what my previous attorney hadn't in over five years in about 28 days. Now I need to appeal. I would rather an attorney, familiar with all the tricks of the trade do this. It should be no problem for the attorney. .

If Medicare refuses to pay, is medical malpractice involved? "This service cannot be paid when provided in this location/facility". This is written on the Medicare summary. Why would a government agency refuse to pay for a treatment in an ER? Is it possible that it is illegal to do certain procedures or to give certain drugs/medications in an ER? Medicare covered part of the claim but not the part for the drug.

how might the court decision affect medical offices where it applies? Review summaries of recent medical malpractice court cases in the Litigation Center of the AMA website.

article of medical malpractice? need to do a summary for my law and ethics class

Who are the "REAL" beneficiaries of the SCHIP, Democrat lobbyist groups? The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) are made up local unions representing 1.4 million members who work in public service and health care. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000061 The American Medical Association (AMA) represents medical doctors across the country; the association has traditionally supported Republican candidates, agreeing with the GOP on such issues as medical malpractice reform. But over the last few years, the AMA has also begun to shift support to the Democrats, favoring their attempts to pass and expand Medicare payments. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000068 The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems. With one-third of the nation’s hospitals in the red, the association’s primary focus is lobbying against any reductions in Medicare payments. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000116

Why do democrats insist that republicans have not offered a plan on health care? Fact - A plan was offered but it didn't get any press or support by Nancy "do it my way or the highway" Pelosi. Here is a summary of what was offered: By the way, this took me about 30 seconds to find. http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Community/Health_Care_Reform_Republican The Republican Alternative Republicans in the House of Representatives unveiled a 3-and-a-half page summary of their own health plan, without details or an estimate of costs, but emphasized that their plan would cost less than the Democratic plan. Key Provisions of the House GOP Plan States, small businesses, and others could group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Medicaid users could take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer them to a private health care plan. People, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, would receive incentives to build up health care savings accounts. Employers would automatically sign up their workers for health insurance, so that employees would have to opt out of coverage if they didn't want it. Tax deductions on insurance premiums for people who get their plans individually or from their companies. Ideas in the House GOP Plan that Are Supported by Both Parties Dependent children can stay on their parents' policies until they are 25. Employers would be encouraged to reward employees for improved health. Community health centers could be expanded. Americans can maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs. In-home care over institutional care would be encouraged with financial help. Medical malpractice lawsuits would be limited - though there are significant disagreements between the parties by how much. http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=140115

Why don't the Republicans have any real plans for health care reform? Tort Reform: "Reducing health care costs is not a good reason for tort reform. And it won’t at all get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office, which says, “even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.” Granted, the CBO is somewhat pessimistic of savings in health care in general, but they’re backed up by the actuarial firm of Towers Perrin, which as Tom Baker says in an interview with the NY Times, pegs “litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.” http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/4_reasons_why_tort_reform_wont_be_part_of_health_reform Summary: At best will reduce costs by 1.5% Erase State lines: Allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines would not work as advertised. While it may help the young and healthy, it will have a devastating impact on the insurance market for everyone else (and none of us will be young and healthy forever). - premiums would rise for many people, - benefits would be less-generous, - more Americans would likely become uninsured over time. http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/across_state_lines_explained Summary: Costs would go up, less benefits. So, do they have any good ideas? Something that can help the uninsured, or underinsured. Something that will realistically cut costs not just in general health care but also in Government health programs? 85% of Americans agree that the health care system needs reform, and yes the Democrats crapped the bed on their effort, but that will not change the fact that at 37th the American health care system is a failure.

How can I get viruses off my computer before installing Norton Antivirus 2009? Summary of what went wrong here: My computer was running slow with the 2005 Norton Antivirus. I bought the 2009 Norton Antivirus and installed it. After installing it, I clicked Complete Scan. 5 seconds later, the computer rebooted for no reason. It continued to reboot uncontrollably. I called customer service and they told me to go to a web site to remotely scan my computer. I did this and the scan found no virus. I called customer service and they said there was likely a virus which had made itself hidden when the new Norton Antivirus was installed. They said my options were to pay 99$ for premium service to remotely access my computer to look for the hidden virus, to go to a computer service (and pay money) for them to look for the virus, or for me to "ask a friend" to look for the virus on my computer. The "ask a friend" business was somewhat offensive, that I just have tech friends hanging out around me to fix my inept computer knowledge. The other options involved paying more money. I was stuck on this: my computer had worked originally (slow, but was working), I paid 39.99 for a program called "antivirus" to fix the problem. Instead, downloading the program made my computer non-functional, and the solution was to pay the seller for the "antivirus" 99 dollars to fix the problem they created. Does this sound like a scam? Yes. I explained this to the customer service representative and the supervisor. They explained to me that if my computer was running slow in the first place, I should have scanned it (with my out of date Norton) before hand or taken it to "a friend" or a computer service, like Geek Squad, to fix it BEFORE buying the antivirus. I explained that Norton antivirus was not advertised, marketed or named in such a way that implies I have to get my computer professionally checked out BEFORE buying the Norton antivirus. The customer service supervisor told me that the name antivirus implied it protected against viruses, not that it actually destroyed viruses, so that I was wrong to think that it would kill viruses already on my computer. I made the point that the word antivirus comes from the medical term of medications that actually kill viruses, whether they were there before or after the medicine was given. The supervisor tried to argue this point, but as an infectious disease physician, I assured him he could not win this argument. I explained to him an analogy of my experience with Norton to another medical based experience. A person hurts his leg. He can walk and get around ok, but a bit slower. He goes to his doctor. His doctor advertises he has a solution for the leg, let's say a cast. The doctor puts a cast on the leg and quickly realizes the cast does not actually solve the problem. The cast may even make the problem worse, because now its harder to find out what the actual problem is. The doctor tells the man that he can either "have a friend" fix it, hire another doctor to fix it or pay the doctor another 100 dollars to figure out how to solve the original, actual problem. The patient says, this is malpractice! The doctor explains that if his leg was hurting before visiting him in the first place, he should have had another expert look at it first or had "a friend" check it out. The doctor explains that he did not mean to give the impression that his job was to solve the problem. In real life, this is malpractice. The patient could make a legal case that the doctor misled him that the cast was not the solution and because the doctor did not diagnose the problem properly, the patient should not have to pay for the correction of the original problem. The doctor should be accountable for his missed diagnosis, and the patient should not have to pay for the correction. Norton should be accountable for misleading with its name, marketing and advertising, and if it is state of the art, it should provide virus killing free of charge rather than its 99$ premium service department. Maybe Norton was not designed to fix my problem, but Norton should be accountable for fixing it. I will never buy Norton nor recommend Norton to anyone unless they find a way to fix my computer (for 39.99, not 138.99) as they advertise to do.