Oregon Injury Lawyer Blog

June 15, 2011

Oregon Hospital Error Figures Raise Medical Malpractice Questions

It is one of the things we all most fear – and over which we have the least control – when entering the hospital: preventable errors. Recently, Portland’s main newspaper has been reporting on an equally disturbing problem related to preventable errors and Oregon medical malpractice: the fact that because some of the reporting hospitals do regarding their mistakes seems to be coming up short. As a result, there is not as much data available to doctors and medical administrators as there should be. That, in turn, may mean that some hospital errors are going unaddressed because word of them is not making its way through the state health system.

The issue was brought to light by a recent article in The Oregonian. The paper noted that “at least 34 patients died as a result of preventable mistakes in Oregon hospitals last year.” The real issue, however, is that fully one-third of Oregon’s hospitals “chose not to report a single error in 2010.” As the paper notes, “this strains credulity.”

Hospital reporting is an issue I’ve addressed before – and one that should command a lot more public attention than it does. It is, of course, natural that few people like to acknowledge error, but when reporting data could lead to better procedures and, eventually, a drop in Oregon hospital deaths we have entered a realm where pride has no place.

June 10, 2011

Oregon Class Action Suit Targets Major Insurer

by Matthew D. Kaplan

A class action lawsuit filed in Salem is taking aim at a perhaps surprising target. According to area television station KDRV the lawsuit alleges that a major insurance company has been “fraudulently denying claims after car crashes.”

The target? USAA, a banking and insurance giant that deals exclusively with current and former members of the military and their families. Because of its focus on the military community USAA has long cultivated a customer-friendly, service-oriented image far removed from that of most commercial banks and insurance companies.

The Oregon suit, however, charges the company with “using medical reports by physicians to say treatment for injuries suffered in car crashes were not medically necessary. Plaintiffs allege in their suit that the insurance medical reviewers of their cases never even talked or consulted with them.” The station’s report said USAA “declined to comment on the lawsuit.”

June 7, 2011

Portland Makes Top Ten Dog Bite Cities List

by Matthew D. Kaplan

This is not necessarily an honor we will want to advertise here in Portland, but our city made the US Postal Service’s list of top ten cities for dog bites, according to a recent article in USA Today.

Houston was number one on the list with 62 incidents of dogs biting postal employees. Portland, with 35 incidents, came in at #10. More worrying, perhaps, is a related fact. Despite all of the popular culture focus on dogs and mailmen, postal employees are not the number one category of dog bite victims in Oregon or elsewhere: children are, followed by the elderly.

Dog bite injuries to children are especially worrisome. Mail carriers have professional training in dealing with hostile animals as part of their work. The elderly, at least, know how dangerous unsupervised animals can be. Children, however, cannot be counted upon to understand the possible dangers posed by dogs. Make no mistake, those dangers are real. According to USA Today “last year, 33 people died from dog bites” nationwide.

May 31, 2011

Congress Moves to Curtail Patient Rights

by Matthew D. Kaplan

A recent column in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call highlights a potentially serious attack on patients rights here in Oregon and elsewhere, one that has received relatively little notice in the months since the new Congress convened.

The focus of the piece is HR 5. Formally titled the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare Act (i.e. the “HEALTH Act”), it is billed as a centerpiece of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the health care reform act passed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats last year. According to the federal government’s legislative bill-tracking service, Thomas.gov, the bill is co-sponsored by about half of all the Republicans in the House. Among Oregon’s congressional delegation only Rep. Greg Walden, whose district covers much of rural eastern and central Oregon, is a co-sponsor.

The official summary says that the bill “sets conditions for lawsuits arising from health care liability claims.” In particular, it establishes a three-year statute of limitations for most health-care related injuries. In addition, the bill “limits noneconomic damages to $250,000 (and) makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.” It also forbids the awarding of punitive damages “in the case of products approved, cleared or licensed” by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

May 29, 2011

But is this Deal Good for Everyone?

by Matthew D. Kaplan

A recent announcement that insurance giant Allstate is buying the Esurance and Answer Financial brands from the smaller, less well-known, White Mountains Insurance Group raises several troubling questions.

According to an Associated Press article, Allstate expects to pay about $1 billion for the two brands. The acquisition will allow Allstate to broaden the offerings available under its corporate umbrella. AP cites an Allstate press release claiming “the deal will help it tap consumers who prefer certain brands along with consumers who want choices among insurance carriers.”

Leaving aside the dubious claim that one company’s marketing of its products under different names actually constitutes “choice” from a consumer’s perspective, customers might also want to consider what a company really has in mind when it makes acquisitions like this at below-market-value. Notably, White Mountain told the AP that the sale “will increase its book value by $80 per share.” Yet in trading after the deal was announced White Mountain’s stock rose by only $51 (about 15%) – indicating that the market thinks White Mountain should have gotten more money from Allstate for the deal to raise the company’s valuation as much as the White Mountain claims.

May 24, 2011

Portland Drunk Driver (Unwittingly) Helps Police Capture Him

by Matthew D. Kaplan

Fox News used to run a regular segment called “stupid criminals.” If it were still on the air the subject of today’s Oregon drunk driving blog would definitely be a candidate.

According to The Oregonian, Aaron Arrell killed a woman in an Oregon fatal hit-and-run accident in March, and was apprehended in large part because he tried to cover his tracks by having his wife phone police to report their van – the vehicle involved in the accident – stolen. “Had they not called, it may have gone unsolved,” the paper quotes a Multnomah County prosecutor saying.

When police caught up with Arrell – based largely on the description of the vehicle that his wife had given them – he tested for blood alcohol at almost twice the legal limit, according to the paper. It also emerged that he was driving on a suspended license, and had been cited twice previously for doing so in the weeks prior to the Portland drunk driving fatality.

May 22, 2011

NHL Takes on Concerns Regarding TBI, Injuries to Children

by Matthew D. Kaplan

As the National Hockey League playoffs move toward their conclusion over the coming weeks TV viewers in Canada are being offered evidence that the league is taking its responsibilities regarding traumatic brain injuries increasingly seriously.

On the ice at the pro level, new regulations now require any player who suffers a suspected head trauma to be removed from the game immediately and to spend at least 15 minutes in a “quiet room” undergoing medical evaluations. Whether the player returns to the game or not is a decision made by the doctors on site, not the coaches or the player himself. When one considers that as recently as 20 years ago many NHL players did not even wear helmets this has to be considered significant progress.

Off the ice the league is also making an effort to set a better example, particularly where impressionable youngsters are concerned. Canadian TV viewers of the hockey playoffs are repeatedly seeing a commercial urging them to visit the website of “ThinkFirst”, which describes itself as “a National charitable organization dedicated to the prevention of brain and spinal cord injuries.” At the site visitors can watch, or download for free, a 26-minute video on preventing hockey-related brain and head injuries with a particular emphasis on injury prevention among kids. Though the site is not being promoted to American viewers it is fully accessible from this side of the border.

May 19, 2011

Child Safety Seat Case Puts Manufacturers on Notice

by Matthew D. Kaplan

A Florida court case involving a defective car seat and a resulting severe spinal cord injury to a child can serve as an important reminder of the crucial role our courts play in holding large companies accountable for the damage they can cause in ordinary people’s lives.

As outlined by the American Association for Justice, the case concerns a Florida girl, now age 7, who suffered a severe spinal cord injury when her father’s car was involved in an accident. Unbeknownst to the father his daughter, then only two years old, “had unfastened the clip (on her child seat) before the collision, leaving her restrained only around the lower torso and permitting a lap-belt-only injury to her spinal cord.”

The article notes that attorneys working for the girl’s parents discovered that the car seat’s manufacturer “had received more than 800 complaints about children unfastening the clip and it had subsequently replaced the clip with a two-piece version that children could not unfasten.” Even so, the manufacturer contended this action on its part was related to “convenience” rather than “safety” and moved to have the suit dismissed. After losing that dismissal motion the company settled with the victim’s family for an undisclosed sum.

May 14, 2011

One Dead, Two Injured in Oregon Explosion

by Matthew D. Kaplan

The death of a Forest Grove resident in an Oregon explosion near Gaston raises critical safety issues. According to television station KGW, the blast at the Stimson Lumber Company also injured at least two other workers. The incident may fit Oregon’s definition of an industrial accident, depending on what investigators determine to be its precise details.

The station, quoting local fire department officials, reports that the accident took place when “a six-foot-tall hydraulic accumulator machine exploded… as three workers were trying to dismantle it.” The incident also led to other parts of the mill complex being evacuated, KGW notes, “as a safety precaution.” State OSHA officials were reportedly on-site to begin their investigation shortly after the accident occurred.

Complex incidents like this one may fit the definition of an Oregon industrial accident if the equipment involved can be shown to have been defective or if the suggested procedures for operating it offered inadequate safety protections. Oregon explosions and similar industrial accidents often require specialized legal knowledge to litigate, because of the complex – often overlapping – layers of accountability on and off the job site that need to be examined as part of any court proceeding.

May 7, 2011

Oregon Legislature Seeks to Close Loophole in Distracted Driving Law

by Matthew D. Kaplan

Legislators in Salem hope to close what has emerged as a significant loophole in Oregon’s year-and-a-half-old distracted driving law. As almost everyone knows by now, talking on a cellphone while behind the wheel is illegal in Oregon unless one is using a hands-free device.

As The Oregonian details, however, many judges are taking a broader view of one particular provision of the 2009 law than its authors intended. The Oregon distracted driving law contains an exception “allowing drivers to go on talking on their handheld cellphone – as long as they are driving for work and ‘acting in the scope’ of their employment,” the paper notes.

The legislators who wrote the law tell The Oregonian their idea was “to make exceptions for police, firefighters and others who truly need to make calls on the move.” As it turns out, however, courts have given that phrase a much wider interpretation. In many places, its effect has been to give a free pass to anyone who simply tells the judge they were making a work-related call. As a consequence, some police officers tell the paper they have stopped even issuing distracted driving citations to anyone who claims when pulled over to have been on the phone for work.