San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Several months ago, Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the role he played in bringing about the death of pop sensation Michael Jackson in 2009. That case was one of several similar cases that demonstrated California's new resolve to go after irresponsible doctors more aggressively than in the past. Since that time, charges have been filed against other doctors throughout the state.

Our San Francisco wrongful death lawyer learned this week of a recent case in which charges were filed against a doctor, signifying an even stronger hand being brought to bear against those in the medical profession who misuse their authority as doctors. The case involves a doctor from the San Francisco bay area named Hsiu-Ying “Lisa” Tseng, who lives in the Bay Area. The doctor has been charged with murder in the deaths of three different young men between the ages of 21 and 28. All three died by overdosing on prescription medications that Tseng had prescribed for them. It appears that authorities believe Tseng was prescribing drugs with the knowledge that they were going to be used for recreational use. According to an article from CBS San Francisco, one of the young men reportedly drove all the way from Arizona just to get a prescription from Tseng.

While the murder case has only just begun and will likely continue on for at least a few months, if not longer, our San Francisco wrongful death lawyer knows that its outcome may mean more to the families of these young men than whether or not someone is held criminally responsible for their deaths. However, local residents should be aware that a criminal case is wholly distinct from a the civil case that might be filed in the case.

In civil court, the burden of proof is lower than it is in criminal court, so even if Tseng is not convicted, the families would still have a chance to prove their case in a civil court. However, as our Bay Area injury attorney knows, having a criminal court conviction in a case like this one is often a strong indication of a favorable civil court outcome more likely. For example, the criminal court conviction would go a long way towards making the doctor more amenable to settlement, rather than risking a higher verdict in court, because the doctor’s legal team may realize that if the evidence was enough for a conviction, it is also going to be enough for a verdict against her with a lower burden of proof.

CBS San Francisco also noted that the case against Tseng is one of many that have been filed against doctors in California with charges relating to alleged wrongdoing in their medical practices. Criminal charges are a great way to stop individual perpetrators and also to deter other doctors and make them more careful. In addition, personal injury and wrongful death lawyers help to provide financial incentives for doctors to be extra vigilant and be sure to follow all applicable guidelines when caring for their patients. Sometimes, the best method for combating carelessness in others is to make an example out of the most egregious offenders.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

San Francisco Elder Abuse Attorney Files Wrongful Death Suit

Sacramento Nursing Home Neglect Hidden by Falsified Records

The California Department of Public Health issued a list on December 8, 2011 of 14 California hospitals that received administrative fines for not properly following hospital policies and procedures meant to ensure the health and safety of its patients. Out of the fourteen hospitals cited, seven were fined for leaving behind foreign objects in patients during surgery, four hospitals were fined for improperly administering medication, and three hospitals were fined for other reasons.

In total $850,000 in fines were issued for five different types of medical errors. Agents of the California Department of Public Health are trained to look for 28 different adverse events that range from performing surgery on the wrong body part to using medical equipment for a purpose other than its intended use to patient falls in the facility while care is being provided.

Amendments to California Health and Safety Code §1280.1 and §1280.3 were passed in 2007. The statutes now allow the California Department of Public Health to issue administrative fines to hospitals whose noncompliance with safety policies and procedures put a patient in immediate jeopardy of serious injury or death. In 2009, the fines were raised in accordance with the statute. The penalty for first offenses increased from $25,000 to $50,000 and implemented fines up to $100,000 for multiple offenses. These fines are only applicable to General Acute Care Hospitals, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and Special Hospitals.

Of the fourteen hospitals fined by the California Department of Public Health, four are located in the Greater Bay Area. San Francisco General Hospital received its second administrative penalty of $50,000 fine for performing a partial mastectomy on a woman who had requested a full mastectomy. UCSF Medical Center was fined $75,000 for its sixth administrative penalty because a surgeon mistakenly made an incision under the patient’s left eye, but closed it after he realized the incision should have been made under the patient’s right eye. The Kaiser Foundation Hospital in South San Francisco was given its first administrative fine of $50,000 for storing vaccines and some other medicines at an improper temperature, which could decrease their effectiveness. The compromised vaccines and medicines were administered to almost 5,000 patrons of the hospital. Finally, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford was fined $50,000 for its second administrative penalty for administering an improper dose of medication to a patient, causing the patient to seizure.

The California Department of Public Health looks at eight factors when determining whether a fine should be issued to an acute care provider and how much the fine should be. These factors include the risk to the patient from the non-compliant action, financial harm to the patient, the hospital’s record on compliance with safety policies and procedures, and the hospital’s responsiveness to the problem. Licenses and certification may not be revoked based on the number of administrative penalties, but hospitals are required to submit a plan of correction, which demonstrates how the hospital will attempt to prevent future occurrences of similar medical errors. The hospitals may file an administrative appeal within 10 days to request a hearing.

Continue reading "Palo Alto and San Francisco Hospitals Fined for Putting Patients in Danger" »

As San Francisco medical malpractice lawyers, the Brod Law Firm is keenly aware of the many ways in which money and other financial factors can influence medical decision-making. Sadly, sometimes patients are harmed when doctors make decisions based on cost rather than focusing on what is best for the patient. When patients are harmed, whether as the result of a decision made by a doctor or an insurance company, a San Francisco medical injury attorney can help determine if improper financial motivations resulted in medical care falling below the required standard of care.

It seems like every few weeks we come across a new story about the way money and medicine intersect. The San Francisco Chronicle recently explored the link between changes in Medicare payments and an increase in a specific diagnosis. Unfortunately, this practice is common enough to have its own name and is referred to as “upcoding” in the insurance field. The Chronicle’s article focused on the Chino Valley Medical Center in San Bernadino County and its parent company, Prime Healthcare services. The companies deny any wrongdoing but authorities are investigating a suspicious surge in the hospital diagnosing “acute heart failure.” In the 2008 to 2010 time frame, 35.2% of the hospital’s Medicare patients were listed as having the condition, six times the state average. The diagnosis triggered bonus payments from Medicare of thousands of dollars for every patient. This surge followed a rule change entitling a hospital to increased payments for patients with certain major complications.

It is not clear whether the alleged upcoding impacted patient care or just resulted in changes in paperwork filing. Of course, improper reporting does have a financial impact, particularly concerning when it involves a public program like Medicare. However, the financial influence on medicine can also have a direct impact on the quality of care. There are many factors at play including the rates at which insurers reimburse for different procedures and concerns related to medical malpractice insurance fees. These factors can influence the decision-making process, either at the physician or the insurance company level, and patient care can suffer.

In general, a California medical malpractice claim must be brought within one year from the discovery of the negligence and, with limited exceptions, within three years of the injury itself. Where it is a factor, the patient’s own negligence can reduce the amount of recovery but it will not eliminate recovery where others are also at fault. An injured plaintiff who proves medical malpractice is entitled to economic damages, covering expenses or lost income, and also non-economic damages for pain and suffering. In some cases, medical malpractice cases may be covered by an arbitration agreement meaning the case will appear before an arbitrator rather than in a courtroom.

If you or a loved one is injured as a result of substandard medical care it is vital that you contact a San Francisco medical malpractice attorney. We have the expertise to explore whether you have a legal claim against an insurer or a medical provider. We can, however, only help if you reach out to us. Whether your injury is due to the negligence of a provider or an insurance company, please call the Brod Law Firm for a free consultation to speak with our trained legal team.

See Related Blog Posts:
California pain and suffering cap in medical malpractice lawsuits
Oakland-San Francisco Product Liability Attorney Comments on Botox Injuries

For the past 34 years, California has had a cap on the amount of non-economic damages that an injured person may recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Under the current law in California, if a doctor is supposed to repair a knee injury but amputates the leg due to being drunk, for example, the maximum amount of non-economic damages (pain and suffering) that can be recovered in a personal injury case is $250,000.00. If that person’s one passion in life was dancing, and a jury awards $500,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. If that person had jogged every day to alleviate stress, keep their weight down and maintain a healthy heart rate, and a jury awards $650,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. It is absurd to think that the value of $250,000.00 in 1975 is anywhere close to the value that same amount represents today, which essentially means that the maximum an injured person can recover, has steadily gone down in the State of California.

The cap on medical malpractice lawsuits was supposed to help both consumers and doctors by keeping insurance premiums from rising, which the insurance industry likes to blame on lawyers, juries, and our civil judicial system, in general. It is more than doubtful that health care premiums, as well as medical malpractice premiums for doctors, have consistently risen in California, despite this cap in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The constitutionality of the law that caps these damages was recently upheld in a California Court of Appeal decision, and the California Supreme Court refused to review the decision, which means that the cap will remain in place. The insurance industry is very powerful, has tremendous resources and influence, which is important to take into consideration whenever it sends out its claims of “tort reform” and “lawsuit abuse” in our system.