New Administrative Orders for Medical Malpractice Cases in Rhode Island Superior Court

Recently, Presiding Justice of the RI Superior Court Alice B. Gibney issued two new administrative orders dealing with medical malpractice cases.

Administrative Order 2009-25

1. The Superior Court hereby implements a Mandatory Mediation Program for medical malpractice cases assigned to the continuous trial calendar in all counties.

2. Mr. Justice Rubine will be assigned to conduct mediation sessions in Providence on such Fridays and/or such other days as his schedule will permit.

Click here to keep reading the Order.

Administrative Order 2009-26

1. Discovery Conference: No later than the first anniversary of the commencement of a medical malpractice action, counsel for the parties shall file a joint motion for a discovery conference with the Motion Calendar Judge. The following information is to be contained in the motion:

(a) A statement as to the status of written discovery and fact/witness depositions;

(b) A proposed plan and schedule for expert disclosure, including a time frame for expert depositions;

(c) Any proposed limitations to be placed on discovery;

(d) Any other proposed discovery and/or expert disclosure issues the parties wish to address.

2. Disclosure Order: In Providence County, medical malpractice discovery conferences shall be set down for hearing on any Thursday at 2:00 p.m. on the Motion Calendar; in the other counties, such conferences shall be set down for hearing at 2:00 p.m. on that county’s designated motion day. After such conference has been conducted, the Court shall issue an order establishing the following:

(a) Schedule for fact discovery and expert disclosure;

(b) Deadline for completion of expert depositions.

3. Disclosure Order by Agreement: If counsel for the parties can agree upon the terms of a proposed order encompassing the above, then they may file the proposed order with the motion and the matter will be placed upon the Motion Calendar for formal approval without the need for a judicial conference.

4. Mandatory Mediation: No case shall be assigned to the continuous trial calendar unless the parties and the Court have completed expert depositions and a mandatory mediation pursuant to Superior Court Administrative Order 2009-25 at which all parties and representatives should be present. Counsel for the parties shall contact the case scheduling office within 30 days after the ordered deadline for completion of expert depositions and the completion of mediation so that the Court may consider
assignment to the appropriate continuous trial calendar. After completion of expert depositions and completion of mediation, any party may move for assignment to the continuous trial calendar.

Great Quotes for Closing Arguments

“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.” -William H. Moody

“The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life.  Its history is the history of the moral development of the race.”  -Oliver Wendell Holmes

“No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.”  -Felix Frankfurter

“Justice is the great interest of man on Earth.  It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.”  -Daniel Webster

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there’s a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” – former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.” – Inauguration Speech by Nelson Mandela

“…the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

RWU Law School Excels on 2009 RI Bar

Great news for Roger Williams University School of Law.  87% of their May 2009 graduates passed the Rhode Island Bar Exam!  This percentage far exceeds the 82% passage rate of all Rhode Island test takers this past summer.  Kudos to Rhode Island’s only and best law school!

Peter Neronha Announces Leadership Team at RI US Attorney’s Office

United States Attorney Peter F. Neronha for the District of Rhode Island today announced the formation of the office leadership team:  First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth P. Madden, Criminal Division Chief Stephen G. Dambruch, Civil Division Chief Michael P. Iannotti, Deputy Criminal Chief and Chief of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Adi Goldstein, and Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew J. Reich.

“I have worked closely with each of these individuals for many years, some for over a decade,” U.S. Attorney Neronha said.  “All of them are talented, dedicated, seasoned professionals, who are well prepared to serve the citizens of Rhode Island.  They have my complete confidence, and I look forward to working with them as we pursue the mission of the United States Attorney’s Office.”

Kenneth P. Madden has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island since January 1986, serving at various times as Lead Attorney for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Organized Crime Strike Force Chief, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Senior Litigation Counsel.  From 1978 until January 1986, he was a Special Assistant Rhode Island Attorney General and an Assistant Rhode Island Attorney General.  Mr. Madden is a 1972 graduate of Providence College and received his law degree from St. John’s University in 1975.

Andrew J. Reich has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island since 1995.  From 1976 to 1982, he was a Trial Attorney with the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice.  From 1982 to 1995, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Florida and in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Reich is a 1971 graduate of the University of Wisconsin and received his law degree from Georgetown University in 1974.

Stephen G. Dambruch became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 2004, and was appointed Chief of the Criminal Division in 2007.  In 2006, the Department of Justice sent him on a ten-month detail to Iraq, where he was part of a team that provided legal assistance to the Iraqi High Tribunal in its investigation and prosecution of crimes committed under the regime of Saddam Hussein.  From 1987 to 2003, he was a Special Assistant and later an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island.  Mr. Dambruch is a 1982 graduate of Providence College and a 1985 graduate of Boston College Law School.

Michael P. Iannotti was appointed an Assistant U.S. Attorney in January 1984, and has served as supervisor of the Financial Litigation Unit, coordinator of the Asset Forfeiture Program, and the principal attorney in charge of bankruptcy litigation.  From May 2007 to September 2009, Assistant U.S. Attorney Iannotti was the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Coordinator in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys in Washington, D.C., where he coordinated policy and resources for the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering programs for U.S. Attorney’s offices.  He graduated from the University of Rhode Island in 1978 with a B.A. in Political Science, and received his law degree from the New England School of Law in 1983.

Adi K. Goldstein was appointed an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island in 2002.  Prior to that, she was an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Goldstein has prosecuted international drug smuggling cases, firearms offenses, and complex health care fraud, money laundering, and white collar crime matters.  She is a 1995 graduate of Harvard College and received her law degree from Columbia Law School in 1999.  Following her graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk for Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Rhode Island Seminar on Medical Affidavits

The RI Association for Justice has a great seminar next Thursday November 12th with the Honorable Patricia Hurst, Associate Justice of the RI Superior Court, and Attorney Mark Morse.

12:30 – 2 pm (lunch included)

Join us for lunch and an in depth discussion of medical adavits:
1. Statute: RIGL ~9-19-27
2. Authentication vs. Admissibility
3. Strict Construction of Adavits
4. Getting the Medical Records Admitted

Meeting Facility: Providence Marriott.

CLE Info: 1 MCLE credit

More Info: Contact Nancy Striuli at 401 273-8820.

View additional detailed information here.

What are the Firing Offenses in Medicine?

Patrick Malone asks an important question over at the Huffington Post:

The recent news about the two Northwest Airlines pilots whose licenses were revoked, less than a week after they let their plane wander 150 miles off course, raises the question: Where are the firing offenses in medicine?

The pilots injured no passengers, and the event didn’t even qualify as a “near miss.” But because they egregiously violated safety rules by working on their flight schedules on a laptop in the cockpit, the aviation authorities did not hesitate to pull their licenses.

In the medical industry, by contrast, it is well known that a doctor will lose his or her license for only flagrant patterns of drug or alcohol abuse or other criminal behavior, with a trail of dead and injured patients usually lasting years before the practitioner is finally put out of business.

Click here to see the not-so-easy to navigate RI Department of Health website on Physician disciplinary action.

Tort Reform Didn’t Work in Texas

Patrick Barry – current president of the Rhode Island Association for Justice and also member of the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline – has a great Op-Ed in response to Richard Weekly’s Op-Ed some weeks earlier.  For health care and legal professionals, this piece is a must-read:

RICHARD WEEKLEY’S Oct 20 Commentary piece, “Tort reform helps Texas health care,” is a strange selection to print. Imposing Texas-style, one-size-fits-all caps on awards to the most seriously injured patients would not help improve health care. To the contrary, the truth about the Texas experiment reveals that significant restrictions on patients’ rights lead only to increased cost, increased danger, and poor health care.

Texas is widely considered to have some of the most restrictive civil-justice laws in the country, enacted in 2003. An arbitrary cap of $250,000 (without exception) on non-economic damages, immunity for admittedly negligent acts in “emergency” care, and onerous procedural requirements for even the most qualified and credentialed expert witnesses are viewed by the insurance industry as a model. Six years after these reforms, however, it is clear that the experiment has failed, and that the promises of “tort reform” are and always have been a sham.

Here are the facts about health care in Texas:

Health care in Texas ranks among the overall worst in the nation, according to a recent article in the Dallas Morning News and a study by the Commonwealth Fund.

Texas was ranked last in access to health care statewide, and in a measure of how minorities and low-income patients fared in the state’s medical system.

Texas was given grades of D-plus in Access to Emergency Care, Quality and Patient Safety, and Public Health and Injury Protection by the American College of Emergency Physicians in its 2006 report card.

A Doctor’s Perspective on Tort Reform and Medical Malpractice

Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. has a great article in Salon about the myths of malpractice costs and tort reform:

Flu season has come early and I’m writing far too many prescriptions for Tamiflu. I’m trying my best to adhere to the guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control for who should get the drug (kids under 5 years of age, or kids who have a chronic illness like asthma or diabetes). But in more than a few instances, I’ve ignored the guidelines and given Tamiflu to perfectly healthy kids with no risk factors for influenza-related complications.

Part of the reason I’m writing so many extra prescriptions stems from stories about healthy people getting sick with H1N1 and ending up critically ill or dead. One of those stories aired recently on “60 Minutes” — a healthy high school football player in Arkansas developed a fever after a game. He went to his doctor, who thought he had a garden variety flu and sent him home. Two days later, the boy collapsed and was airlifted to the nearest pediatric intensive care unit. He developed a bacterial pneumonia on top of his H1N1 flu, which led to severe damage to his lungs. He couldn’t breathe on his own, so he remains in the ICU on a ventilator.

The H1N1 strain of influenza is no more lethal than any other strain of flu. Mortality is less than 1 percent. Nevertheless, by over-prescribing an expensive drug that has only marginal benefits, I’m unequivocally practicing what is known as defensive medicine. As in, the kind of medicine that protects doctors as much as patients.

Mine isn’t an extreme example of defensive medicine. I’m a pediatrician. Obstetricians and emergency room doctors are sued at far higher rates, and would have more dramatic stories to share. But my motivations are the same as theirs: I’m afraid that if I don’t do something, one of my patients may get sick or die, and I’ll end up in court being asked why I didn’t do everything I could have.

Defensive medicine is just one of the supposed systemic ills that doctors, doctors’ lobbies and doctors’ insurers invoke when they shill for what they call malpractice reform. Proponents of reform say that defensive medicine, frivolous lawsuits and high premiums are behind the surge in healthcare expenses. They insist that malpractice costs are forcing doctors to close their doors and depriving patients of care. Recently, three past presidents of the American Medical Association coauthored an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal that bundled all of these arguments into an attack on the public option. Their piece attempted to shift the blame for America’s healthcare crisis away from private insurers and onto a supposed scourge of ambulance chasers. “The nation needs comprehensive medical malpractice reform,” they wrote. “It is the surest and quickest way to slow down the rising cost of healthcare.”

Their refrain is familiar to anybody following the healthcare reform debate. The only problem is that it’s not true. There’s nothing “sure or quick” about changing medical liability laws that will improve healthcare or its costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to healthcare’s price tag, and rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care.

Let’s look at the numbers. First, based on the current rhetoric, it’s easy to assume we have an epidemic of malpractice suits in America. We don’t.

Boston Hotel Workers File Discrimination Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed this week by seven current and former employees of Fairmont Copley Plaza claims that the Boston hotel and its managers discriminated against employees of Moroccan descent and with Muslim religious beliefs.  According to the lawsuit, employees were verbally and physically intimidated by co-workers following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The lawsuit also includes claims of wrongful termination and retaliation.

“There became a pattern of harassment and after the attacks on Sept. 11, the level of harassment increased,” said Rahsaan Hall, an attorney with the nonprofit Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association, which filed the complaint against the Fairmont Copley yesterday in US District Court.

A spokeswoman for Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Inc., which runs the Fairmont Copley, referred questions about the case to a local representative from the hotel. However, that representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to the 71-page court filing, seven employees of Moroccan descent – all of whom are US citizens – repeatedly were disparaged by co-workers who called them “terrorists” and accused them of being members of the Taliban. In one instance, one of the employees was grabbed inappropriately by a hotel doorman. In another, during a meeting with several people, including a human resources director, the hotel’s general manager allegedly said: “I have two problems: the rats and the Moroccans. I took care of one and I can’t figure out the other.”

Read more at the Boston Globe here.

Providence Trial Attorney Donates $250,000 to RWU School of Law

Kudos to Providence trial attorney Mark Mandell for donating $250,000 to expand the Pro Bono Collaborative at Roger Williams University School of Law.  The Providence Journal has the story:

Providence attorney Mark Mandell, a personal injury lawyer who sits on the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel and has represented several of the victims of the deadly 2003 Station fire, is a longtime supporter of the law school. Mandell teaches trial advocacy at RWU and sits on the law school’s board of directors.

Mandell’s gift includes a challenge to other members of the legal community to match his $250,000 donation, enabling the law school to further expand its innovative pro bono program that finds lawyers from prestigious law firms to work for free with law students and community organizations that serve the poor.

“The law school is a beacon for all judges, attorneys and citizens who are participants on our system of justice,” Mandell said in a statement. “I think that RWU Law is as important as any academic institution in the state of Rhode Island.”

Since the collaborative was established in 2006, lawyers, RWU law students and community organizations have assisted about 100 individuals through direct legal representation and advocacy, and helped hundreds more through developing proposed legislation and legal rights workshops, said Eliza Vorenberg, an attorney who serves as director of the collaborative.

Mandell’s gift comes on the heels of a major gift from another prolific trial attorney Jack McConnell and his wife Sara who, in 2007, donated money towards the creation of a loan repayment program for RWU law alumni who work in public service.

Family of Drowned Boy Files $15 Million Claim v. City of Providence

The Providence Journal reports that the family of the 9-year-old boy who drowned in a city pool in August is seeking $15 million from the city, according to a wrongful death claim filed in City Hall by Kenneth A. Schreiber, the Cranston-based lawyer representing Jameson’s family

Jameson Auciel, formerly of 461 Elmwood Ave., died on Aug. 20, three days after he was pulled unconscious from the McGrane Pool in the city’s West End. Jameson had been floating face down in the 3- to 4-foot public pool on Bucklin Street. His cousin, Gamaelle Bazelais, 8, also of 461 Elmwood Ave., was also found floating face down and unconscious in the pool. Both were rushed to Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence. City officials and police have not offered specifics on what transpired at the pool that day that ultimately led to Jameson’s death and the near-drowning of his cousin. A state medical examiner’s report completed Sept. 4 determined that Jameson died of a lack of oxygen to the brain brought on by drowning.

“The family wants answers,” said Kenneth A. Schreiber, the Cranston-based lawyer representing Jameson’s family. “This is the first step in a long road” to get those answers, he said.

(…)

David A. Bagus, the North Smithfield-based lawyer representing Gamaelle’s family, said that family has chosen not to file a claim against the city at this point.

Bagus said that the family is concerned about the girl’s physical, mental and emotional state. “She’s being evaluated. We just don’t know where she’s at. She spent three and a half days in a coma, so there are the cognitive issues with that. She was very close to her cousin, so there are the emotional issues with that.”

Once the City of Providence either accepts or rejects the $15 million claim, the plaintiffs can file a complaint in Superior Court.

Lawyers and Nonprofits Can’t Mix

RI Lawyer’s Weekly reports that the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel has concluded that it would be unethical for attorneys to create a non-profit organization with non-lawyers to provide guardian ad litem representation and other services to families and children. Here’s an excerpt from the opinion:

ISSUE PRESENTED:
The inquiring attorney asks whether it is the practice of law when an attorney serves as a guardian ad litem, and whether Rule 5.4 permits the proposed organization.

OPINION:
An attorney who serves as a guardian ad litem is practicing law. The proposed multidisciplinary business, which would include the practice of law through guardian ad litem representation, is prohibited by Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

REASONING:
Section 16.2 of Chapter 5 of Title 15 of the Rhode Island General Laws, entitled, “Divorce and Separation” states in pertinent part: (c) the court may, if in its discretion it deems it necessary or advisable, appoint an attorney or a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of a minor or dependent child with respect to his or her support, custody, and visitation.
* * *
(ii) The guardian ad litem shall be appointed from a list of persons properly credentialed pursuant to administrative
orders of the chief judge of the family court;
* * *
(x) The chief judge of the family court shall issue, through administrative orders, rules governing the appointment and performance of guardians ad litem in domestic proceedings.

Pursuant to the authority granted in G.L.§5-15-16.2(c)(ii) and (x), the Rhode Island Family Court issued Administrative Order 2006-02 entitled “Guardian ad litem Standards for Domestic Cases.” Section II, paragraph (a)(1) of the Standards sets forth the criteria for being listed on the Family Court guardian ad litem roster: A properly credentialed individual must hold either a current valid license to practice law in the State of Rhode Island, or a current, valid license to practice as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a Licensed Marriage or Family Therapist, a Licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist in the State of Rhode Island, or a qualified professional in a related field. Section II, paragraph (a)(1) also requires proof of professional liability insurance coverage. Thus, only licensed professionals may serve as guardians ad litem. It follows then, that a licensed professional who is appointed as a guardian ad litem serves in that role in his or her professional
capacity.

Whether or not an act or conduct constitutes the practice of law is a substantive law question which is outside the area of legal ethics. The plain language of Administrative Order 2006-02, however, sufficiently satisfies this Panel that an attorney who serves as a guardian ad litem is practicing law. Therefore the Rules of Professional Conduct governs the propriety of the business that the inquiring attorney has proposed.

In response to the inquiring attorney’s question about whether Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct applies, the Panel answers in the affirmative. Rule 5.4(a) prohibits lawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers, with four exceptions that have no application to this inquiry. Rule 5.4(b) prohibits lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers if any of the activities of the partnership consists of the practice of law.

The Panel concludes that the proposed multidisciplinary business, which would include the practice of law through guardian ad litem representation, is not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha named to Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the appointment of Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha and eight other U.S. Attorneys to the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC).  The committee provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General on policy, management, and operational issues affecting the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys.  The appointments are for two-year terms.

“This is a critical and exciting time for the Department of Justice and I will rely heavily on these U.S. Attorneys as we work to further the Department’s efforts to reduce violent crime and gang violence, promote civil rights, ensure fairness in the marketplace and above all, preserve our national security,” said Attorney General Holder.

“I am honored to be named to the AGAC and to bring the voice of federal prosecutors and the concerns of Rhode Islanders to the Attorney General,” U.S. Attorney Neronha said.  “I look forward to working with my colleagues over the next two years.”

The other appointees are:  U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara; U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Dennis Burke; U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington Jenny Durkan; U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Paul J. Fishman; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil H. MacBride; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Joyce White Vance; and Acting U.S. Attorney, ex officio, for the District of Columbia Channing D. Phillips.

ABA Fails to Give Unanimous “Qualified” Rating to Judge Thompson’s Nomination

This weekend, the Providence Journal reported the disappointing news that the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary did not give a unanimous “qualified” rating in regards to the nomination of Superior Court Associate Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the 15 members of the committee gave Judge Thompson a “qualified” rating, but, for some unknown reason, the vote was not unanimous.  The reason for the vote not being unanimous will not come to light until Judge Thompson’s nomination goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee: a committee on which sits one of Judge Thompson’s biggest supporters – Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.   And, while this speed bump in the nomination process may give ammunition to some Republicans to attempt to derail Judge Thompson’s nomination, her strong track record as a seasoned trial court judge has the support of the White House and Rhode Island’s two US Senators.

…The president made the nomination knowing the committee’s rating, according to committee practice, and continued to back Thompson this week. “The White House strongly supports Judge Thompson’s nomination to the first circuit and remains confident the Senate will support her nomination as well,” a White House official said in a statement to The Journal.

The committee’s work is highly confidential and considered to be an independent, non-partisan evaluation of a nominee’s fitness for the bench. It does not reveal the reasons behind its ratings or how votes were cast. A written statement only becomes public if the committee is asked to present its findings to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as is the case whenever any committee members rate a nominee not qualified, Steigerwalt said. Thompson will also get the opportunity then to say why she is qualified for the seat.

…Of the 272 nominees between 1985 and 2006, only 31 received split ratings of qualified and not qualified and only one was deemed not qualified altogether, according to Steigerwalt. Twenty-three were confirmed despite the split ratings, she said.

One of the judges to receive a split rating is Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, a highly esteemed judge. That rating, in the 1980s, won the committee criticism as left leaning.

I agree with another attorney blogger – Brassband at RIFuture.org – that Judge Thompson’s two decades of experience as a state trial court judge will greatly benefit the First Circuit.  I join him in hoping that the Senate goes about its business quickly and confirms Judge Thompson’s nomination.

Another Wrong Site Surgery at RI Hospital

More bad news from RI Hospital:

A surgeon at Rhode Island Hospital operated on the wrong finger during outpatient hand surgery on Thursday, a hospital statement acknowledged Friday morning. It was the fifth wrong-site surgery at Rhode Island Hospital, and the sixth in the state, since 2007.

The patient was scheduled for surgery on two fingers. A joint on one finger underwent a procedure intended for another finger, hospital president Timothy J. Babineau said in a letter to employees.

“The patient subsequently underwent surgery on the correct finger and joint, did well and was discharged home later that day,” Babineau’s letter said. “The surgeon discussed the error with the patient and, in keeping with our policy, the Department of Health was immediately notified.” The hospital said it would not disclose further details about the surgery to protect the patient’s confidentiality.

State law requires hospitals to notify the Health Department of major incidents within 24 hours. Annemarie Beardsworth, Health Department spokeswoman, said that an investigator is at the hospital now.

“Overall, we’re frustrated and we’re seriously concerned that this seems to be a continuing pattern at Rhode Island Hospital,” Beardsworth said. The results of the Health Department investigation will not be available immediately.

Thankfully, medical negligence attorneys are holding doctors accountable for cases of medical negligence such as this.  If you have been unfortunate enough to have been a victim of a surgical error, such as wrong-site surgery, you should consider speaking with a medical negligence attorney about your rights.  Further, if you have an upcoming surgery, there are several steps that you can take to protect yourself:

1. Ensure that your hospital follows the 2004 Universal Protocol issue by the Joint Commission, the national agency that accredits hospitals: (a) before you start to operate, verify that you are doing the right procedure on the correct part of the right patient;  (b) mark the site of surgery ahead of time; and (c) take a “time-out” right before surgery to make sure everything is in order.
2. Ask that the surgical team frequently asks you questions requiring an active response, including name and procedure with site and/or side – especially prior to sedation.
3. Ensure that two or more surgical team members are assigned to perform an independent verification and reconciliation of the schedule, consent, and history and physical.
4. Ensure that the surgical staff is educated regarding the site of the surgery and ensure that the mark is visible when you are prepped, draped, positioned, and during the time out.
5. Ensure that the site is marked unambiguously (with a skin marker, not a ballpoint pen) and in agreement with your understanding of the procedure.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority has much more information worth reviewing here.