To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer

To stent or not to stent: ask a lawyer

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: that is the question

To stent or not to stent: that is the question

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

To stent or not to stent: that is the question

To stent or not to stent: that is the question

 

Recently a Towson Maryland law firm filed medical malpractice cases against 8 physicians alleging inappropriate implantation of stents into the hearts of 39 patients. According to the case filings these procedures were performed at Saint Joseph’s Hospital, the same facility where cardiologist Dr. Mark Midei had similar accusations thrown his way. Since 2009 over two hundred claims have been filed for misuse of stents echoing the most recent filings. To add to the fray another law firm has now come forward with additional claims which are being processed as this article takes form. Collectively these three hundred cases have several elements in common, quasi science and hired guns to support the contentions of the filers. In an attempt to prove that the art of medicine is an exact science lawyers have gone to the extreme making representations of a very specious nature. Stenting is an inexact science. Decisions to stent are made by highly trained individuals who make determinations based on a complex set of variables. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stents for blockages greater than 70% of an arterial occlusion. Physicians unlike those who file legal cases for sport realize that heart attacks can occur without blockages, with partial arterial blockage or at the threshold established by the FDA. To accuse a physician of hyper-inflating the occlusion size to stent an artery borders on the absurd.

 

Reviewing dozens of studies concerning the appropriate use of stent technology, one notes major variations in their application throughout the United States. Patients presenting with chest pain who are found to have a coronary artery blockage of less than seventy percent are difficult prospects to treat based on current recommendations. At this point many factors converge in a physician’s mind to arrive at the appropriate decision for that specific patient. Many physicians will take the conservative route never stenting unless the FDA’s artificial numbers are realized. This style of practice may keep a physician outside the courtroom but end up expediting the demise of the patient.  Physicians who are more aggressive save lives but risk the hammer of a judicial system designed to destroy their careers. Three hundred patients each with a set of symptoms specific to themselves sought medical help when they felt their lives were threatened. Once cured, these former patients jumped on the proverbial bandwagon to assault those who managed their medical care hoping to cash in on the rush to judgment.  In fairness to these healers each and every case should be examined separately from the larger group. In the event that anyone or all of these legal filings are fraudulent the lawyer and the patient should both be held up for sanctions. Alternatively, if there is “solid evidence” that medical practice was inadequate a reasonable compensation should be allocated. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.   platomd@gmail.com  

Why Obama will lose the election

Why Obama will lose the election

 

President Obama’s minimal credibility has been reduced even further by his Administration’s cover up of the slaughter of the American Ambassador to Libya and three other individuals. Murdering the Ambassador was not sufficient for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. There are reports that his body was brutally sodomized that have not been debunked by anyone with rank in the Administration. A chorus of Obama minions took to the airways within 24 hours of this terrorist act claiming that a movie from Youtube was the cause of these atrocities. Susan Rice, the United Nations Ambassador, spread the word on national news programs that the Libyan actions against the United States Embassy were spontaneous, comparing them to events in Egypt a few days earlier, faulting the Youtube video against the Muslim Prophet as the cause of their disruptive behavior. Within 48 hours after Ambassador Rice’s outright lies concerning these murders a dozen more Obama representatives including Hillary Clinton joined in stating the same script. Collectively these individuals knew at the time of their interviews that the information they were providing to the public was false. Further, they were covering for the ineptitudes of the State Department, White house and others who failed to heed the warnings of those on the ground that more security was needed to fend off threatening actions in this region against United States personnel. Obama and Biden both claim they did not know of the dozens of requests for increased security. State Department officials have come forward claiming the Obama Administration was warned of potential threats to the Libyan Embassy and they deterred from acting on them. One report noted the Obama Administration wanted to display a scene of normalcy around the Libyan compound and increased security would detract from this view. Obama and his Administration’s spin on recent events in the Middle East including apologies for a movie few have seen, make light of a terrible tragedy involving four deaths. Vice President Biden’s recent remarks during his debate with Paul Ryan were disingenuous that he was unaware of requests for more security in Libya, have been proven untrue in Congressional hearings now moving forward. In some circles these events are being described as worse than Watergate, especially for the senseless loss of lives that could have been prevented if Obama had only attended some of the security briefings presented for his pleasure daily. Obama will lose this election because his ineptitudes and spin are now on display for all to see. The profound tragedy noted here and subsequent cover up now unraveling before investigative committees in Congress display the real Obama, not the manufactured one created by the hard left. This election comes down to a competition between ideologies. Vote right this November, any other direction will take America into an abyss. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Surviving in the age of Obama

Surviving in the age of Obama

 

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party President Obama displayed his true abilities last week without a teleprompter before him. His sorrowful performance before 66 million people underlines a similar posture in his approach to governing. Since 2009, when Obama took the reins of office, he immediately went to work with the intent to diminish American institutions and industries. With extraordinary expertise he has devitalized a once thriving nation. During Obama’s reign the military has seen reductions in ships, planes, armaments and most importantly personnel. America’s nuclear arsenal has seen a similar fate. As Obama’s TSA expands our rights seem to be diminishing. Is the TSA the national police force Obama had envisioned during one of his many rants? National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now a shadow of its former self. With the swipe of a pen Obama took America from the lead in space exploration to a country that depends on the soviets for a ride to the International Space Station. Always looking to outdo himself his next assault was to create situations making America more dependent on foreign energy sources. Blocking pipeline construction, inhibiting oil drilling throughout the country on both public and private lands and utilizing the EPA to hammer other sources of energy America will soon be starving for a product we have in abundance. On the consumer side gasoline prices have nearly doubled in most locales, food prices seem to move only one way and consumer goods are all made somewhere else. Obama’s international treaties always seem to favor the other guy which sends our manufacturing jobs there and forcing us to accept their cheap goods. Recent events should have given Americans pause to consider who is really at the helm of this nation. Our Libyan ambassador was murdered along with other innocent people because the White House refused to fortify protections for this embassy. Media reports, in recent days, are discounting Obama’s “explanations” of events surrounding this tragedy. More importantly his explanations appear to be excuses for the actors of this heinous crime. Obama’s actions are stoking the fires in the Middle East by apologizing for their blatant disregard of a sovereign nation, Israel, and sending more money to those who would kill Americans without blinking. Conservative and liberal media have found agreement on one point the Obama Administration has misrepresented recent events in the Middle East and as a result Congress is planning hearings to root out the real basis for our crumbling foreign policy in this region. Surviving during Obama’s reign means taking handouts from an over stretched treasury instead of working in a job of one’s choice. The Presidential debate put America on notice that there is something very wrong in Washington and with the leaders who maintain it. November is the time to change the direction of America. Let us hope it is a change for the better. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Romney's TKO of Obama

Romney’s TKO of Obama

 

Mitt Romney delivered a TKO last night when he faced an unprepared incumbent in a debate that went in one direction. In a 90 minute matchup between two men with very different ideologies the Republican candidate dominated every round. From the President’s posture to his low toned answers he was unable to respond to all the jabs being thrown his way. America’s failing economy was the central theme of the night and President Obama was unable to muster the energy and clarity to explain his four years of failures to the audience or those who tuned in. Obama’s tired diatribe that larger government is the answer to an economy that is in the doldrums was drowned out by Romney’s point by point reasons to shrink the federal work force. Obama’s paltry answers to a well-rehearsed Romney assault on his policies did not go unnoticed by the media outlets covering the debate. MSNBC shockingly pronounced Romney the winner though Al Sharpton tried but failed to put a positive spin on a poor performance. Jim Lehrer, the night’s poor excuse for a moderator, finally came around to the subject of Obamacare during the latter third of this disaster for Obama. Similar to his other answers Obama had trouble justifying this monstrous legislation while Romney enumerated why it should be abolished. Subject after subject Romney was on the attack clarifying the less than factual statements the President had just presented. Romney and the President have been in a statistical dead heat for several months but the tide seems to be turning away from the President. Obama has been spending heavily on media spin in the last few weeks, but it has not put a dent in his poll numbers. This first of three presidential debates, with one VP debate interspersed with the others, will define an election that may shape America’s future for the next several decades. Obama was lost without his teleprompter as he searched for answers to the most basic questions. During this one sided forum the moderator attempted to help Obama by leading him in a certain direction, but the President could not find the fire power to return the volley. One interesting side note, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland was challenged by a reporter on Obama’s performance. Amazing as it may seem the Governor gave Obama high grades for his efforts using the usual democratic spin as cover. Mitt Romney’s TKO of the President was not a fatal blow to Obama’s campaign though it was close. With two debates to follow on the presidential side Romney needs to continue pummeling away at Obama’s failures, if not there is still time for the tables to turn back towards the President. Mark Davis, MD author of the forthcoming book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Romney: a conservative republican

                                          Romney: a conservative democrat

 

Mitt Romney is no stranger to politics or political causes. With a track record dating back over fifty years when his father was governor of Michigan to the present he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the political landscape that has affected America over that period of time. Romney is a stranger to the Republican narrative. Transitioning from an independent with democratic leanings twenty years ago to a full-fledged conservative in 2012 has many questioning his true stripes. Attacked by the liberal media for his acute business acumen, he distinguishes himself from his opponent by taking a middle of the road approach to tax policies. Unfortunately Romney echoes the “close the corporate loophole strategy” which is part of the democrat agenda to lay waste to the business community. When discussing foreign affairs he leaves the impression that his thoughts have not coalesced into a unitary position on this issue, few specifics with many generalizations. Obamacare comes to end, he claims, in the event the election goes his way. Yet many people have misgivings that he will forsake his promises of healthcare reform and leave much of Obamacare intact. This notion is based on the social program commonly called Romneycare that he left behind in the Bay State in 2006. The media has not vetted this health catastrophe in Massachusetts with sufficient detail to display it spawned Obamacare. Many tenets in Romneycare leave one wondering whether the liberal in Romney submerged his conservative side to bring about the chimera now plaguing his home state. During one Republican debate Romney deemphasized the value of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stating there were more important issues on Earth to deal with. Yet when discussing how he would manage the military he answered that present World problems necessitate expansion of American Armed Forces. He never realized that NASA provides a strategic part of American defenses through various programs. His mentation concerning NASA coincides with the actions already taken by Obama to reduce the significance of this valuable asset. Romney’s stand on entitlements has not been clarified. During his tenure as Governor of the Bay State he markedly expanded entitlements allowing us a glimpse of the potential enactments he would bring to fruition if he attains the presidency. Many would question Romney’s conservative exterior, the evidence is clear that he does move to the right of President Obama. Does Romney engender Republican ideals, a clear case can be made that he doesn’t. Would this author vote for him? Yes, because of the detriment inflicted on America by Obama, Romney is America’s only choice. This November election is crucial because two competing ideologies are vying for your vote. Let us hope that we regain our constitutional democracy this election cycle, otherwise four years from now we could be speaking Arabic. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

Romney: A conservative democrat

Romney:

                                          Romney: a conservative democrat

 

Mitt Romney is no stranger to politics or political causes. With a track record dating back over fifty years when his father was governor of Michigan to the present he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the political landscape that has affected America over that period of time. Romney is a stranger to the Republican narrative. Transitioning from an independent with democratic leanings twenty years ago to a full-fledged conservative in 2012 has many questioning his true stripes. Attacked by the liberal media for his acute business acumen, he distinguishes himself from his opponent by taking a middle of the road approach to tax policies. Unfortunately Romney echoes the “close the corporate loophole strategy” which is part of the democrat agenda to lay waste to the business community. When discussing foreign affairs he leaves the impression that his thoughts have not coalesced into a unitary position on this issue, few specifics with many generalizations. Obamacare comes to end, he claims, in the event the election goes his way. Yet many people have misgivings that he will forsake his promises of healthcare reform and leave much of Obamacare intact. This notion is based on the social program commonly called Romneycare that he left behind in the Bay State in 2006. The media has not vetted this health catastrophe in Massachusetts with sufficient detail to display it spawned Obamacare. Many tenets in Romneycare leave one wondering whether the liberal in Romney submerged his conservative side to bring about the chimera now plaguing his home state. During one Republican debate Romney deemphasized the value of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stating there were more important issues on Earth to deal with. Yet when discussing how he would manage the military he answered that present World problems necessitate expansion of American Armed Forces. He never realized that NASA provides a strategic part of American defenses through various programs. His mentation concerning NASA coincides with the actions already taken by Obama to reduce the significance of this valuable asset. Romney’s stand on entitlements has not been clarified. During his tenure as Governor of the Bay State he markedly expanded entitlements allowing us a glimpse of the potential enactments he would bring to fruition if he attains the presidency. Many would question Romney’s conservative exterior, the evidence is clear that he does move to the right of President Obama. Does Romney engender Republican ideals, a clear case can be made that he doesn’t. Would this author vote for him? Yes, because of the detriment inflicted on America by Obama, Romney is America’s only choice. This November election is crucial because two competing ideologies are vying for your vote. Let us hope that we regain our constitutional democracy this election cycle, otherwise four years from now we could be speaking Arabic. Mark Davis MD, author of the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival. platomd@gmail.com

A conservative democrat