Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited take no responsibility for the contents of this announcement, make no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this announcement. PARKSON RETAIL GROUP L
American people can buy antibiotics in Australia online here: https://buyantibiotics-24h.com/ No prescription required and cheap price!
Eckenrode-law.comMedical Malpractice - FAQ’s
Answers to the most common questions we are asked when first meeting
with physicians in medical malpractice claims
By: Robert C. Seibel , Seibel & Eckenrode, PC., Attorneys at Law Q My office is in St. Louis County, and I never treated this patient in the City of
St. Louis. How can this case be filed in the city?
Missouri’s venue statutes can often be used to obtain City venue, even if the medical care took place outside the City limits. The consensus of the Plaintiffs’ lawyers is that the City is a more hospitable venue for their clients’ claims, as compared to neighboring counties. Unusual venue situations typically arise in cases with multiple Defendants. If only one Defendant “resides” in the City, the case can proceed in the City. This is true for corporations and individuals. For instance, if a corporation’s registered agent is located in the City, venue in the City may be proper. If one of the Defendants does not reside in Missouri, there is a loophole of sorts in the venue statutes which allows a suit against a nonresident Defendant to be brought in any Missouri Court. Procedure then allows additional Defendants to be named to the existing suit. Once venue is properly established against one Defendant, venue remains proper even if Defendants added to the suit later have no connection to the City. Recent Court decisions involving County hospitals affiliated with a City-based parent corporation are not subject to City venue on basis alone. Finally, the Courts do not allow sham claims solely to obtain City venue, although it is difficult to successfully make this argument. In sum, we raise venue defenses when we can, but often end up defending claims in the City which have virtually no connection whatsoever to the City.
Q Since Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed an affidavit, will my case be
Perhaps, but probably not. In Missouri, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer is required to file an affidavit within ninety (90) days of filing suit which states that an expert competent to testify has written a report stating that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with the claim. Courts have the ability to extend the ninety-(90) day requirement, and often do.
Courts do not automatically review their cases to determine whether the statutory affidavit has been filed; it takes a motion on our part to raise the issue with the Court if Plaintiffs’ counsel has not filed an affidavit within ninety (90) days. The remedy, however, is only a temporary dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims, i.e. a dismissal without prejudice. Such a dismissal gives the Plaintiffs the absolute right under Missouri procedure to refile the claims within one year. While Plaintiffs’ lawyers may use the affidavit requirement to allow the Courts to dismiss a suit which, for any number of reasons, Plaintiffs’ counsel is reluctant to dismiss it on their own, there should be mini- mal expectations on the part of a physician named in medical malpractice case that the affidavit requirement will yield an early dismissal of the lawsuit.
Q How long will it take for my case to get to trial?
This varies from Court to Court, but typically averages from eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months. From a statistical standpoint, medical malpractice cases are considered complex cases, and thus deserve more time to prepare for trial. Despite the differences between the pace of an urban docket compared to a rural docket, our experience is that the amount of time to trial is fairly consistent.
“Though this varies from court to court, a typical medical malpractice case takes from eighteen to twenty-four months to go to trial. Medical malpractice cases are considered complex cases, and thus deserve more time to prepare for trial.” Q Who is the expert who will testify against me?
Early in the suit, we usually do not know the identity of the Plaintiffs’ testifying expert(s). Our standard practice is to submit interrogatories (written questions which Plaintiffs are required to answer under oath) to Plaintiffs asking for the identity of all experts. Typically, Plaintiffs defer disclosing their expert(s) until the depositions of the parties are completed, which can take up to a year. In those cases where the Court issues a scheduling order, the Court usually does not require expert(s)’ disclosures until the completion of these depositions. As such even though the Plaintiff will be required to eventually produce an expert, it is very unlikely that the identity of that expert will be Seibel & Eckenrode is a five lawyer firm based in Clayton, MO concentrating on the defense of physicians in medical malpractice cases. Source: The Keane Insurance Report; September 2000 Expert Not Needed For Med-Mal Std. Of Care
Problem Was Obvious To ‘Average Layperson’
Where an 83-year-old woman went into respiratory crisis and died afterundergoing a standard “barium swallow” test, her daughter could sue thehospital for wrongful death even without expert testimony on the standardof care, the Missouri Court of Appeals’ Western District has ruled.
This was because the average layperson could tell — without testimonyfrom an expert — that something went wrong.
“We believe that the average non-physician layperson knows that whenthe condition of a patient is altered unexpectedly during a medicalprocedure, a medical provider must determine the status of the patient andthe cause of the alteration in order to know whether the matter involves anemerging threat to the life or condition of the patient,” wrote Judge JamesM. Smart Jr. for the court.
the condition of a patient is altered unexpectedly during a medicalprocedure, a medical provider must determine the status of the patient andthe cause of the alteration in order to know whether the matter involves anemerging threat to the life or condition of the patient,” wrote Judge JamesM. Smart Jr. for the court.
A directed verdict was reversed in Seippel-Cress v. Lackamp, et al., MLWNo. 26488, issued on May 23.
‘ B l a t a n t
“I applaud the Western District for this insightful opinion,” said Paul J.
Passanante of St. Louis, whose practice includes plaintiffs medicalmalpractice.
“The court held that when a health care provider, as a result of somethingit did, recognized that a patient’s condition was deteriorating and didnothing to evaluate or treat the patient hut instead discharged her, experttestimony is not required to establish negligence,” Passananta ssid.
“It is truly a matter of common sense, and the Western District did theright thing by reversing a directed verdict in such a blatant case of medicalnegligenca.” “Provocalive Issue’
But Robert C. Seibel, a St. Louis defense attorney, was critical of the deci-
sion. “My hope is that this decision is ultimately limited to its specific
facts and that the court did not intend to relax the requirement for expert
testimony to make a submissible medical malpractice clalm.
“The court is clearly correct in holding that the plaintiff failed to introducesufficient expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of medicalnegligence against the defendants,” Seibel said. “The provocative issue inthe court’s decision is its reversal of the trial court’s directed verdict forthe defendants on the theory that the medical issues were matters ofcommon knowledge, and could be submitted without expert testimony.
“To me, that is a stretch. I sincerely doubt that many of us would feel com-fortable stepping into a hospital’s radiology department and performing abarium swallow, much less taking it upon ourselves to properly evaluate apatient’s condition following such a procedure.
“To put these issues to a jury without the guidance of expert testimony onthe standards of care is, at least in my view, unfair to a trained medicalprofessional,” Seibel said.
The defendants’ attorney, D. Bruce Keplinger of Overland Park, Kan.,said, “We got a directed verdict because the standard of care was notdefined during the expert’s testimony, which left the jury to speculatewhether there was a breach or not.
said, “We got a directed verdict because the standard of care was notdefined during the expert’s testimony, which left the jury to speculatewhether there was a breach or not.
“The court of appeals really sidestepped that issue because it said thestandard of care was within the ken of the average layperson.
“But ordinary laypeople don’t perform barium swallow tests,” Keplingersaid.
“I’m also disappointed that after we very meticulously pointed out wherethe plaintiff put a number of ‘facts’ into her brief that weren’t in therecord, the court accepted two of these ‘facts’ and based its decision onthem.
“It’s very frustrating - these ‘facts’ were made up out of whole cloth.” The plaintiff’s attorney, Ronald M. Sokol of St. Joseph, said, “The opinionreaffirms that in med-mal cases there are certain circumstances - granted,they are limited - that are within the general knowledge of the jury, andyou don’t need an expert to explain them.” Barium Swallow
In June 1993, 83-year-old Louise Seippel of St. Joseph was having
difficulty swallowing solid foods. In fact, over the previous several months
her weight had dropped to 70 pounds.
So her daughter Patricia SeippelCress and nephew Earl Seippel took her toHeartland Hospital West for testing.
At the radiology department, a barium swallow test was conducted byPhyllis Wiederholt, a speech pathologist, under the supervision ofradiologist Dr. Robert Lackamp. The procedure calls for the patient to swallow food or liquid inwhich barium has been dissolved while his or her esophagus is viewedwith a fluoroscope.
Before the test Wiedecholt found Mrs. Seippel to be alert, talking, smilingand cooperative, having no trouble breathing and expressing nocomplaints.
Mrs. Seippel was first given barium water, and no obvious problems wereobserved. Wiederholt then gave her applesauce containing the barium, toobserve how she managed with a thicker medium.
She had difficulty with the thicker substance, holding it in the back of herthrcat, and aspirated - inhaled into her trachea and lungs - a small amountof the applesauce. She became tired and there was a noticeable pooling ofthe applesauce in her throat.
Wiederholt noticed a “gargly” sound and gave Mrs. Seippel water, whichhelped wash it down into the esophagus. Wiederholt noticed that theepiglottis ceased to function as Mrs. Seippel grew more fatigued - sheopened her mouth and some of the material drained out.
The test was then terminated. Wiederbolt, Dr. Lackamp and anotherhospital employee helped Mrs. Seippel onto a gurney. Dr. Lackampcontacted Mrs. Seippel’s regular physician to discuss whether Mrs.
Seippel should be admitted to the hospital. Mrs. Seippel’s physirianallowed Dr. Lack-amp to decide whether to refer her to the emergencyroom or to send her home, and Dr. Lackamp decided to send her home.
Wiederholt brought Mrs. Seippel, still on a gurney, out of radiology whereMrs. Seippel’s daughter was waiting. Winderholt accompanied Mrs.
Seippel and her daughter to the hospital exit, and with the help of someambulance attendants laid Mrs. Seippel into the car on her back.
Neither Wiederholt nor anyone else gave any instructions to Mrs.
Seippel’s daughter or nephew. According to the daughter, Mrs. Seippel did
not say anything at all on the way home, was not responsive to questions,
and seemed to be breathing with shallow breaths.
At home, the family used a wheelchair to bring Mrs. Seippel into thehouse. When they got into the house, Mrs. Seippel’s head fell hack and shedid not seem to be breathing. Mrs. Seippel-cress gave her motherpulmonary resuscitation and someone dialed 911. An ambulance arrivedshortly thereafter and took Mrs. Seippel to the emergency room of the hos-pital, where she was pronounced dead.
The daughter filed a wrongful death case against the hospital, Dr.
Lackamp, and another physician. At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Tuteur,testified that “if an appropriate evaluation and management occurredfollowing the termination of the modified barium procedure, it is myopinion with reasonable medical certainty that her health.it would be rea-sonable to assume that she could have returned to her baseline healthstatus.” He also said that if the evaluation and therapy had been initiated “promptlyand appropriately,” the consequences of the adverse event “would havebeen blunted and her death would have been delayed with reasonablemedical certainty,” and also testified with reasonable medical certaintythat Mrs. Seippel’s death was directly related to the barium swallow proce-dure.
medical certainty,” and also testified with reasonable medical certaintythat Mrs. Seippel’s death was directly related to the barium swallow proce-dure.
At the close of plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed ver-dict, contending that Dr. Tuteur had not defined a legal standard of carebut simply used terms such as “a careful practitioner,” “norms of theprofession,” “appropriate care,” and “substandard health care” — he neverused as a reference point “that degree of skill and learning ordinarily usedunder the same or similar circumstances by the members of defendant’sprofession.
The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
Judge Smart acknowledged that “in the great majority of malpractice cases
a submissible case may only be made by expert medical testimony.” But
he also noted, quoting a 1959 case, that “where the conduct in question
doss not involve skill or technique in an area where knowledge of such is a
peculiar possession of the profession and doss involve a matter which any
layman (or court) could know, then such ‘professional’ testimony is not
Smart referred to a 1971 case in which the Supreme Court held that a lackof expert testimony required dismissal of a medical malpractice case. Huthe also noted that the court “suggested.that there are cases in which thecommon knowledge of lay persons is enough to decide some negligencecases when it stated: ‘This is not the kind of case in which the lack of skilland care is so apparent as to be within the comprehension of lay jurors,requiring only common knowledge and experience to understand andjudge without the guidance of professional testimony.’” And in another case the court of appeals said, “Negligence amounting tomalpractice can be proved by circumstantial evidence if that evidence,because of its character and circumstances, permits the trier of facts todraw rebuttable inferences based upon common knowledge or experienceof nonprofessional or lay persona.
According to another case, the “exception to the requirement of proof byexpert testimony from members of the medical profession in a medicalmalpractice case occurs when the act of negligence relied on involves amatter which is within the knowledge of laymen and is not within theexclusive knowledge of members of the medical profession.
“This exception, however, is tightly circumscribed in order to guardagainst the danger of permitting lay jurors to establish arbitrary standardsrelative to matters beyond their common experience and knowledge and todecide crucial issues upon nothing more than speculation, conjecture andsurmise.” relative to matters beyond their common experience and knowledge and todecide crucial issues upon nothing more than speculation, conjecture andsurmise.” Turning to the Seipell case, Smart said, “We note, first of all, that the trialcourt was correct in ruling that plaintiff failed to establish that the bariumswallow test was negligently performed. The expert testimony failed toshow that the test was not conducted in accordance with the legal standardof care.” But Smart agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that expert testimony wasnot needed.
“We believe that the average non-physician layperson knows that whenthe condition of a patient is altered unexpectedly during a medicalprocedure, a medical provider must determine the status of the patient andthe cause of the alteration in order to know whether the matter involves anemerging threat to the life or condition of the patient,” he said.
“We believe that this is so obviously a responsibility of mecical providers
that it cannot be questioned. Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff’s
evidence showed that Mrs. Seippel became unusually fatigued and
uncommunicative, could not continue the test, and had to be placed on a
gurney, there was a duty to find out why, and to find out whether she was
at risk for an adverse event or was already experiencing a problem
“The evidence indicates that defendants did not check Mrs. Seippel’sblood pressure or pulse, listen to her lung sounds, or engage in any otherevaluative procedures.
“We do not mean to say that the defendants in this case cannot producemedical evidence outside the awareness of lay persons which might showthat under the specific circumstances of this case there was no need tomonitor Mrs. Seippel’s vital signs or evaluate her condition,” Smart said.
“It is also possible that defendants could present medical evidence tendingto show that such monitoring would have been to no avail. Thus, we donot say that defendants do not have defenses, we simply say that, on theface of the basic facts proved by plaintiff together with the causationtestimony of Dr. Tuteur, a prima facie case was presented.
“Lay persons know that when there is an unexpected and unusual changein the condition of the patient which gives evidence that the patient ishaving significant difficulty, the medical provider cannot send that personhome, as though everything were normal, without attempting to determinewhat is wrong with that patient.
home, as though everything were normal, without attempting to determinewhat is wrong with that patient.
“Plaintiff had pleaded that it was negligence for the defendants to fail to‘recognize the nature and extent of injury which [Mrs. Seippell suffered asa result of the aspiration,’ and there was evidence of at least someaspiration while she was in their care. There was also evidence that herepiglottis ceased to function properly as she became more tired. Plaintiffoffered evidence that defendants failed to evaluate Mrs. Seippel’scondition and to determine why she tolerated the test so poorly.
“A prima facie case of negligence was created by the basic facts in light ofthe common knowledge and experience of laypersons,” Smart concluded,reversing the judgment.
(The full text of the Western District’s opinion in Seippel-Cress v.
Lackamp, et al., MLW No. 26488, is available from Missouri LawyersWeekly - 14 pages.
Call (800) 685-2147.
VANADIUM Atomic number Crystal form Oxidation states Atomic weight Electrical resistivity (20°C) Electronegativity, Pauling CAS number Enthalpy of melting Specific heat (25°C) Boiling point Enthalpy of vaporization Thermal conductivity (25°C) V 3380°C Melting point Ionization potential Specific gravity (20°C) bp/mm (mp) COMPOUNDS C20H18