Intubation Error During Cholecystectomy Found Negligent

“One of the main objectives for an anesthesiologist is to protect the patient’s airway. In a case involves a forty-four-year-old woman who was admitted to a hospital for a cholecystectomy. The woman had a history of smoking, and her vitals were normal, with a blood pressure of 124/82. She was properly prepped by both the surgeon and anesthesiologist, and was informed that she would be receiving Ketalar as her anesthetic. However, during intubation, the patient’s oxygen count began to slightly decline, and the anesthesiologist shifted the tube. The shift caused the patient’s oxygen’s level to decline further, and the endotracheal tube was removed approximately 45 seconds later. The operation was stopped, and the operating physician had the patient checked for any signs injury. It was determined that the trauma from the tube damaged the thyroid cartilage, causing a loss of oxygen and had a severely negative impact on the patient’s voice. The surgery was never completed, and the patient’s quality of life decreased substantially due to the damage on the vocal cords. The patient was a secretary, and was unable to return to work due to her loss of voice. Experts have opined, intubation is a commonly practiced technique, and the anesthesiologist failed to notice that something was wrong during the first attempt. It is a standard technique and one of the most vital. Various tools exist to ensure proper execution in a timely manner. By shifting the tube, he caused further damage to the patient, and put the patient at risk of complete lack of oxygen. Loss of oxygen can be damage many parts of the human body, with the brain being a high possibility. The patient was also at risk for neurological damage as well, which could cause an even further reduction in quality of life. The tube should have been removed sooner than 45 seconds after complications arose.” www.theexpertinstitute.com I you have questions regarding medical error please feel free to call my office. We can help you NOW. 1-888-760-7339

Local Government Tort Claims Act

Local Government Tort Claims Act (“the LGTCA”), Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. (1987, 2013 Repl. Vol.) (“CJP”) § 5-301 et seq.; Under the LGTCA, “an action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government . . . unless: the notice of the claim . . . is given within 180 days after the injury.” CJP § 5-304(b)(1). “The notice shall be in writing and shall state the time, place, and cause of the injury.” CJP § 5-304(b)(2). [T]he notice shall be given to the corporate authorities of the defendant local government.” CJP § 5-304(c)(4).5 Even if a plaintiff does not strictly comply with the LGTCA notice requirement, a plaintiff substantially complies with the LGTCA notice requirement where: 1) the plaintiff makes “some effort to provide the requisite notice”; 2) the plaintiff does “in fact” give some kind of notice; 3) the notice “provides . . . requisite and timely notice of facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim”; and 4) the notice fulfills the LGTCAnotice requirement’s purpose, which is to apprise [the] local government of its possible liability at a time when [the local government] could conduct its own investigation, i.e., while the evidence was still fresh and the recollection of the witnesses was undiminished by time, sufficient to ascertain the character and extent of the injury and [the local government’s] responsibility in connection with it. This standard does not unduly burden potential plaintiffs. We hold that, to substantially comply with the LGTCA notice requirement, a plaintiff must indicate–either explicitly or implicitly–that the plaintiff intends 1. to sue the local government regarding an injury. A plaintiff does not “apprise a local government of its possible liability[,]” Faulk, 371 Md. at 298, 808 A.2d at 1272 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), where the plaintiff simply demands that the local government fix a defect. Additionally, a plaintiff does not “provide[] ... requisite and timely notice of facts and circumstances giving rise to [a] claim[,]” where the plaintiff threatens to sue the local government, but neither explicitly nor implicitly indicates that the plaintiff intends to sue the local government regarding any injury. If you have been involved in a accident involving a local government, city, state or federal employee is important that you take action immediately to contact an accident attorney to be sure that your legal rights are protected. If you have questions please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339

Expert Opinions of Percent of Disability in Accident Cases in Maryland

An expert is permitted to render an opinion as to the percentage of disability suffered by the Plaintiff in personal injury cases Provided: (1) the doctor is expert in rating percentages and has a medical basis for the opinion and(2) the doctor is familiar with the Plaintiff's work, occupation and activates. The opinion can cover how the physical disability affects personal and economic disability. See 228 A 2d. 300 and also 165 A 2d. 898. I suggest if you are heading in the direction of loss earning capacity this percentage opinion affecting performance at work will need to be coupled with a vocational rehab expert to get the loss of earnings as a result of the disability. If you have questions regarding personal injury or car accidents in Maryland, Call the Accident Attorney. I will answer your questions over the phone at NO Cost to You. 1-888-760-7339