The well-publicized stent malpractice claims against St. Joseph's Hospital, Mark Midei, M.D. and other potentially culpable medical providers have generated waives of commercials, advertisements, and posturing by lawyers for the 360 or so cases where patients received letters advising that they were the victims of wrongdoing and received stents they didn't really need. As stressful as it is for these patients, who were confronted with ambiguous letters sent over the Christmas holiday, the stress has not ended.
The Maryland Institute for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers, MICPEL, announced today that it will be closing after 34 years of operations. Started in 1976 as joint collaboration between the University of Baltimore and University of Maryland Schools of Law, MICPEL's mission was to provide continuing legal education at a low cost to Maryland's practitioners and non-lawyer legal professionals. In a statement released today, MICPEL trustees cited outside competition from for-profit legal education businesses and the "recent economic meltdown" over the past several years as reasons for its planned closure.
Governor O'Malley hasappointednine trial court judges to servein Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, and Montgomery County.
The malpractice department at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz is handling a number ofclaims against St. Joseph's Hospital in Towson for the acts of one of its prior physicians, Mark Midei, M.D., an interventional cardiologist, for improperly inserting cardiac stents into patients who did not need them. After receiving a patient complaint, the hospital conducted an internal audit, comparing angiography films of patients taken intraoperatively to determine whether the reported occlusion was consistent with the visual occlusion. In more than 350 cases, the hospital determined the occlusion did not warrant stenting, although stenting was in fact performed.
Today, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Lockshin v.Semsker, a medical malpractice case tried in Montgomery County. The plaintiffs, who were awarded $5,805,000.00 for the death of Mr. Semsker from malignant melanoma, had argued that the portion of that award which was for non-economic damages (commonly known as "pain and suffering") should not be reduced to the statutory cap of $812,500.00 The basis of this argument not to reduce was that the law that governs medical malpractice cases does not specifically state that a case in which the parties waive arbitration is subject to the cap. The trial judge agreed and refused to cut that portion of the award. The defendant physician appealed that decision.
How Can We Help You?
Bold labels are required.