Archive for April, 2012

Concussions’ Effects Last Long Beyond Symptoms

Monday, April 30th, 2012

Many people think of concussions as minor, short-term problems whose effects last only a few hours or days. Unfortunately, as our experienced brain injury attorneys are well aware, the effects of a concussion can last long beyond its symptoms, and well past the period when most victims – and their families, friends, and coaches – stop exercising care and return to normal, strenuous activities.

Unfortunately, this leaves victims vulnerable to much-more-dangerous successive concussions, as well as a host of other neurological problems and disorders which can be caused by resuming activity too early.
Now, a study out of the University of Kentucky and published in the Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, has quantified the problem, establishing that altered brain activity and other concussion effects persist for at least days after symptoms are gone.

The typical symptoms of a concussion include disorientation, confusion, headache, memory loss, and difficulty concentrating, reduced cognitive processing, and reduced verbal abilities. These symptoms generally disappear within 5-10 days of an injury, depending on the severity of the injury.
The new study tracked the persistence of these symptoms following a concussion, but also used neuropsychological testing to look for changes in brain function, as well as physiological abnormalities post-injury. The MEP testing used measured “reaction time” – not reaction to an external stimulus, but the time it takes for the patient’s limbs to receive a signal from the brain.

The study looked at student-athletes who had sustained a concussion in the past 24 hours, as well as a control group of student-athletes who had not. The subjects from each group were matched on a number of categories: age, gender, sport and position played, prior history of concussion, history of learning disabilities and ADHD.

What the researchers found was interesting. While concussive symptoms decreased and generally disappeared within 10 days of the injury, delays in brain response did not. In fact, the post-concussion physiological changes actually increased over the 10-day period following the brain injury.

Unfortunately, the study did not look beyond the initial 10-day period. It is thus not yet possible to know just how far beyond the initial injury these physiological changes persist. But there remains an important lesson here for parents, coaches, and the injured themselves: concussions, like all traumatic brain injuries, must be taken seriously. To avoid even more serious injuries and even more severe consequences, concussion victims must rest and avoid strenuous activity well after symptoms have receded.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago brain injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

AARP Takes a Stand on Hospital Errors

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

There is no denying that the AARP is a powerful force in American politics. That is why the Chicago medical malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group are so encouraged to see the AARP speaking out on medical malpractice in American hospitals. We hope that, with the attention and pressure the AARP can bring, hospitals will at last get serious about stopping preventable medical errors.

The estimates provided in the AARP’s report may shock many of the organization’s members, but they are well-known to our experienced medical malpractice lawyers. For instance, the AARP notes that about 100,000 Americans are killed each year, in U.S. hospitals, by preventable medical errors. Indeed, one in seven hospitalized Medicare patients suffers a serious medical error – and nearly half of these errors are classified as “preventable.”

Other studies have found that one-third of hospital patients suffer some sort of medical harm during their stay. Indeed, an astonishing 40 times per week, a U.S. surgeon performs surgery on the wrong body part – or the wrong person entirely.

In short, as the AARP emphasized, the number of deaths from medical malpractice in the U.S. each year is the equivalent of four fully-loaded jumbo jets crashing – each week. If these crashes were occurring, U.S. residents would not sit calmly by, but would demand that the problem be fixed. Yet because hospital deaths are less visible, the public outcry is missing.

The AARP has also taken aim at the culture of concealment in U.S. hospitals, noting that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that around 86 percent of medical errors are not reported.

Many solutions to this ongoing problem have now been proposed – several of which we have previously discussed – including the use of safety checklists, making data on medical errors publicly-available, and simply forcing all hospital workers to regularly wash and sterilize their hands. The AARP’s members may be shocked to learn that studies show that only roughly half of hospital workers follow established hand-washing guidelines. In any other industry (take airline pilots, for example), workers would be fired or at least disciplined for failing to follow basic safety procedures. So why is this disregard for safety permitted to persist in hospitals?

So, how can patients protect themselves from hospital medical errors? The AARP makes several suggestions, including:

• Do not assume that hospital workers know who you are or why you are there.
• Bring or hire an advocate to be with you, particularly at admission and checkout.
• Keep track, in writing, of all medications, when they are taken, and who prescribed them, as well as the names of all individuals who participate in your care
• Bring hand sanitizer with you, and keep it visible by your bed.

Our experienced medical malpractice attorneys would also recommend other measures: first and foremost, insisting that each doctor, nurse, and other worker wash his or her hands immediately upon entering the room. Most importantly, stay involved in your care. Ask questions, be assertive, and ask to speak to other doctors or staff when necessary.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Doctors Fail to Advise Young Cancer Patients on Fertility

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

There is no denying that the various forms of treatment for cancer are essential, and often lifesaving. Yet these treatments also often have very serious side effects – including reduced or lost fertility. This is particularly true of treatments such as chemotherapy, and radiation to the woman’s pelvic area.
Physicians treating cancer patients are obligated to fully discuss the potential side effects, including this potential effect on fertility, prior to beginning treatment. Indeed, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s guidelines state that doctors must address the risk to fertility, and the possibility of fertility-preservation procedures, prior to cancer treatments.

It has recently come to light, however, that many physicians are simply failing to address this issue with cancer patients – particularly young women.

This omission would be bad enough if it were simply the failure to make patients aware of the risk. But this omission is made even worse by the fact that there are viable pre-treatment options for preserving fertility, if a woman is fully informed and chooses this route. For instance, a young woman faced with cancer treatments can choose to freeze and preserve eggs prior to beginning treatment, or even freezing and preserving embyos, if she has a partner with which she wishes to have children one day.

Researchers have discovered, however, that only about 4 percent of women 40 are younger have proceeded with procedures to freeze and preserve embryos or eggs prior to beginning cancer treatments. This figure alone is not shocking – until you compare it with the more than 50 percent of women in this same group who stated that they wanted to have children at some point after treatment.

This recent research found that only 61 percent of affected women were counseled by their doctor about the potential effects of treatment on fertility and their options for preserving their post-treatment fertility.

There is some encouraging news in these statistics. Although the overall rate of women choosing fertility-preservation options from 1993 to present (the period for which data is available) is only 4 percent, in recent years that figure has climbed to about 10 percent. Since more than half of women wish to have children after treatment, it thus appears that more women are receiving proper counseling.

Another problem with using available pre-treatment fertility options is, of course, the cost. Depending on the procedure, freezing eggs or embryos can cost between $8,000 to $24,000. Although some insurance plans cover these procedures, others do not. Our medical malpractice attorneys hope that, with the advent of the new federal medical-insurance laws and their emphasis on women’s reproductive services, insurance plans will not begin to cover these procedures, at least for cancer patients.

In the meantime, doctors must begin properly counseling young female patients about the risks to fertility, and the options available. The failure to offer this counseling is the failure to obtain informed consent prior to treatments, a form of medical malpractice.

If you have lost fertility due to cancer treatments, and were not counseled prior to treatment about the risks and your options, talk to an experienced medical malpractice attorney about your legal options. It may be that the risk of legal liability will at last encourage physicians to properly inform cancer patients of their own risks.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Irresponsible Criticism of Distracted-Driving Legislation

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

The experienced Chicago automobile accident attorneys of Passen Law Group have frequently written about the dangers of distracted driving, including the use of handheld cellphones, and even hands-free cellphones, while driving. Indeed, studies have shown that using these devices create a greatly-increased risk of an accident: even as high as a risk equivalent to the risk of driving while drunk.
Now, at last, state and local legislators have taken notice. A partial ban has been in place in Chicago for some time, but local and suburban communities are gradually passing their own laws and ordinances prohibiting cellphone use while driving.

Statewide, a bill is pending in Springfield which would prohibit handheld cellphone use while driving anywhere in Illinois. Currently, handheld phone use is banned only in school zones, construction zones, and by drivers 18 and younger. Many local ordinances are stricter: an ordinance under consideration in Evanston, for example, would ban any type of cellphone use – even hands-free – while driving.

Our experienced distracted driving lawyers support both measures, and applaud the lawmakers supporting them. Yet the Chicago Tribune, which has previously provided supportive, responsible analysis of the distracted-driving problem, inexplicably came out last week with an article claiming that there was “no conclusive data” that cellphone use has any impact on driving safety.

The Tribune acknowledges the multiple studies finding greatly increased risk of an accident for cellphone users: a 1997 study out of Toronto, Canada, a 2005 study from the British Medical Journal, a 2006 study out of the University of Utah. The Tribune even acknowledges the unsurprising fact that in states with existing bans, there has been a marked decrease in accidents caused by cellphone use.
The Tribune’s reason for questioning the use of cellphone legislation is a recent study from the University of Chicago, which looked at accident rates both before and after 9 p.m. – when a cellphone discount goes into effect, and call volume spikes. Because the accident rate did not also spike after 9 p.m., the researchers concluded that cellphone use has no effect on safety. What the Tribune did not acknowledge, however, is that far fewer drivers are on the road at this hour – which leads to a reduced risk of auto accidents not only because there are fewer cellphone accidents on the road, but also because traffic around those distracted drivers is lighter.

In fact, the Tribune even criticizes the 2006 University of Utah study by noting that the study found that switching to a hands-free device did “little” to improve driver safety. Distracted-driving experts, however, have long noted that this is because the use of a hands-free device can be almost equally distracting, albeit in a different way – a fact that the Tribune acknowledges in a separate section of the same article.

Our top distracted driving attorneys urge the Tribune to reconsider its dangerous position on this important legislation. If anything, the statewide ban does not go far enough, as it allows hands-free cellphone use to continue. The power and influence of the Tribune, properly applied, could go far in putting this important legislation into place.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago auto accident lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.