Gun bill advances to Senate floor

Copley News Service,

SPRINGFIELD -- Reacting to last month's shooting deaths at Virginia Tech, an Illinois Senate panel Thursday advanced a proposal from Attorney General Lisa Madigan that is intended to prevent such a tragedy from happening here.

The Senate Public Health Committee sent Senate Bill 940 to the Senate floor on a 10-0 vote.

One provision in the legislation requires Illinois authorities to share information with a national database about residents who are barred from buying or owning guns because of state or federal law.

At present, just 22 states share that kind of information with the database, called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Madigan said. Sharing the information will prevent people from crossing state lines in an effort to evade laws that prohibit them from buying firearms, she said.

"We don't want Illinois residents to be able to purchase guns in other states simply because Illinois has failed to share critical information with the national database," she said.

Madigan said a second part of the bill makes it clear that every hospital in Illinois, as well as any other institution dealing with mental illness, must notify state police about individuals who represent "a clear and present danger" to others or to themselves. State police then can determine whether that person should be able to buy a firearm or possess a firearm owner identification card.

The bill's main sponsors are Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, in the Senate and Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, in the House.

LAWSUIT DAMAGES

The Senate passed legislation that would allow juries to award damages for grief, sorrow and mental suffering to families in wrongful death lawsuits.

State law now permits families to collect damages for loss of consortium and loss to society. Supporters of House Bill 1798 said 23 other states also allow awards for grief, suffering and mental anguish. They have said it would not affect medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Illinois AFL-CIO and Citizen Action are among proponents of the legislation.

The Illinois State Medical Society opposed the bill, fearing that a judge could interpret it to apply to medical malpractice suits. A 2005 law capped jury awards in those cases.

Other opponents said they feared the bill would increase insurance premiums.

The legislation passed 31-23. It now goes to Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Among central Illinois lawmakers who supported the bill were Sens. Deanna Demuzio, D-Carlinville, and Dave Koehler, D-Peoria. Opposing it were Sens. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield; Dale Risinger, R-Peoria; Bill Brady, R-Bloomington; and Dan Rutherford, R-Chenoa. Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, did not vote on the legislation.

WORLD SERIES TROPHY

Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson beamed like a proud parent as he played host Thursday to St. Louis Cardinals president Mark Lamping, who brought the team's 2006 World Series trophy to the state Capitol.

Watson allowed visitors to view the trophy in his office in the morning, and he later accompanied it and Lamping during brief appearances on the floors of the Senate and the House.

In remarks to the Senate, Lamping took a good-natured jab at the Cardinals' longtime rival, the Chicago Cubs, and that team's failure to win a World Series in almost 100 years.

"Illinois is home to some of the greatest baseball fans in the country, some of the most patient baseball fans in the country," Lamping said.

Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, said he hoped senators would use the World Series trophy as a source of inspiration for their annual softball game against the House next week. The Senate lost to the House in last year's game.

source : www.daily-journal.com

Fairness sought for victims of state

TALLAHASSEE — Wilton Dedge received $2 million in a state settlement in 2005, compensation for an innocent man who spent 22 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

Alan Crotzer is innocent, too. He spent 24 years behind bars on a wrongful rape, burglary, robbery and kidnapping conviction before DNA evidence cleared him in 2005. So far, the state's paid him nothing.

That disparity has the original authors of Florida's relief process saying the system they devised is broken. Critics say politics and happenstance now are more important than the merits of each case.

"It's not politics, it's policy," said former state House member, Robert Trammell, a Marianna Democrat who served from 1986-96. "The leadership has been more tightfisted. But I think the policy should be to treat people fairly."

Crotzer agrees.

"I feel like what happened to me was horrible," Crotzer said. "I had a living death."

Gov. Charlie Crist supported compensating Crotzer, but his claims bill died in the legislative session just concluded, a victim of a political web some say shows the imbalance of the claims bill process.

"There were reports senators didn't have enough time," said Crotzer's lawyer, Michael Olenick. "That was always a quandary to me because they had the bill since August. That haunts me."

Though 11 local and two state claims bills were passed this year — notable because no claims bills have passed in two previous regular sessions — many say the claims bills process needs to be changed.

Sen. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee, said Crist's openness toward claims bills and the publicity surrounding the Martin Lee Anderson case, along with new leadership, helped clear a path for other claims to be successfully heard.

"The philosophy of the last two Senate presidents and House speakers was that they didn't want to entertain any claims bills," Lawson said.

Anderson's parents received $5 million in compensation for the death of their 14-year-old son, who died a day after being beaten at the Bay County boot camp by drill instructors in January 2006.

Still, Crotzer's stalled relief and the Legislature's failure to pass a "global" plan to pay freed inmates $50,000 a year for lost time when they are proved innocent is an ongoing frustration.

In the last week of session, Sen. Majority Leader Daniel Webster, a Winter Garden Republican and proponent of the global plan, said he didn't know why it died in session.

"It passed every committee but got stalled in criminal and civil justice appropriations," said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, sponsor of the global bill. "I don't know why."

By some accounts, the claims bills policy has been stagnated with politics or opinions about how state money should be used, and the result is too many claims that deserve to be heard are being ignored.

Some former lawmakers say the system used to be more fair in years past, and less political.

"I like the way we did it because politics weren't involved," said two-time former Florida House Speaker Donald Tucker, who designed Florida's claims bill process in the late 1960s.

Today, getting a claims bill passed requires a savvy lobbyist, a high-profile claim, lawmakers (in both chambers) willing to go to bat for settlement and a lot of patience.

Having all those elements come together at once isn't easy.

In 1969, Tucker was asked by then-House Speaker Fred Schultz to craft a claims bill process, one that left out politics.

At the time claims bills were voted on by the Legislature without any independent investigations.

Tucker came up with a procedure that required the House to hire an attorney to act as special master, or judge, of a hearing to investigate the claim.

The master then delivered a report to the House.

Tucker said he would chair a committee with three House members, who were not from the area where the claim originated, to hear the claim before a House vote.

"We came up with some good ideas and were fair to people," said Tucker, a Democrat from Tallahassee who served from 1967-78. The Senate eventually adopted the same process.

Now, Tucker looks at how the Legislature handles claims bills, and is disappointed.

"I sit and wonder, what's going on," he said. "These people who were wronged, deserve compensation."

In Crotzer's case, his claims bill passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.

In 2005, when the Dedge bill passed in a December special session, the Senate approved the claims bill (listed as a general bill) unanimously.

This year, when House members attached Crotzer's bill to the Anderson claims bill, Senate leaders — feeling rushed to approve a measure they'd not fully studied — threatened to kill both claims if Crotzer wasn't removed. A bill with only an Anderson settlement passed.

Senate President Ken Pruitt, who supported the Anderson claims bill, said he had his chamber take up another state claims bill for Minouche Noel because it was a priority for the House. Noel received $8.5 million from a malpractice judgment after a botched spinal surgery at a state clinic left her paralyzed.

Meanwhile Crotzer, while he waits for another opportunity to get a state settlement, tries to rebuild his life.

"The biggest problem I have is finding a job," said Crotzer, who has moved to Tallahassee from St. Petersburg. "The only thing I have to bring to the table is that I was wrongly convicted, and survived it."

Tucker hopes legislators give the claims bill process another look.

"Our system isn't perfect," he said. "We can't restore the time, life ... but we can make a compensation monetarily."

source : www.news-press.com

Ex-Jerome County commissioner disciplined for ethics violations

By Jared S. Hopkins
Times-News writer
EDEN - Attorney and former Jerome County Commissioner John D. Elorrieta has been put on two years of probation by the Idaho Supreme Court after violating at least four parts of the state bar association's rules of professional conduct in a case involving his mother and stepfather.

Another violation would result in a six-month suspension for Elorrieta, now the deputy prosecutor in Lincoln County.

The decision ends one legal battle for Elorietta, an attorney, as another could be getting under way. Elorrieta was recently asked by the Jerome County commissioners to return $16,200 of the nearly $70,000 in overtime pay that he and his colleagues received illegally for four years beginning in 2001.

Elorrieta could not be reached for comment Friday and repeated phone messages were not returned.

This matter arose in 2002 after Elorrieta agreed to represent his stepfather, Tom Webb, in a divorce claim against his biological mother, Glenda Elorrieta.

Shortly after the two were married, a depressed Webb tried to kill himself and underwent extensive medical care. The couple decided to divorce but live together to curb rising medical costs.

In 2004, Webb filed a malpractice action against Elorrieta. In October, the Idaho State Bar filed a charge alleging professional misconduct in summer 2002.

The charges included:

Not consulting with Webb before filing the divorce papers, not explaining matters for Webb to make informed decisions and not keeping Webb up to date during the divorce.

He had a conflict of interest representing Webb against his own mother, that she received nearly all the couple's assets and for disregarding the condition that Webb was in.

During the investigation, Elorrieta acknowledged that he never should have represented his stepfather against his mother.

According to Elorrieta's testimony, he explained the conflict of interest to Webb and his mother, but they insisted he take the case.

He also said that he assumed Webb could make accurate decisions because he overheard Webb's doctors in March 2002 that he was capable of making decisions.

Elorrieta was admitted to practice law in Idaho in 1995 and has no prior disciplinary history.

source : www.magicvalley.com

Fla. below national average in amount of paid medical malpractice claims

Friday, May 11, 2007

A state-by-state examination of medical malpractice claims paid in 2006 shows that Florida’s average payout was lower than the national average, resurrecting the debate about the merits and pitfalls of tort reform that is expected to change the malpractice climate in the state.

As in the past, trial attorneys, the medical community and the insurance industry are far apart as to how injured patients and their families will fare from medical malpractice reforms in 2003 and 2004.

Florida’s average claim payout, whether by settlement or jury verdict, was $241,800 last year while the national average was $308,600, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Thirty-three states had higher averages than Florida’s; Illinois was at the top with an average claim paid of $629,100, according to Kaiser, a nonprofit health-policy research institute in California and Washington, D.C.

Kaiser didn’t conduct an analysis of the findings; it simply put the numbers together for public education, said David Rousseau, who works with Kaiser.

The data comes from the National Practitioner Data Bank, a federal registry of medical malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians and other health-care providers.

Insurance companies paid a total of $198.7 million arising from 822 paid claims in Florida last year, according to Kaiser. That’s 14.7 claims paid for every 1,000 physicians in the state.

The state with the lowest average malpractice payout was Michigan at $132,380 with 389 claims paid in 2006.

The numbers for Florida come as no surprise to Orlando trial attorney Scott McMillen, who points to a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages approved by the state Legislature in 2003 after pressure by then-Gov. Jeb Bush.

"The Legislature in Florida has been steadily chipping away the rights of Florida consumers," he said. "It is resulting in smaller settlements and more cases going to trial because the defendants have no fear. The insurance companies know the worst it will be is $500,000 — so why settle."

Bob White, president of First Professional Insurance Co., which insures 7,000 physicians in the state, the most of any medical malpractice insurer in the state, counters that Florida cannot be compared to other states.

"The average doctor (nationwide) carries a $1 million policy and in Florida the majority only carry a $250,000 policy. So if the maximum is $250,000, that compresses the average claim," White said. "Only 17 percent of doctors in Florida have million-dollar policy limits. In low-policy states, you just can’t draw comparisons."

Doctors don’t carry more coverage because of the expense, White said, acknowledging that malpractice insurance is more expensive in Florida than in other states. He blames that on more medical malpractice claims being filed and more payouts from settlements or damages from jury verdicts.

"We pay claims more frequently in Florida," White said, adding that 49 percent of claims closed last year in the state resulted in a payout.

Nationally, 26 percent of claims closed last year resulted in payouts, he said.

The issue of high premiums even when a physician hasn’t faced any prior lawsuits or settlements led to a bitter fight for reform five years ago, where the medical community lobbied for a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, or pain and suffering.

The compromise passed by the Legislature in 2003 was the $500,000 cap. Doctors said that was no compromise and wouldn’t reduce their premiums because in the event a patient dies, the cap on noneconomic damages increases to $1 million.

The medical community and trial attorneys sparred again in 2004, which led to three constitutional amendments on the November ballot that addressed other medical malpractice issues.

Voters approved limiting contingency fees of plaintiffs’ attorneys, opening up hospital records of adverse incidents, and revoking the licenses of physicians with three malpractice judgments.

Regarding the limit on contingency fees, attorneys began circumventing the limit by having clients sign waivers, the legality of which was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court in September 2006.

Stuart Ratzan, a trial attorney in Miami and member of the Florida Justice Association, the lobbying arm of trial attorneys, said the impact of the 2003 law capping noneconomic damages cannot be felt yet.

"It’s highly unlikely that payouts in Florida would be affected yet by the legislation passed in 2003 because cases don’t get through the system that quickly," he said, adding that he expects cases going to trial this year will be the first to be affected.

He attributes Florida’s average claims payout being below the national average to a conservative attitude among juries, which he says tend to side with physicians.

"The white-coat effect still exists," Ratzan said. "Doctors do better than injured patients."

White, president of First Professional Insurance, contends Florida judges and juries are liberal and willing to award large verdicts beyond policy limits. The state’s warm climate has attracted top-notch trial attorneys and that has led to larger awards, he said.

Bill Bell, general counsel for the Florida Hospital Association, said the average payout in Florida last year was to be expected, given that the majority of physicians carry only $250,000 in coverage. However, it is too early to see consequences of the limit on noneconomic damages awards passed by the Legislature in 2003.

"It takes four or five years to get a final verdict under that new law," Bell said. "The law has had an impact on settlements but not jury verdicts."

The number of claims filed is declining due to the noneconomic damages cap and that was to be expected, Bell said.

A long-standing position within the medical community is that medical malpractice lawsuits are often frivolous and that insurance companies are quick to settle cases, marring the reputation of physicians, rather than going to trial to defend their physician clients.

"There’s never been a doctor who will say, ‘I’ve been sued today and it’s a good case,’" McMillen, the Orlando trial attorney, said.

At the same time, Florida law requires a plaintiff’s attorney to sign an affidavit that he or she has done a reasonable investigation into the merits of the case and has obtained an affidavit from an expert witness that malpractice occurred.

The counter argument from doctors that plaintiffs’ attorneys hire doctors who will say anything a lawyer wants as an expert witness doesn’t stand up against an insurance industry able to spend more on its own expert witnesses, he said.

"I have spent over $200,000 on a single case to get to trial," he said. "That comes out of our pockets and we are not willing to advance that with crummy expert witnesses at trial and the insurance industry counters with their own expert witnesses."

Florida law allows insurance carriers to have sole discretion to make the decision about settling or going to trial, regardless of what a physician wants, pitting doctors against their insurance carrier, which evaluates how to proceed with a lawsuit from the standpoint of financial risk.

Ratzan, the trial attorney from Miami, said most cases settle because they have merit but he contends insurance carriers are more willing nowadays to let cases go to trial.

"In recent years the insurance industry is more willing to try a case. They are more comfortable with the idea the jury will stand on the side of the doctor," he said.

A study released last month by researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that tends to be the case, at least in New Jersey, Michigan and North Carolina, the three states where the researchers examined jury verdicts from 1986 to 2006.

Juries are more sympathetic with physicians for a variety of reasons, including the social standing of physicians, attitudes that the injured are trying to profit, that insurance companies have greater resources to spend at trial and lastly, that juries are willing to give doctors the benefit of the doubt when the issue of negligence is conflicting, according to the Missouri study.

Bell, with the state hospital association, agrees trial outcomes tend to favor the doctors.

"Most cases that go to trial are won by the defense and that is probably typical across the United States," he said. "If the defense is willing to bring a case all the way to a jury, they must feel pretty good about it. If there is pretty clear negligence and liability, then cases settle but if there’s only $250,000 in coverage, that physician settles for that amount or less."

The other gamble for the insurance industry is questionable liability on the part of the doctor or hospital but the patient sustained damages, Bell said.

"There’s the concern the jury may feel sorry for the family," he said. "All kinds of different strategies factor in making a decision about letting a case go all the way."
source : www.naplesnews.com

Jury can’t decide malpractice trial

After deliberating for 12 hours, a Madison County jury was unable to reach a verdict in the medical malpractice trial of Dr. James Dalla Riva.

Late Tuesday morning, Circuit Judge Barb Crowder declared a mistrial.

The jurors began their deliberations at 10:30 a.m. on Monday and were sent home around 7:30 p.m. They returned Tuesday morning at 9 a.m.

Reached by phone, St. Louis attorney David Damick said that he will discuss the options with his client, Mary Baugus, and that they will decide soon whether to refile the case.

“Dr. Dalla Riva appreciates the work of the jury, and we’re disappointed that the time spent - five days - did not result in a finding,” said Dalla Riva’s attorney Michael Pitzer, also of St. Louis.

In closing statements, Damick did not ask jurors to award a specific amount to Baugus. He noted, however, that Baugus had $34,261 in medical bills, and he suggested pain and suffering compensation of “a couple of hundred thousand dollars.” Baugus had surgery after the incident and returned to the hospital a total of nine times, Damick said.

Dalla Riva was on medical staff at Anderson Hospital on Jan. 4, 2002, when he performed an abdominal hysterectomy on Baugus, and removed her ovaries.

Damick maintained that Dalla Riva was negligent because he chose to use the “blunt dissection” method. While it is a common method, it should not have been used in Baugus’ situation because she had adhesions from earlier caesarean sections. “When you’ve got that kind of adhesions you don’t hurry through with blunt dissection,” he said. “Why is it wrong? Because the bladder is unique. It’s soft. It bloodies easily.”

Baugus developed severe pain and abnormal bleeding and was later found to have a half-inch perforation to her bladder.

Eventually, the severe bleeding was stopped, and she was discharged from Anderson Hospital.

Damick also faulted Dalla Riva for not “oversewing” to protect the bladder. In summary, Damick alleged that Dalla Riva knew about the adhesions and should have been more cautious. “He acted like a driver who knew he was approaching heavy traffic but acted like he wasn’t,” Damick said.

But Pitzer said Dalla Riva exercised sound judgment and that “he didn’t gamble or take risks.” He chastised Damick for flying in Dr. James Tappan from California and paying him $23,000 to testify.

Baugus, he said, had a history of medical problems before the surgery, and she had been given a pamphlet to read that clearly spelled out the risks. Dalla Riva, he said, did not puncture the bladder. In fact, the bladder performed well for 10 days after the surgery. Pitzer said it was not clear why the perforation developed. “In this case, for whatever reason, the bladder opened up,” he said, “but it did not appear to be weakened during the surgery.” Dalla Riva, he said “did exercise his judgment the way a careful, reasonable physician would do.”

Also on Tuesday, a mistrial was declared before the start of another medical malpractice trial. Plaintiff Jessica Cooper alleged that on May 2, 2002, Dr. Geoffrey Turner was negligent during the delivery of her daughter, Rainee Cooper. The delivery occurred at St. Anthony’s Hospital in Alton. The suit was filed by St. Louis attorneys Mark Bronson and Marc Wallis. It alleges that, among other things, Turner, during the delivery, used “excessive downward lateral traction, causing a brachial plexus during delivery.”

Court officials declined to comment about why a mistrial was declared.

Judge David Hylla was not available for comment Tuesday afternoon.
source :www.goedwardsville.com

Jury Deliberating Malpractice Suit Against EIRMC

The three week trial against Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center has come to an end.

Since 1:30 Thursday, a jury has been deciding if EIRMC is to blame for severe brain damage in a former patient and it wouldn't be surprising if it's not until Friday before a verdict is reached.

Brock Higham alleges that he went in for wrist surgery in 2002 and came out with a brain injury.

Higham believes the incident is the result of a medication mix-up.

EIRMC denies they had anything to do with the damage.

On Thursday morning, both sides presented their closing arguments. The courtroom was packed, probably more than it has been in the three weeks the trial has been going.

As evidenced by the length of the trial, there is a lot of issues covered. Here are some of the key points brought up in the trial.

First, most of the evidence, including the IV bag and tubing was thrown out by hospital staff the morning after Brock was brain damaged.

The hospital says nurses looked at the medicine and confirmed with their own eyes Brock got the medicine he was prescribed. They then threw it out, so narcotics weren't lying around.

But Higham's legal team thinks it's all an attempt by the hospital to cover up a mistake. They cite EIRMC paperwork that says if a questionable event happens, then all the evidence should be preserved.

Another big issue is the care given by nurses to Brock the night of the incident. The hospital says the nurse assigned to Brock checked in on him more frequently than the every four hours that's required by hospital rules.

But the Highams think the nurses missed some big warning signs including itching, that often precede a bad reaction with narcotics.

They also say he was at a higher risk for a reaction to narcotics because of the way the IV dripped the medicine, even when he didn't call for them and the fact he wasn't sedated to taking narcotics.

Finally, there's the issue of a possible medication mix-up.

The hospital says everyone who treated Brock reported he received the correct prescription.

The Highams say none of the drug Dillaudid showed up in none of the blood tests taken around the time of the incident.

"Bad things do happen to good people all the time, it's a reality of life, and it's not your role to translate emotion and sympathy and desire to help into this forum," said Robert Roth, lead attorney for EIRMC.

"Few moments of neglect can lead to a life of disability and heartache, he is the reason why casual approach to standards cannot be tolerated in this community," said Ken Pedersen, lead attorney for Higham.

For the first time, we found out how much Brock Higham is asking for in damages. Between economic damages and pain and suffering, Higham's attorney says he deserves $8.25 million.

EIRMC maintains Brock's brain damage wasn't preventable.

One of their doctors even said he could have had a stroke.

Two alternate jurors were dismissed on Thursday after closing arguments. They'll only be called back if another juror gets taken off the case.

source : www.localnews8.com

Ex-doctor suing for $40 million

ublished: Sunday, May 20, 2007
Sam Hemingway
Free Press Staff Writer

A former St. Albans doctor who resigned from the Northwestern Medical Center in St. Albans in 2004 after claiming surgical fluids at the hospital had been intentionally contaminated has sued the hospital and six other defendants for $40 million.

According to documents on file at federal court in Burlington, orthopedic surgeon Raymond A. Long claims the hospital set out to destroy his career because he reported the contamination to state authorities and confronted hospital officials about other problems at the facility.

Lawyers for the hospital say in court papers that Long resigned in 2004 because the hospital was about to undertake an internal investigation of quality of care issues regarding Long and what it viewed as his disruptive behavior in front of patients and employees.

Long, who no longer holds a license to practice medicine in Vermont and now lives in Plattsburgh, N.Y., is facing three medical malpractice lawsuits in Vermont; a fourth was settled in 2006. He is the author of a 2006 instructional book on anatomy for yoga teachers.

The Long case has been contentious from the start. Still a year away from trial, it has already generated 10,000 pages of documents and involved 25 attorneys. At a May 11 court hearing, Long's lawyer claimed the hospital had employed 19 private investigators to delve into Long's background.

Long, under orders from his lawyer, George Parry of Philadelphia, declined comment on his case after the hearing. The hospital's attorney, Kathleeen Chancler of Philadelphia, also declined comment, but a lawyer for Quorum Health Resources, a Texas firm that helps manage the hospital, issued a statement denying Long's allegations.

"This is a longstanding dispute and we contest all of the plaintiff's claims, which are baseless," Philip Zane said in his statement. "The defendants expect to prevail."
Early confrontation

Long, a graduate of the University of Michigan medical school, joined Northwest Orthopedics in St. Albans in 2001 after completing a residency in orthopedic surgery at the University of Montreal. He obtained provisional operating privileges at Northwestern Medical Center in September 2001.

According to court papers, Long's first dispute with hospital doctors and administrators occurred shortly after a Montgomery Center man became paralyzed in his arms and legs after Long operated on his shoulder on Jan. 25, 2002.

Long alleged that the quadriplegia was caused by improperly administered anesthesia. The anesthesiologist, in turn, told the patient that surgical errors by Long caused the paralysis, Long's lawsuit said.

The paralysis later subsided, but when the patient told Long he could not pay the hospital bill because the paralysis made it impossible for him to return to work, Long told him to file a lawsuit for malpractice. The case is now pending in Franklin County Superior Court.

The case was the beginning of a series of disputes between Long and other doctors at the hospital and hospital administrators that, based on allegations in Long's lawsuit, read at times like a mystery novel.

Long claims he collected proof that an anesthesiologist's mistakes had caused neurological damage to a surgical patient, only to discover that a hospital employee had "illegally entered" Long's office and removed the damaging evidence.

Hospital administrators once interrupted Long during a complicated surgery to tell him his hospital pager bill was overdue. In another incident, Long said an administrator pressured him to curtail a surgical procedure on a Medicaid-eligible patient in order to free up an operating room for more lucrative, elective surgery operations.

On March 31, 2004, shortly after suspending Long's operating privileges and recommending he undergo a psychiatric evaluation, the hospital reinstated Long's privileges so he could conduct a difficult ball-and-socket shoulder replacement surgery the following day, April 1.

The hospital, in papers it has filed with the court, denied the first two allegations listed above but admitted it did grant him temporary privileges for the April 1 surgery. The hospital also confirmed in court documents that Long was told he needed to undergo "certain evaluations" just before he decided to resign.

The hospital also included in its court papers a 2000 performance evaluation of Long when he was a resident doctor at the University of Montreal that showed he had received "below average" marks in the categories of "ability to work with others" and "relationship with medical staff."
Contamination question

Long claimed in his lawsuit that he discovered the contamination of surgical fluids in an operating room after three of his patients developed life-threatening infections following surgeries that he had performed on them.

The hospital does not dispute that two of the three patients suffered from post-operative life-threatening infections.

When Long discovered the contamination, he reported it to hospital authorities. Long, in court papers, said that the hospital failed to properly investigate the contamination. Unsatisfied with the hospital's response, he claimed in court papers that he later intercepted an operating room solution prior to a Feb. 6, 2004, surgery and had Fletcher Allen Health Care test a sample of it.

"FAHC advised Dr. Long that testing conclusively established that the sample of irrigation solution was heavily contaminated with coagulase positive Staphylococcus aureus, a deadly infectious agent," Long's lawsuit said.

Long, through an attorney, also alerted the Attorney General's office about the contamination. Attorney General William Sorrell confirmed his office conducted a criminal investigation into the claim, but the probe ended with no one being charged.

"We did not find evidence to satisfy us at all that criminal conduct had taken place, let alone by whom," Sorrell said in an interview.

The state Health Department, in a statement released April 6, 2004, also said it did not find evidence of contamination at the hospital. "We find nothing to suggest that there is any increased risk of infection at Northwestern, as compared to any other hospital," then Health Commissioner Paul Jarris said in the statement.

The following day, Long resigned. In a statement he sent to the media at the time, he lambasted the hospital for conspiring to ruin his career for speaking out about problems at the facility, including the contamination issue.

"As a result of raising such questions, Dr. Long has been the subject of multiple adverse actions intended to force him out of the hospital and the community," Long's statement said in part.
source : www.burlingtonfreepress.com