Scalpel Weekly News

Week of: June 15, 2015

IN THE NEWS


Peripheral Vascular Patch Recall; Confusing Packaging Causing Adverse Events

Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Ill., is voluntarily recalling four product codes of its VASCU-GUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch. Click title to continue reading...


 
MEDICAL ALERTS


Stroke Prevention Aspirin; Only for Patients With Stroke History

Stroke is the leading cause of severe disability and the fifth leading cause of death for all Americans. The burden is worse in minority communities. African Americans have twice the risk of stroke as whites. Minorities have higher stroke risks, strokes at an earlier age, and more severe strokes. Click title to continue reading...



Antimicrobial Use in Animals Limited by FDA; Goal To Prevent Resistant Bacteria

The FDA has announced the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) final rule, an important piece of the agency’s overall strategy to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. This strategy will bring the use of these drugs under veterinary supervision so that they are used only when necessary for assuring animal health. The VFD final rule outlines the process for authorizing use of animal drugs intended for use in or on animal feed that require the supervision of a licensed veterinarian and provides veterinarians in all states with a framework for authorizing the use of medically important antimicrobials in feed when needed for specific animal health purposes. Click title to continue reading...



Rates of Deadly Skin Cancers Have Doubled Over Last Three Decades

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the U.S., and melanoma is the most deadly type of skin cancer. More than 90 percent of melanoma skin cancers are due to skin cell damage from ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure. Melanoma rates increased from 11.2 per 100,000 in 1982 to 22.7 per 100,000 in 2011. The report notes that without additional community prevention efforts, melanoma will continue to increase over the next 15 years, with 112,000 new cases projected in 2030. The annual cost of treating new melanoma cases is projected to nearly triple from $457 million in 2011 to $1.6 billion in 2030. Click title to continue reading...


  CASE ALERTS


Treatment Not Physician’s Specialty, Failure to Refer to Specialist, Evidence of Other Patients Found Irrelevant

A woman suffered from a vesicovaginal fistula, an abnormal opening between the vagina and urinary bladder. She sought treatment from a doctor. The doctor performed the Latzko procedure to repair the woman’s vesicovaginal fistula. Click title to continue reading...



Insurer Must Defend Nursing Home, Employees; Negligence; Sexual Assault of Resident

A fifty-six-year-old woman, suffering from Huntington's disease and residing at and in the care of a nursing home, claimed that she was the victim of a sexual assault perpetrated by an employee and certified nursing assistant (CNA) at the nursing home (“first CNA”). At the time of the assault, a defendant, another CAN (“second CNA”), was at the nurse's station where she heard the resident's cries for help, but she did not respond. Instead, the second CNA reported the resident's screams to a registered nurse (RN), but the RN also failed to respond. Click title to continue reading...



Clinic Not Vicariously Liable; Stillbirth Malpractice Survives Summary Judgment

A pregnant woman received prenatal medical care from doctors at a medical clinic. She underwent a biophysical examination. Five days after the biophysical examination her son was delivered stillborn. Click title to continue reading...


FEATURE


Discovery In Actions Involving Gastric Bypass

A patient's treating physician's testimony that the patient did not suffer from bile reflux was admissible in a medical malpractice action against a bariatric surgeon and clinic following gastric bypass surgery. This was the result despite the defendant’s claim that, because there was no mention of bile reflux in the physician's patient notes, this testimony constituted expert testimony by a previously undisclosed expert. The court reasoned that the physician's testimony, like that of an ordinary witness, was based on the physician’s own perceptions while attempting to ascertain the nature and cause of what ailed the patient and the appropriate course of treatment. The court noted that it was apparent that the patient's only purpose in seeing the treating physician was in hopes of obtaining relief from the stomach pain that was afflicting him, and not to retain him as an expert for litigation. Click title to continue reading...