Hardesty, Tyde, Green & Ashton, P.A. blog

Additional interest and coverage by the news media regarding Doug Koceja's terrible injury from being impaled by uncapped rebar is bringing much needed attention to the unsafe practices of employers. Simple precautions which cost very little are often not used because they are perceived as taking too much time and/or costly. Sadly, this approach boils down to laziness and corporate greed. What does the employer tell someone run through by rebar? The caps were too difficult to install (takes less than a second); The caps were too expensive (25cents); or the best: Sorry and we hope you feel better! Sorry doesn't cut it for someone injured that has a life to lead and family to support and bills to pay. Sorry isn't good enough when your wife wants to take an evening walk or your child wants to be picked up but the massive injuries prevent that. Workplace safety is critically important and violations must be corrected or reported immediately. This is the most recent coverage of this terrible rebar impalement accident in the St. Petersburg Times :
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/27/Hillsborough/Impaled_and_still_in_.shtml

www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042607/met_165650906.shtml

Rebar, is present on many construction sites and always presents a serious if not lethal risk to not only construction workers but also site visitors and delivery personnel. The safety precautions are simple and inexpensive. They range from installing reusable caps which cost a few cents to bending over the ends of the rebar much like a "candy cane" that costs nothing.

Rebar injuries due to negligent safety precautions or the complete lack of safety measures injure and kill thousands each year. Attached is a Florida Times Union newspaper article outlining a case our firm is currently handling. Needless to say a cap costing pennies and literally taking one second to install could have saved millions of dollars in medical bills alone not to mention the tremendous suffering by the victim and his family. If you see a dangerous rebar condition report it immediately and if not corrected report the violation to OSHA. It could save your life or that of a fellow worker. Please see this article:
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042607/met_165650906.shtml

For many years, physicians believed that injury to the brain occurred nearly instantaneously with the trauma itself. That is, the blow to the head either directly injured the brain cells (in the case of a penetrating injury) or the brain was thrown violently back and forth inside the skull (in a non-penetrating injury) causing bruising or bleeding. Brain researchers have now been able to demonstrate, however, that injury continues to occur well after the trauma as a result of the brain's internal reaction to the trauma.

The additional damage can occur in a number of ways. First, neurotransmitter chemicals are released in large amounts which can overwhelm and severely damage brain circuits. Second, axons in nerve cells can be torn, stretched or twisted. Axons are the primary transmission lines for electrical impulses in the brain. Damage to the axons allows other chemicals to rush in causing the axons to swell. Over time, the reaction between these chemicals and those inside the nerve cell can completely destroy the axon.

Researchers have been working on developing drugs to prevent this secondary damage which occurs after the initial injury. While animal studies have been promising, nothing has proven successful in treating humans at this point.

For people who have suffered a brain injury from any source, it is important to have your case reviewed by a competent brain injury attorney. Many of the impacts of brain injury, including subtle changes in personality, ability to concentrate or memory are not clearly recognized by the injured person. A lawyer experienced with brain injury cases can help you obtain the necessary testing to pinpoint even subtle brain injuries.

More than 225,000 American men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more than 27,000 die of the disease each year. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. For men older than 65, many physicians have employed "watchful waiting" rather than aggressive cancer therapy after the disease is diagnosed. Watchful waiting involves monitoring the cancer but employing no real treatment for the disease. The theory is that prostate cancers often grow so slowly that the older patient will likely die of something else before the prostate cancer becomes fatal. In younger patients, more aggressive therapy, including surgery and/or radiation, is usually employed.

In December 2006, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a study which tracked over 44,000 men ages 65-80 who were diagnosed with early prostate cancer between the years 1991-1999. The individuals were followed until 2002. The results of the study indicated that those patients who underwent more aggressive treatment had a 30% lower death rate than those patients utilizing watchful waiting. Although more aggressive treatment can cause complications, including incontinence and impotence, the study indicates long term survival can be significantly enhanced with aggressive treatment.

The decision regarding the treatment mode belongs to the patient with proper advice from the physician. In our practice, we have seen too many cases where a physician has failed to perform proper testing to detect the existence of prostate cancer while it can still be treated. If you have questions or concerns about whether your prostate cancer was properly and timely diagnosed or treated, you should contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney.

As you consider whether to use a small regional hospital for surgical or other procedures, you need to be aware that many of these facilities are not "hospitals" in the way we normally think of them. That is, they lack important capabilities such as emergency rooms, a doctor on-site 24 hours a day or sophisticated resuscitation equipment. There are approximately 140 of these small (usually 10-20 bed) facilities around the country which are generally owned and run by a small group of doctors. Critics contend that the doctors are setting up these facilities to enable them to pick only the most profitable patients for care. Procedures involved can include plastic surgery, back surgery, heart surgery, etc.

The problem is that if something goes wrong, these facilities may not be able to provide the care you need to survive. In one recent Texas case, a patient who had undergone spine surgery developed breathing difficulties during the night. The nursing staff became concerned (there was no 24 hour doctor) and had to call 911 to transfer the patient to a full-service hospital. He died shortly after arrival. According to Medicare's review of state records, that hospital had called 911 to transfer patients 15 times in the last two years.

In Portland, Oregon, another patient in a small doctor-owned hospital received too much pain medicine after back surgery. The staff had to call 911 to transfer her to a bigger hospital. She also died due to lack of timely emergency medical care.

In many cases, the cost of a full-service hospital is not any more than you would pay at these smaller facilities. Make sure you ask appropriate questions such as: is there a doctor here 24 hours a day, do you have an emergency room, etc. Do this before you agree to use the small facility. What may be beneficial (profitable) to the physician may not be beneficial to you.

If you have had problems with care received in a smaller medical facility, be sure to contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney.

Last week the Food and Drug Administration asked Novartis, the manufacturer of Zelnorm, to pull the product from the market. Zelnorm is currently marketed to treat irritable bowel syndrome. Data from clinical trials by the manufacturer, however, indicated an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking Zelnorm, according to the FDA. In fact, the agency concluded "the benefits of this drug no longer outweighed the risks." On March 30, 2007, Novartis agreed to withdraw the drug.

Sales of Zelnorm have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in each of the last few years. No doubt, part of the popularity of the drug was related to an intense advertising campaign mounted on its behalf by the manufacturer. This once again calls into question whether it is appropriate for drug manufacturers to advertise their products directly to the general public, particularly in the first year or two after their introduction. It is in this period of time that the safety of the drug is more fully evaluated. This is an issue which Congress should more fully explore.

For more information on Zelnorm and other products being evaluated by the FDA go to http://www.fda.gov/medwatch