Mississippi Injury Lawyers Blog

Technology is changing everything that we do as a nation, including how we litigate. The law, however, has been slow at keeping up with the technological revolution. Nowhere is that more clear than with the move toward electronic medical records (EMRs) and how they are to be used in medical malpractice litigation. According to a recent report on Law.com, there are some important considerations that medical malpractice litigants should be aware of to keep the costs of discovery to a minimum regarding EMRs.

First, the article advises that requests for information should be streamlined. There should no longer be a global request for all relevant information. This is because such a request will produce volumes of information, most of which will not be relevant to the litigation. As such, streamlining the request will only produce those medical records that will assist either side in developing it case for trial or settlement talks.

Second, it should be made clear to the health care provider when it should begin preserving electronic information. This is difficult because e-discovery law currently requires that electronic information be saved when litigation is "reasonably anticipated," which is not always easy to pin point in the health care industry. Each state could possibly consider proposing legislation that would designate when a health care provider should begin preserving all electronically stored information.

Lastly, paper records can be superior to electronic records in some cases, but EMRs can be difficult to reduce to paper. Because of some technological hang up, the way that an EMR appears on the computer screen is not the same as how it looks when it is printed out, making it difficult to analyze in hard copy. Also, providing the EMR in electronic form would not be sufficient because of the software needed to view the record. Most lawyers do not have the software on their office computers and the software is generally not available for retail purchase.

Continue reading "Electronic Medical Records are Changing Mississippi Medical Malpractice Cases" »

According to a recent report by the Clarion Ledger, State Senator Michael Watson is using the story of a local high school football player as inspiration for his newest piece of legislation. Wesley Ward went to football practice one day, thinking that it was going to be a day like any other day. However, on April 30, 2008, Ward's life changed forever. While participating in a contact drill in practice, Ward hit the team's fullback and then collapsed. He was rushed to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS, and underwent emergency brain surgery.

The new bill will increase the awareness of the coaches, players and parents regarding the dangers of concussions. It will also make it illegal for a player who is showing signs of a concussion to be returned to the game. If it is later confirmed the player has in fact suffered a concussion, the player cannot play again until he has been cleared to play by a medical professional.

Watson's proposed legislation is part of a national movement to raise awareness about the dangers of concussions suffered on the football field. The National Football League began this movement by deciding to punish players who try to intentionally cause concussions by levying large fines against those players. If an NFL player is caught inflicting an illegal hit to the head of an opposing player, that player will be fined and, if severe enough, may even be suspended.

The new legislation makes it possible for concussion victims and their families to have a legal remedy. While the language of the legislation is still being fine-tuned, it is likely that the bill will make it possible for the sports association or the coach to be sued if the terms of the new law are violated. It is unlikely that the bill will allow for any criminal penalties, but civil liability should be enough of a deterrent to keep children from being injured on the football field.

Continue reading "Mississippi Senator Sponsors Bill to Protect Young Athletes" »

A federal appeals court has ruled that residents of Mississippi and Alabama cannot sue the federal government for providing dangerous trailers to live in during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. According to a recent report by the Courthouse News Service, the Mississippi and Alabama residents affected by FEMA's formaldehyde trailers are left without a remedy. Plaintiffs, who represented some 10,000 residents, filed suit back in 2008 after suffering injuries as a result of the toxic trailers.

The story begins like this: In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast. Soon after the disaster, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, contracted with private construction companies to build trailers to provide displaced residents with temporary housing. The trailers were provided to the residents free of charge and they were used from 2005 until 2009. After a few months, trailer occupants began complaining that the trailers smelled of formaldehyde, a chemical substance commonly used in construction materials. FEMA responded by telling residents to ventilate their trailers. It also gave residents a pamphlet warning of the dangers associated with exposure to formaldehyde and encouraged those having problems to seek immediate medical attention.

After the court consolidated all of the complaints, the plaintiffs argued that they were harmed by FEMA because FEMA provided them with trailers that it knew contained formaldehyde and failed to warn them of the dangers associated with it. The complaint also alleged that FEMA failed to respond to the residents' concerns in a timely manner in an attempt to avoid litigation.

The trial court dismissed the suit on summary judgment finding that both Mississippi and Alabama law would prevent suit against a private person if the circumstances were the same. The plaintiffs attempted to appeal the decision, but the appeals court agreed with the trial court's decision. Mississippi and Alabama law applied because the government's conduct occurred in those states. The appeals court found the following: "Because the Mississippi and Alabama emergency statutes abrogate the tort liability of a private person who, (1) voluntarily, (2) without compensation, (3) allows his property or premises to be used as shelter during or in recovery from a natural disaster, the government's voluntary, cost-free provision of the EHUs [Emergency Housing Units] to disaster victims, in connection with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, is also immunized conduct under the statute... The government's provision of the government-owned EHUs, as implemented by FEMA, was voluntary because it was under no contractual or legal obligation, under the Stafford Act or other federal legislation, to provide the EHUs to disaster victims in response to the disasters."

Continue reading "Gulf Coast Hurricane Victims Cannot Sue FEMA" »

A Mississippi couple is feeling a little more secure after recouping a $600,000 award for an abortion mistake. Daschica and Christopher Thomas went to a clinic then owned by the National Women's Health Organization of Jackson where a doctor was to perform an abortion on Daschica. She went in for the procedure, but the physician that was scheduled to perform the surgery was not in the office that day. The other physician on call, Dr. Joseph Booker, undertook the task of by himself.

At first, everything began as any normal surgical procedure would, but in the middle of the procedure, Dr. Booker suddenly stopped working and sent Dashica and her husband home. He told them he could not finish the procedure and to come back the next day when the other doctor would be able to complete the abortion.

As a result of Dr. Booker stopping the abortion, Dashica suffered from a blood infection which required extensive hospitalization and several major blood transfusions. The Thomases filed suit against Dr. Booker and against the National Women's Health Organization of Jackson. The complaint alleged that Dr. Booker failed to exercise the same level of care that a reasonably prudent physician would have exercised in a similar situation. The complaint also alleged that Daschica can no longer have children as a result of the botched abortion and that Christopher lost his job because he missed too many days of work to care for his wife.

Continue reading "Mississippi Couple Receives $600,000 Award for Medical Malpractice" »