National Injury Law Firm Acquires Airplane To Help Clients Access Better Medical Care.

BUTTAFUOCO and ASSOCIATES recently acquired their second airplane with a longer distance and better weather capability.

This aircraft will be used to cover cases, clients and courts in the entire state of NY, the Tri State area and as far as Maryland for representing clients in serious personal INJURY CASES, including ACCIDENTS and Medical MALPRACTICE.

In some cases, the aircraft is utilized to shuttle clients to medical professionals they could not otherwise access.

This is a welcome addition to the resources of the firm.

Are Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Driving Up Health Care Costs?

Defensive Medicine: Myth or fact?

You’ve probably heard it stated as fact: the risk of crazy lawsuits is forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine, raising the cost of health care. This idea gets spread around a lot, especially during election season or when “tort” reform” is on the agenda. But is it true?

According to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the idea that defensive medicine leads to higher health care costs is not true. The study looked at data from 1997-2011 in three states that passed tort reform legislation and found that the laws did not reduce doctors’ testing behaviors and that:

“… physicians are less motivated by legal risk than they believe themselves to be. Although a practice culture of abundant caution clearly exists, it seems likely that an aversion to legal risk exists in parallel with a more general risk aversion and with other behavioral, cultural, and economic motivations that might affect decision making. When legal risk decreases, the ‘path of least resistance ‘ may still favor resource- intensive care. Our results suggest that malpractice reform may have less effect on costs than has been projected. “

Tort reform, or malpractice reform, succeeds in limiting patients’ rights, but does not seem to limit care costs.

That makes defensive medicine a myth.

Robotic Surgery ERROR Cover-up - Thousands Injured or Dead.

In March of  2009, Erin Izumi, a 30 year-old woman from Tacoma, Wash., had robotically assisted surgery to treat endometriosis. The procedure at St. Joseph Medical Center dragged on for almost 11 hours.

A week and a half later, Ms. Izumi was rushed to an emergency room, where physicians found that her colon and rectum had been torn during the surgery. She was in the hospital for five weeks, undergoing a series of corrective procedures to repair the damage, including a temporary colostomy, according to her attorney Chris Otorowski.

But even though medical device manufacturers and hospitals are required to report every device-related death and serious injury to a database maintained by the Food and Drug Administration within 30 days of learning about an incident, no report about the case was made in 2009. Hospital officials declined to comment, and a spokeswoman for the manufacturer said it became aware of the incident only when Ms. Izumi filed a lawsuit. It disputed the claim and settled the case in May 2012.

That was not the only lapse in reporting problems with robotic surgical equipment, a new study has found.
The equipment, called the da Vinci system, is made by Intuitive Surgical Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. It has been on the market for more than a decade; more than a million procedures have been performed with it. Between January 2000 and August 2012, thousands of mishaps were reported to the F.D.A. In the vast majority of cases, the patient was not harmed, but among the reports were 174 injuries and 71 deaths related to da Vinci surgery, according to a study published last week in The Journal for Healthcare Quality.

Yet by combing news reports and court records, researchers at Johns Hopkins were able to find examples of botched operations that were not reported to the agency. They concluded that adverse events associated with the da Vinci were “vastly underreported.” The consequence is that little is known of the real disadvantages of the equipment, and the injuries and deaths it may cause, even as robotic surgery is widely marketed to consumers, Dr. Zuckerman said.

Nevertheless, robotic surgery has grown dramatically, increasing more than 400 percent in the United States between 2007 and 2011. About 1,400 da Vinci systems, which cost $1.5 million to $2.5 million, have been purchased by hospitals, according to Intuitive’s investor reports.

The expansion has occurred without proper evaluation and monitoring of the benefits, said Dr. Martin A. Makary, an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins and the senior author of the paper.
“This whole issue is symbolic of a larger problem in American health care, which is the lack of proper evaluation of what we do,” Dr. Makary said. “We adopt expensive new technologies, but we don’t even know what we’re getting for our money — if it’s of good value or harmful.”

A 2010 study found that 56.8 percent of surgeons surveyed anonymously said they had experienced irrecoverable operative malfunctions while using the da Vinci system, Dr. Makary noted.
Women were more likely to be harmed during the robotic procedures, Dr. Makary and his colleagues found. Nearly one-third of deaths that were reported to the F.D.A. database occurred during gynecologic procedures, and 43 percent of the injuries were associated with hysterectomies.
“Any time there is a serious problem with the da Vinci, it should be reported,” Dr. Zuckerman said. “It’s the F.D.A.’s job to figure out whether this is a problem related to the device or a doctor error.”

If you or someone you know has been injured due to a defective medical device or negligence of a doctor call the experienced medical malpractice and defective products attorneys at Buttafuoco & Associates. 1-800-669-4878

Da Vinci Robotical Surgery - RISK for serious injury

Each year, hundreds of thousands of American patients are operated upon using the da Vinci surgery robot, yet the benefits of the surgical robot are still unproven. Caught up in an “arms race” for the best technology, many American hospitals have shouldered the great expense of offering da Vinci robot surgery, even without scientific proof that da Vinci robot surgery is better for patients. 

Intuitive Surgical, the company that markets the da Vinci surgery robot, reaps massive and ever-growing profits from the device, while patients face serious medical consequences as a result of the product’s shortcomings. Hospitals using Intuitive Surgical’s marketing materials to promote the device have contributed to the problem, misleading patients about the benefits of robot surgery. 

Intuitive Surgical, making false and generalized claims about da Vinci robot surgery and failing to disclose important health risks, has made record profits from da Vinci robot surgery. How can such a thing be allowed to happen in the United States of America, home to the world’s most prominent medical institutions, doctors and research facilities?

Here are some common question regarding suffering an injury involving the da Vinci Robot surgery:

Who can make a da Vinci robot surgery claim or file a da Vinci robot surgery lawsuit?

A person who has suffered from internal injuries as a result of da Vinci robot surgery, or the family members of such a person, may be eligible to make a da Vinci robot surgery claim by filing a da Vinci robot surgery lawsuit.

How much time do I have to file a da Vinci robot surgery lawsuit?

Most states have da Vinci robot surgery lawsuit time limits; however, the majority of all persons having had da Vinci robot surgery will fall within those time limits if they contact an attorney in the near future. 

How is it that the makers of da Vinci robot surgery advertising make unproven claims and get away with it?

There are no regulations that govern the promotional materials hospitals use to attract new patients. However, studies show that patients look to hospital websites for medical information. Unfortunately, the threat of serious da Vinci robot surgery lawsuits and major payouts may be the most effective way to exert pressure on the company responsible.

How Much Is My Case Worth?

If you have been seriously injured due to someone else's negligence you might be wondering - "How much is my personal injury case worth?

There is a very complex, scientific method to determine the value of a personal injury case.   This process involves measuring (including but not limited to) medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of normal life, etc.

In this featured video Daniel Buttafuoco, founding personal injury attorney at Buttafuoco & Associates, answers the question:  "How much is my injury case worth?"

Still have questions regarding your possible injury case?   Our attorneys are available 24/7.  Call 1-800-669-4878 or go to www.1800NowHurt.com

The Attorneys at Buttafuoco & Associates have recovered over $250 Million for their clients.

How Long will my case take to settle?

“How Long will my case take to settle?”  This common question has a complicated answers.  It depends based on the specific facts of your case.  We inform all of our clients that a personal injury case can take anywhere from several months to a few years; with the larger cases taking the longest.  The length of a case is largely determined by the parties involved: the client, the insurance company & the insurance company’s attorneys, etc.

The most important variable in a personal injury case is you, the client.  One of the first factors is determining the length of medical treatment the injured client requires?  Settling a case prior to the patient receiving all necessary post accident treatment and having a doctor provide a long term diagnosis for the injury will hurt the value of your case.  For this reason you must be careful with settling too soon.  Doing so could risk sacrificing money you’re entitled to in the future. Keep in mind, a settlement is permanent. Once your case is settled, it cannot be opened again.

Although Insurance companies give the illusion they are "on your side", they aren’t the most reasonable and often times refuse a fair settlement thereby delaying your case.  Attorneys then must follow procedures to protect the clients right to seek compensation by putting the case to suit, file motions, make court appearances, preparing the case for trial, etc, which inevitably delay recovery.   Unfortunately, this process can end up taking anywhere from two to five years, with the larger cases taking the longest.

Insurance companies aren’t always willing to just hand over millions of dollars to injured victims, fortunately the attorneys here at Buttafuoco & Associates are experienced in getting the carrier to hand over a fair settlement.  For example, we were recently able to obtain a $43 Million lifetime payout for one of our clients (serious injury left him a paraplegic).

The final variable that determines the length of a case is the insurance carrier’s defense firm.  Usually, their tactics are to intentionally delay settlement.  For this reason it is important to be represented by an experienced, reputable attorney so that these defense firms think twice before they attempt to try any of these tricks.


If you find yourself asking "how much longer will it take to settle my case" keep the above information in mind.  For any additional questions about your current case or accident call the experienced attorneys at Buttafuoco & Associates 1-800-669-4878

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits Mounting...

If you or someone you know suffered complications as a result of the transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse you need to call our office RIGHT AWAY. Before the statute of limitations expire on your claim call our qualified attorneys for a free consultation. We can help you. 1.800.Now.Hurt (1.800.669.4878).

Jennie-O Recalls 55,000 Pounds of Turkey Burger Over Salmonella

Fox News reports....

Jennie-O Turkey recalled 55,000 pounds of turkey burger this weekend after being linked to a dozen cases of salmonella in 10 states.

The raw, frozen turkey burgers were sold nationwide exclusively at Sam’s Club stores. They were sold in boxes of 12 individually wrapped burgers labeled “Jennie-O Turkey Store All Natural Lean White Meat Turkey Burgers.” Each carton weighs four pounds.

The recalled cartons have a use-by date of Dec. 23, 2011, and an identifying lot code of 32710 through 32780 printed on the side panel of each box. The consumer UPC is 042222-261081. The products were packaged on Nov. 23, 2010.

The Willmar company is advising that consumers who have the burgers in their freezer to avoid eating them.

“Instead we are asking that consumers return this product to a Sam’s Club store for a full refund,” the company said on its website.

Jennie-O has established an online resource center at www.jennieo.com/recall to provide more information to consumers about the voluntary recall.

Hormel Foods, the parent company of Jennie-O, also operates a toll-free Consumer Response Center at 1-800-621-3505.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service began investigating after the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services reported a case of salmonellosis, which is caused by salmonella bacteria and is usually foodborne.

The investigation then widened to include Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Washington in addition to Wisconsin. Twelve people became sick. According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, three of those who were sickened specifically reported eating Jennie-O turkey burgers before the onset of illness and hospitalization.
All the illnesses occurred between December 2010 and March of this year. The last case was reported on March 14.

Salmonella hadar, the type of bacteria reportedly involved in the outbreak, is most often found among poultry.

The USDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state public health agencies are continuing their investigation. Authorities said that as more information is collected, the recall could widen to include additional turkey products.

The government is advising consumers to use extra caution when preparing raw turkey. To prevent salmonellosis and other foodborne illnesses, people should wash their hands in warm soapy water for at least 20 seconds before and after handling raw meat and poultry. Poultry should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees F.

Symptoms of salmonella poisoning include diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever within six to 72 hours of infection. Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can last up to one week.

Salmonellosis can be especially severe, and possibly life-threatening, to infants, the elderly and individuals with a compromised immune system.

Buttafuoco & Associates
Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Attorneys
Voted BEST LAW FIRM five years in a row!
www.1800NowHurt.com

FDA Investigates DePuy Hip Replacement Devices

The DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System was recalled in August, 2010

The recall came after data from a study indicated that the five year failure rate of this product is approximately 13%, or 1 in 8 patients. Even if the defective device is replaced, it can leave behind dangerous, possibly deadly fragments that may not be discovered for years. DePuy identified reasons for the failure of the hip replacement system as component loosening, component malalignment, infection, fracture of the bone, dislocation, metal sensitivity and pain. Additional complications from the hip replacement system may include increased metal ion levels in the blood, bone staining, necrosis, swelling, nerve damage, tissue damage and/or muscle damage.

When you do have surgery, and have your hip implant replaced, insist that they preserve your hip implant and GIVE it to you.

Tell your surgeon NOT To send it back to the manufacturer. This hip implant can be crucial evidence in a potential compensation lawsuit and could make the difference between you getting fair compensation and getting nothing.

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case contact the experienced Attorneys at Buttafuoco & Associates who can evaluate your DePuy Hip Replacement claim for free and help determine your next best course of action.

Think Tort Reform is a Good Idea? Think again!

This article was written by the managing attorney of my firm in response to an article calling for tort reform printed in The Village Times Herald in March 2005. Though this article is already a few years old, it's still very relevant as those in favor of tort reform (namely physicians and insurance companies) are, as recently as last month, still issuing articles pretending that it is a good idea. I bet the doctors who almost killed actor Dennis Quaid's twins (when they were accidentally given an adult version of particular drug called Heparin at 1,000 times the dosage that was required) think tort reform is a good idea too...

“Round Two of the Bugle Call For Tort Reform” – by Mark. T Freeley

Okay, as one of those “trial lawyers” (which seems to be a dirty word these days), I will jump in the ring again for round two of your bugle call for tort reform. You begin (after apologizing for printing fictional stories” by claiming that the need for tort reform is “undisputable except perhaps by trial lawyers.” I beg to differ. What about our neighbors, friends or family members who sustain serious injuries due to the negligence of others? Does the person who can no longer work to support their family, or the family that has lost a loved one feel “tort reform” (which is simply code words for “loss of your right to seek compensation”) is needed? Should these people just “take it on the chin” so insurance companies and big businesses make even greater profits? Isn’t it in society’s best interest to reasonably compensate people (who are injured at the fault of another) for their loss of enjoyment of life, loss of wages and medical expenses rather than cater to claims by insurance companies that these “frivolous” cases are causing them to lose money? Every time we turn on the radio or TV we hear insurance company ads pleading to insure us. Surely there must be a profit squeezed in somewhere!

You then focus on the $137 million that was awarded (by a jury, not by “trial lawyers” and which will undoubtedly be substantially reduced on appeal* ) for the two year old ventilator-dependent quadriplegic girl paralyzed by a drunken driver who was over-served (16 beers) and whose parents both had to quit their jobs to take care of her. I believe you described these circumstances as an “alteration of that child’s life.” I’m glad the jury determined it was a bit more than an “alteration” and I’m sure they didn’t consider the award a “free lunch.” As for the increase in insurance premiums, punitive damages (which are virtually non-existent in tort litigation) do nothing to raise insurance rates because in most states (New York included) they are not covered by insurance policies and they too are typically greatly reduced on appeal.

On the issue of contingency fees, which you claim trial lawyers “do not share,” you seem to be mixing personal injury claims with class action suits, two entirely different animals. The standard contingency fee in personal injury cases in New York is one-third of the net recovery after expenses. It is even less in medical malpractice actions. Therefore the injured person always gets the lion’s share of every recovery. Going head to head with insurance companies and their lawyers is time consuming, expensive, and the overhead is tremendous. Contingency fees allow people (regardless of income level) access to lawyers and the courts. Imagine if an injured person already unable to work was compelled to pay an attorney an hourly fee up front to take on the insurance companies. How many accident victims would be in a position to do so? They also assure that attorneys accept only meritorious claims because the attorney will only be compensated if he or she is successful. The attorney that brings “frivolous” cases will soon find themselves out of business.

Sure its easy to attack trial lawyers and wave the “tort reform” flag, but the real victims of these attacks are really not us trial lawyers. The true victims will be those of us who may become injured in the future only to find our rights to a full and fair recovery vanished in the name of “tort reform.” I can only hope that when the public realizes this, it will not be too late.

______________________________________________________

*Later the $137 million dollar verdict was overturned, prompting another letter to the editor by Mr. Freeley, dated August 16,2006:

As you may recall early last year the bugle call for tort reform was sounded by your paper and was responded to by many including myself, a confessed “trial lawyer,” in an attempt to set the record straight. Specifically you found the $137 million dollar verdict for the two year old ventilator-dependent quadriplegic girl paralyzed by a drunken driver who was over served (16 beers) at Giants Stadium quite perturbing. Well, this month the Appeals Court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial to take place. As it stands now this girl has collected the whopping sum of $200,000 from the insurance company that insured the drunk driver that struck her, even though she will require $42 million worth of care for the rest of her life. Is it really that disturbing when jurors hold entities accountable for their actions? Is it too much to ask to refrain from serving someone 16 beers? If businesses and their insurance companies are let off the hook because of a fear of increased premiums, doesn’t that just pass the buck to us taxpayers in the end anyway? If there is no insurance to cover the medical costs for this girl, they will in all likelihood be paid by governmental social services programs, which will in turn raise everyone’s taxes. Since insurance companies are in the business of managing risks, shouldn’t they (on behalf of their culpable insureds) pay such costs instead of already strained social programs? I don’t know, maybe we shouldn’t hold anyone accountable anymore and let the insurance companies make even more profit. Its almost unbelievable, but the propaganda sponsored by insurance companies and big businesses has many citizens feeling almost embarrassed to stand up and do the right thing for fear of premium increase retribution. Wow, are they good or what?

Harvard Study Casts Doubt on Claims that the Legal System is Plagued with Frivolous Med Mal Lawsuits

Very often we hear claims that the legal/litigation system is full of frivolous lawsuits, especially frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, that are brought by money hungry uninjured people or people whose injuries were not the result of malpractice. But this is not at all the case according to a recent study done by the Harvard School of Public Health.

The results, in fact, are the opposite of what the tort "deformers" claim, based on results from 1,452 randomly selected, closed medical malpractice files. The reviewers found that 97 percent had indeed suffered harm. In about one-third of these patients, the damage wasn't clearly attributable to negligent medical treatment, a wrong prescription, or a misdiagnosis. Most of those claims were correctly denied compensation, the team reports.

According to the study, 73 percent of plaintiffs whose claims had merit received compensation.

The study also found that just six people had received compensation that were uninjured and 145 had injuries that had not been convincingly linked to medical error. On the other hand, 236 plaintiffs who did suffer an injury from medical error received no compensation. The authors wrote:

One in six claims involved errors and received no payment. The plaintiffs behind such unrequited claims must shoulder the substantial economic and noneconomic burdens that flow from preventable injury. Moreover, failure to pay claims involving error adds to a larger phenomenon of underpayment generated by the vast number of negligent injuries that never surface as claims.

Eighty percent of the claims involved injuries deemed to have caused significant or major disability or death. In only 3% of the claims, no adverse outcomes from medical care were evident.

Since the majority of payments from insurance companies went to people who had been harmed by medical errors and not to people with baseless claims, the authors said that the "moves to combat frivolous litigation will have a limited effect on total costs."

Taking direct aim at politicians and business lobbyists, the authors wrote that:

"The profile of non-error claims we observed does not square with the notion of opportunistic trial lawyers pursuing questionable lawsuits in circumstances in which their chances of winning are reasonable and prospective returns in the event of a win are high. Rather, our findings underscore how difficult it may be for plaintiffs and their attorneys to discern what has happened before the initiation of a claim and the acquisition of knowledge that comes from the investigations, consultation with experts, and sharing of information that litigation triggers. Previous research has described tort litigation as a process in which information is cumulatively acquired."

For more information on this study, you can check out Harvard's School of Public Health and view their article on the following link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press05102006.html

If you or a loved one has been injured due to medical malpractice or negligence by a health care professional, you may be entitled to compensation. Call our law offices at 1-800-Now-Hurt and visit our website at www.1800Nowhurt.com for more information. We help medical malpractice victims rebuild their lives.

Legal Caps on Pain are Wrong

Caps on pain and suffering and the loss of quality of life of victims of medical malpractice are not a legitimate solution to recent insurance-rate increases. Caps only unfairly discriminate against those patients who have been injured the most seriously, or those too young or old to show an economic loss from their injuries. In California, which has such a cap, victims of medical malpractice have had difficulty in retaining attorneys to take their cases, because typically malpractice cases are difficult, time-consuming and expensive to litigate. In New York attorneys in malpractice actions are forced to accept reduced fees because of legislation that has been in effect for many years. By placing such minimal caps on a victim's potential compensation for his or her pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, in addition to the already imposed legal fee cap, the courthouse doors will clearly close for good for many legitimate victims of medical malpractice. This is exactly what the malpractice insurance companies would like to see.

Solving Malpractice Costs

This article is on display in my office. It appeared in Newsday on July 24, 2007. It is entitled "Don't Blame the Victims: Other ways to solve malpractice costs."

Costly medical malpractice insurance is a real problem, particularly on Long Island. Unfortunately the solution most often touted - limits on jury awards - is bogus. The debate over the rise in the cost of premiums has to get beyond demonizing trial lawyers if solutions are to be found.

Nobody likes being sued. And trial lawyers are a tantalizing target for retribution. But its the people they represent - those injured due to medical negligence painstakingly proved in a court of law - who would be the victims of dollar limits on damages for pain and suffering.

There's no magic bullet to miraculously control the cost of malpractice insurance. So debilitated patients shouldn't be singled out to bear the brunt of reform, when there are so many other players in this drama with deeper pockets.

The problem was laid out last week by Newsday reporter Ridgely Ochs. The cost of medical malpractice insurance is on the rise in New York after years of relative stability, and the highest rates in the state are here on Long Island .

With HMOs and insurers playing hardball to keep a lid on costs, doctors are getting squeezed. Some are altering their practices: ob/gyns, for instance, opting to stop delivering babies. That's worrisome and, if unaddressed, could become a problem for patients. But the assertion that all this is being driven by rapacious lawyers is unconvincing.

The size of jury awards has gone up in recent years. But according to the Center for Justice and Democracy, a consumer group that tracks such things, payouts from verdicts and settlements have risen no faster than the rate of inflation in medical costs. And while some doctors have left or altered their practices, many have set up shop on Long Island , driving an overall increase in the number of obstetricians and surgeons, including neurosurgeons, in the area.

Still the cost of insurance is a problem, and there are approaches to slowing the increases that merit consideration. A specialized medical court without juries, for instance, or a no-fault system for claims involving neurologically impaired infants. A crack down targeting the licenses of incompetent or chronically negligent doctors would help. So would still penalties for lawyers who filed frivolous suits.

There are bound to be other, more creative ideas. Unfortunately, they may never be explored if the debate remains fixated on attacking damages awarded to patients for their pain and suffering as the root of all evil.