The Supreme Court in Connecticut ordered a new trial in a medical malpractice case because Dr. Todd Albert, an orthopedic surgeon and expert surgical witness, told the jury that suits of this kind drive up health care costs by forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine. Albert testified that the boy’s surgeon complied with accepted medical standards. Furthermore, Albert stated that malpractice suits are the reason that many doctors in Connecticut cannot receive malpractice insurance. This decision allows a boy and his mother another change to argue before a jury their case.
The boy was forced to endure repeated spinal surgeries and may have future back problems because his surgeon failed to obtain timely X-ray photos prior to his operation to remove a benign, spinal tumor. Additionally, the surgeon burst the tumor during surgery, causing the growth to seed itself elsewhere that could have created debilitating spinal pressure. He had to undergo two corrective operations and his back is now enforced with metal rods. This surgery occurred in 2001 when the boy was 11.
Marj and Samuel Scarberry recently filed a lawsuit against Target in Ohio. However, Target is now asking for the case to be removed to federal court because it believes that the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional limit of $75,000 and because there is a “diversity of citizenship” between it and the plaintiffs.
Marj was shopping in March 2010 when she violently fell on an “unsafe, dangerous and unmaintained walkway floor aisle way.” She claims that Target failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that customers were not in danger of this aisle way, and this caused her injuries, losses and damages. She suffered injuries to her back, head, extremities, “body chemistry,” psyche,” fascia and muscle tissue, along with other internal injuries. Furthermore, she claims that she lost wages and has sustained a diminution in her future earning ability, capacity to care for herself and enjoy a normal life. Her husband, Samuel, is also claiming loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s permanent and lasting injuries.
“Nakaochi Scrape” is the backmeat that shaved off of fish bones and then added to sushi products such as ground yellowfin tuna. After eating sushi rolls that contained this product, two Wisconsin women became severely sick. The restaurant had received the yellowfin tuna from India and it was packaged as safe. However, the prosecution claims that the restaurants may not know they are selling contaminated products as distributors may remove the packaging label before delivering it.
Salmonella leads to fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps within three days and goes away within a week, usually. The two women however sustained infections far more severe, and even required hospital attention. One woman was diagnosed with an ulcerated colon, which she blames on the Nakaochi Scrape that she ate.
Cases of these kind usually fall under product liability laws and thus anyone in the supply chain can be held liable depending on the source of contamination. Scientific evidence proves that the plaintiffs were made sick by a rare type of bacteria called Salmonella Bareilly.