A professional liability insurer has posted this information on fetal monitoring for doctors.

The opening paragraph:  "Initially, the fetal monitor was developed for the intrapartum period to better evaluate the status of the fetus during labor. Earlier identification of pending acidosis and hypoxia would alert the obstetric team, leading to more timely intervention and thus a significant reduction in the incidence of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Though clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, fetal monitoring is now essentially universal."

This is interesting:

The Tennessee Supreme Court has a reversed its previous position and determined that it will permit juries to hear evidence from qualified experts on the reliability of eyewitness identification.  The Court had ruled that such testimony was not admissible in 2000.

Now, in State v. Copeland, the Court has reached a different result.  After reviewing advances in the field over the last few years, the Court said:

"In our view, it is far more likely for the jury to accredit the eyewitness than the expert. If eyewitness identification is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, the jury is its foundation. It is also our view that the test in McDaniel is sufficient to allow the trial court to properly evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification. To the extent that Coley holds otherwise, it is overruled. The essential role of the judge, as the neutral arbiter in the trial, is to govern the admission of the evidence within the rules, permitting only that expert testimony which substantially assists the jury in its consideration of the issue. The McDaniel test provides the trial judge with the necessary guidelines to properly exercise his or her discretion."

Good news for all concerned.  SVMIC, the doctor-owned professional liability insurer, has announced a rate reduction.  You probably won’t read about falling medical liability insurance rates in the newspaper, but you can tell your friends and neighbors that rates are dropping even though the Legislature has not placed caps on damages in medical malpractice cases.

Here are the rate changes, by specialty:

Anesthesiology      – 14.1%
Cardiac Surgery    – 14.1%
Gynecological Surgery      – 14/1%
Family Practice – non-procedural     – 9.3%
Orthopedic Surgery       – 9.3%
Pediatrics          – 9.3%
Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine       – 5.2%
Internal Medicine          + 3.3%
Infectious Disease, Hospitalists        + 3.3%
Gastroenterology       + 5.0%
Interventional Cardiology         + 5.8%
Pathology           +10.0%
Emergency Medicine       +15.0%
Most other specialties        – 4.5%

I have been in mediations the last two days and have two depositions in a very significant case today.  Therefore, I simply do not have time to do a substantive post.

I will take time to say one thing, however.  This is my 1000th post on this blog.  1000 posts in 27 months.   I must say that I have enjoyed every minute of it. 

I hope that this blog has helped you better serve your clients.  I know that writing it has helped me serve our firm’s clients. 

The opening paragraphs of this opinion from the Supreme Court of Missouri sum up the case nicely:

"This case involves a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a tort action. The Eatons contested the motion alleging they did not authorize the figure offered by their dismissed attorney that was accepted by the defendants.

The Eatons originally filed suit for property damage to their home allegedly caused by groundwater made toxic by waste discharged by a nuclear fuel processing operation conducted by the defendants. They refused to sign a proffered agreement on the basis that they never authorized the settlement figure and had dismissed their attorney.

Among the actions taken by the ALI at the meeting in San Francisco this past week was the rejection of the need for the magic words "reasonable degree of medical certainty."

The following language was approved for Section 28(a)  of the Restatement of Torts Third:

"Subject to Subsection (b), the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant’s tortious conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiff’s physical harm."

Georgia’s med mal statute requires that when a complaint is filed the plaintiff must submit a medical authorization.   The statute says that "the authorization shall provide that the attorney representing the defendant is authorized to obtain and disclose protected health information contained in medical records to facilitate the investigation, evaluation, and defense of the claims and allegations set forth in the complaint which pertain to the plaintiff or, where applicable, the plaintiff’s decedent whose treatment is at issue in the complaint. This authorization includes the defendant’s attorney’s right to discuss the care and treatment of the plaintiff or, where applicable, the plaintiff’s decedent with all of the plaintiff’s or decedent’s treating physicians."

On May 14, 1007 in the case of Allen v. Wright, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down this statute as inconsistent with HIPPA.

Read the opinion here.

The Joint Commission on International Patient Safety has a website that it calls "Patient Safety Practices."

Here is the introduction to the site:  "Welcome to Patient Safety Practices, a new online resource for health care professionals and the public. Over 900 links to trusted patient safety websites are provided, with tips, tools and resources for addressing patient safety problems. The problem categories and topics have been culled from the Joint Commission’s Sentinel Event Database."

If you are looking for information on wrong site surgery, you will find links to a large number of sites, including this one from the American College of Surgeons.

Contact Information