Pittsburgh Medical Malpractice Blog

As has been mentioned in prior blogs, if my office was on fire and I had time to grab only one item from my office before leaving, the decision would be easy. I would flee the office with the wooden box full of thank you notes from clients that I have received over the past 20 plus years securely under my right arm. I cherish each and every note but this past holiday season one card caused me to pause for an inordinate amount of time and to this day remains in my mind. The card was from a family I represented following a devastating birth injury to their son. At the time, I was a young lawyer lacking the years of trial skills I have now accumulated and the import of this case was almost overwhelming. The family was truly lost and the helpless little infant was even worse. As the case developed, the defense assembled an impressive array of witnesses opining that the birth injuries were not caused by doctors’ negligent failure to deliver the child in a timely manner, rather, the birth injuries were caused by other non-negligent factors that pre-dated delivery. The “defense” in this case tore at my inner constitution.

I knew the theories advanced by the defendants were wrong, were not supported by fact or science, and were in fact purchased from expensive, well-credentialed experts for the sole purpose of defeating my lawsuit. I knew from my training that I was supposed to leave my emotions out of the case in order to stay focused and provide the most effective representation to my clients. I remembered the teachings of Plato and the Aristotle debate regarding Logos, Pathos, & Ethos. I believed that I was more intelligent than my adversary and knew that I could defeat them on the intellectual playing field. BUT, this case involved a helpless child who I cared deeply about and I just could not separate my emotions. I could not treat the high paid liars with respect. I could not bite my tongue in the face of an intellectual conspiracy designed to rob a family of money needed to take care of a son who was victimized by the very doctors his family trusted. So I came out swinging, motivated by my deep concern, if not love, for this little guy and his parents. My punches were backed by scientific research and superior preparation. I was confident that Vegas odds-makers would not even put a line on this fight because it was a no contest. I soon realized that the law, much like life, is not always fair.

The battle was much closer than it should have been. I had little success in getting the junk science defenses thrown out of the case as they should have been. Many reasons contributed to the lack of success – laws favoring the doctors, unethical experts, and a Judge who was afraid to make a controversial ruling. I caused great damage to the liars who claimed that this boy’s birth injuries were caused by unheard, unseen, unproven events as I knew I would. There was, unfortunately, one aspect of the case where science could not help me – the life expectancy of my client. The dishonest defendants argued that the baby was injured so badly that he would not live past age 7 at best. AND, they found a qualified expert who sold them that opinion. I hired an expert who disagreed and said that with the appropriate care my client could live to a near normal life expectancy. I knew that my client would live a long life, not because of medicine. Because of love. His parents so loved him that I knew he would be safe in their care. The quality of his life was, however, dependent on getting money to support his needs. With no crystal ball available to predict the future there was a risk that a jury would compromise and meet at the middle of both ages. In this circumstance, that would be a tragic result because if my expert was correct then when my client’s life was only half over, he would have no more money for his care. Certainly, he deserved the benefit of the doubt over the negligent doctors.

Before the trial ended, the case settled for admittedly a large amount of money. Enough money to purchase annuities that would provide annual income to purchase the care that my client needed each and every year for my projected near normal life expectancy. As a lawyer, you never take more pride in your efforts than when the fruits of your labor improve forever the life a child. I remain proud to this day. Now, back to that card I mentioned. This year I received a card from this family with a very special picture – a graduation picture of my little friend. Yes, the same friend who the liars and cheats of the world opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, would not live past age seven. Now eighteen and a high school graduate who enjoys life and is a wonderful inspiration to his parents and all those around him. He has, and will continue even after I am long gone, to make the world a better place. My only regret is that I can’t share this picture with the defense “experts” who stated with certainty that he would be dead more than 10 years ago. I honestly wonder how those people sleep at night. I suppose I also regret the fact that similar liars and cheats will appear in the next birth injury claim case I file. The law, much like life, should be more fair to the less fortunate.

Jon Perry, Esquire, of Rosen, Louik & Perry, recently authored this piece for PAJustice News.

Huge Victory for Injured Victims Facing Large ERISA Liens
James McCutchen was seriously injured in an auto accident,requiring medical treatment exceeding $67,000 that was paid by a US Airways employer self-funded-ERISA plan. Because of limited insurance coverage, McCutchen’s recovery was limited to $10,000 from the tortfeasor and $100,000 from underinsured motorist coverage. When US Airways demanded repayment of its entire lien, McCutchen’s attorney refused and sought to negotiate a fair reduction. US Airways refused to negotiate so McCutcheon’s attorney escrowed $41,500 representing the lien less attorney fees.

US Airways sued McCutchen and his attorney in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, which permits an employee benefit plan to seek “appropriate equitable relief.” In the district court, McCutchen and his attorney asserted that the relief sought — recovery of the entire lien without paying any recovery costs — was not “appropriate” for a number reasons, including, (1) that, because of limited insurance coverage, McCutchen had recovered only a minor portion of the true value of his case, and (2) that permitting US Airways to recover its entire lien without paying attorney’s fees was not equitable. Relying upon the strict language of the US Airways’ employee benefit plan, which provided that no recovery costs be paid, and Third Circuit precedent holding that the plan language was controlling, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Airways and ordered McCutchen to repay the entire lien.

On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit reversed. The court first noted that the Third Circuit precedent relied on by the district court was no longer controlling because of intervening United States Supreme Court precedent that clearly held that an employer like US Airways was limited to seeking “appropriate equitable relief” under section 502(a)(3); the Supreme Court also made clear that it was not required to decide what relief was “appropriate.” The Third Circuit noted that the precedent relied on — that the terms of the plan must be enforced as written — did not even mention section 502(a)(3) and for that reason was no longer controlling. Relying further on language of the US Supreme Court, the Third Circuit held that traditional equitable defenses, such as unjust
enrichment and others, had to be considered by the district court in determining what constituted “appropriate” relief and that the plan language was not sacrosanct. The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate relief to which US Airway was entitled.” Plaintiff’s attorney had waived his entire fee in light of the severity of injury and limited coverage.

The published, precedential opinion of US Airways, Inc. v. James E. McCutchen, No.
10-3836 (3rd Cir. November 16, 2011) is available at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

Note: The appeal was argued by Matt Wessler, the Kazan-Budd Attorney at Public Justice. His co-lead counsel were PAJ Sustaining Member Neil R. Rosen, Esquire and PAJ Member Paul Hilko, Esquire. 

This development will greatly help Pennsylvania Auto Accident Attorneys and car crash victims seeking insurance needed insurance settlements.

Despite the stress, time pressures and hustle, the holiday season remains my most favorite time of the year. There truly is a magic to the season as the best in people makes an annual appearance. For me, the holidays are so special because I receive stacks of cards from former clients updating me on the events of the year and thanking me for the difference we made in their lives.

Ironically, some of the cards I receive are from folks that we were not able to help at all. From people whom I had to explain why the tragedy that befell them was not actionable in a court of law. From wonderful families whom I had to regrettably inform that they would have to find a way to deal with their problems with no assistance from anyone. Over time I have learned that the answers and explanations I provided these families were valuable possessions in the struggle to move forward. Piece of mind is, to these people, priceless.

I also treasure the updates from the individuals that I have been able to help. As I tell my clients, all the civil justice system can give you is money and money does not restore anything and money doesn’t make problems go away. Money does, however, make future problems easier to deal with and every year I see these statements turned into reality by those I have been fortunate to represent.

These cards restore the magic of my profession and provide the strength and character needed to face another year of battles. I save every card and go to my secret box to read those cards when the grindstone of the profession has me worn down. On days when I feel like giving up, these cards remind me of the reason I do what I do. These cards and the wonderful folks who send them are my incentive to continue to help as many people as possible.

All of us at Rosen Louik & Perry hope you experience magic this holiday season.

Motorcycle enthusiasts won a big victory in 2003 by having Pennsylvania’s helmet law stricken. But this decision came under scrutiny after the recent accident report of a 53 old, David Robinson. He was travelling on Quarry road and as he approached a curve, his motorcycle crossed the central line and stuck an embankment. As a result, he slid for about 150 feet and his head hit the pavement resulting in a fatal injury. Though no one can say with conviction that he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet, Capt. Tom Roche said that he believes the man may have. He said he appreciates the freedom of riders being given the choice to wear a helmet but notes that incidents such as this could be prevented. Now, a western Pennsylvania lawmaker is trying to restore the law of mandatory wearing of helmets.

The current state law allows the motorcyclist to ride without a helmet if he is more than 21 years old. The rider must also have a license to operate a motorcycle for more than two years or he should have completed a motor cycle safety course approved by PennDOT. The state representative, Dan Frankel who is the lead sponsor of House Bill 945 (restore the law of mandatory wearing of helmets) has reintroduced legislation to restore the helmet law in Harrisburg. For riders under 21 years, the representative introduced a bill to provide for special license plates.

In his support, Frankel reported a study which shows the staggering costs of health care because of the serious injuries as a result of not wearing helmets. The study compared two years pre helmet law (2001 and 2002) and two years post helmet law (2004 and 2005). The head injury deaths were increased by 66% and people hospitalized due to head injury increased by 78%. Thus, the number of injuries increased much more rapidly than did the number of riders on the road. The study also showed an increase of 132% of acute-care hospital charges for motorcycle related head injuries. This doesn’t include rehabilitation costs and long term care.

Motorcycle fatalities have increased from 152 in 2004 to 185 in 2006 and the main injuries that occur due to the accident include Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), spinal cord injury, broken bones and internal bleeding etc. Wearing a helmet will help to reduce the seriousness of TBI and spinal cord injury. A rider injured in a motorcycle accident can claim money for medical expenses and also file a claim for pain and suffering.

State Rep. Frank Farry, R-142, of Langhorne suggested that he would read the bill and analyze the data that shows the amount of head related injures before and after the law and then comment on the action. He feels that it would be a burden to the tax payers if the freedom of wearing helmet results in injuries and fatalities.

“This study shows an incredibly dramatic increase in head injuries and hospitalizations that exceeds the increase in the number of motorcycle riders in Pennsylvania. The implications of this for health care costs are staggering and affect everyone, through tax-funded health care, health insurance premiums and covering uncompensated care," said Frankel

The riders have a different story. About 25 bikers were taking a break from their motorcycle rides at Brian's Harley-Davidson/Buell in Middletown on Saturday. About half of them decided not to wear helmet. Two veterans who have been riding Harleys since the early 1970s suggested that the decision to wear helmet should be left to the rider. One of the riders, Bob Adler also said that wearing a helmet confuses him and he prefers to ride without helmet. He also stated that the main reason for accidents is due to cars and trucks not paying attention to motorcyclists. He added that he maintains distance between himself and cars and so stayed accident free for all the while without wearing a helmet.

With summer now here, more motorcyclists are getting their bikes out and hitting the open road. Combined with the rising gas prices more people are buying motorcycles and the roads are becoming more populated with the 2-wheelers. Unfortunately, there seems to be an underlying prejudice against motorcyclists that many times results in law investigators placing blame on riders without proper examination of the case facts.

Sadly, motorcycle accidents often result in such serious injuries that victims have difficulty managing even day-to-day tasks, are unable to work, and sometimes require long-term care. Because of the bias that motorcyclists are less responsible drivers, personal injury cases involving bikes can be extremely difficult to win.
At Rosen Louik & Perry, P.C. our experienced lawyers will fight to ensure you receive proper compensation for your motorcycle injuries. If you or a member of your family has suffered a serious injury, it is important to recover the resources you will need for medical care and other necessary expenses. We invite you to contact our Pittsburgh office for a free consultation and case review. Our personal injury lawyers will only take your case if they feel it will improve your situation.

Motorcycle enthusiasts won a big victory in 2003 by having Pennsylvania’s helmet law stricken. But this decision came under scrutiny after the recent accident report of a 53 old, David Robinson. He was travelling on Quarry road and as he approached a curve, his motorcycle crossed the central line and stuck an embankment. As a result, he slid for about 150 feet and his head hit the pavement resulting in a fatal injury. Though no one can say with conviction that he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet, Capt. Tom Roche said that he believes the man may have. He said he appreciates the freedom of riders being given the choice to wear a helmet but notes that incidents such as this could be prevented. Now, a western Pennsylvania lawmaker is trying to restore the law of mandatory wearing of helmets.

The current state law allows the motorcyclist to ride without a helmet if he is more than 21 years old. The rider must also have a license to operate a motorcycle for more than two years or he should have completed a motor cycle safety course approved by PennDOT. The state representative, Dan Frankel who is the lead sponsor of House Bill 945 (restore the law of mandatory wearing of helmets) has reintroduced legislation to restore the helmet law in Harrisburg. For riders under 21 years, the representative introduced a bill to provide for special license plates.

In his support, Frankel reported a study which shows the staggering costs of health care because of the serious injuries as a result of not wearing helmets. The study compared two years pre helmet law (2001 and 2002) and two years post helmet law (2004 and 2005). The head injury deaths were increased by 66% and people hospitalized due to head injury increased by 78%. Thus, the number of injuries increased much more rapidly than did the number of riders on the road. The study also showed an increase of 132% of acute-care hospital charges for motorcycle related head injuries. This doesn’t include rehabilitation costs and long term care.

Motorcycle fatalities have increased from 152 in 2004 to 185 in 2006 and the main injuries that occur due to the accident include Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), spinal cord injury, broken bones and internal bleeding etc. Wearing a helmet will help to reduce the seriousness of TBI and spinal cord injury. A rider injured in a motorcycle accident can claim money for medical expenses and also file a claim for pain and suffering.

State Rep. Frank Farry, R-142, of Langhorne suggested that he would read the bill and analyze the data that shows the amount of head related injures before and after the law and then comment on the action. He feels that it would be a burden to the tax payers if the freedom of wearing helmet results in injuries and fatalities.

“This study shows an incredibly dramatic increase in head injuries and hospitalizations that exceeds the increase in the number of motorcycle riders in Pennsylvania. The implications of this for health care costs are staggering and affect everyone, through tax-funded health care, health insurance premiums and covering uncompensated care," said Frankel

The riders have a different story. About 25 bikers were taking a break from their motorcycle rides at Brian's Harley-Davidson/Buell in Middletown on Saturday. About half of them decided not to wear helmet. Two veterans who have been riding Harleys since the early 1970s suggested that the decision to wear helmet should be left to the rider. One of the riders, Bob Adler also said that wearing a helmet confuses him and he prefers to ride without helmet. He also stated that the main reason for accidents is due to cars and trucks not paying attention to motorcyclists. He added that he maintains distance between himself and cars and so stayed accident free for all the while without wearing a helmet.

With summer now here, more motorcyclists are getting their bikes out and hitting the open road. Combined with the rising gas prices more people are buying motorcycles and the roads are becoming more populated with the 2-wheelers. Unfortunately, there seems to be an underlying prejudice against motorcyclists that many times results in law investigators placing blame on riders without proper examination of the case facts.

Sadly, motorcycle accidents often result in such serious injuries that victims have difficulty managing even day-to-day tasks, are unable to work, and sometimes require long-term care. Because of the bias that motorcyclists are less responsible drivers, personal injury cases involving bikes can be extremely difficult to win.
At Rosen Louik & Perry, P.C. our experienced lawyers will fight to ensure you receive proper compensation for your motorcycle injuries. If you or a member of your family has suffered a serious injury, it is important to recover the resources you will need for medical care and other necessary expenses. We invite you to contact our Pittsburgh office for a free consultation and case review. Our personal injury lawyers will only take your case if they feel it will improve your situation.

As we prepare for another Presidential election, barely a day goes by without hearing a mastermind plan to fix the country’s problems from a Presidential hopeful, or long shot. The problems facing our country are too enormous to be easily fixed and the political rhetoric is difficult to tolerate. That being said, it is beyond disturbing that politicians willingly and knowingly distort facts and lie in order to keep their political money flowing. Despite the economic collapse over the past several years, the facts are that the rich have been getting richer while things keep getting worse for the poor, the downtrodden, the unemployed. The folks picketing Wall Street and corporate headquarters do have a legitimate point. Can the middle class ever be restored without meaningful financial and corporate reform? We will probably find out in a few years because corporate America understands the game of public opinion. Corporate America has the insight to fool the American public and the money to peddle their snake oil. The deception of the American public is so outlandish as to be criminal. A simple review of an issue near and dear to our hearts here at Rosen Louik & Perry provides a frightening illustration.

While the stagnant economy continues to hurt those at the bottom of the American workforce, politicians and corporate America are telling the public that the civil justice system needs major reform in order to “save” healthcare. The story begins with false assertions about malpractice insurance premiums driving up the cost of providing medical care and forcing doctors to flee states. The answer: strip citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury of their peers who will determine what verdict, if any, should be given and place government mandated caps in place. Fearing for their own well-being, most Americans accept the rhetoric without fully understanding what they are giving up. More shocking, however, is that these lies are being perpetuated by individuals who are benefitting from the bad economy in an industry that is not suffering!!

Annual compensation totals, compiled by Forbes’ Scott DeCarlo, include salary, bonuses, perks and the value of exercised stock options through September 6, 2011, were recently released. Compensation for the chief executives of America’s biggest companies is way up in 2011, 28 percent higher than last year on average. Those already in the Top 25% saw their compensation nearly double! Cash bonuses are triple what they were before the recession.

Healthcare is particularly interesting. Occupying the top spot as America’s highest paid executive is John Hammergren of McKesson, the largest distributor of both pharmaceuticals and health care I.T. systems. His compensation, only $131 million this year!! Not far behind are George Paz (fifth place at $51.5 million), who runs prescription drug distributor ExpressScripts as well as Stephen Hemsley (eighth place at $48.8) of UnitedHealth Group.

Those in other industries are doing just fine as well: Ralph Lauren $66.7 million — ranking him in second place; Michael Fascitelli of Vornado Realty is third, with compensation of $64.4 million; Bob Iger of Walt Disney at $53.3 million, is in fourth place; Michael Watford of Ultra Petroleum, at $43.7 million. Poor Rex Tillerson, of ExxonMobile didn’t crack the top 25 because he only made $13.9 million.

I am not here to argue that these individuals do not deserve the money they are being paid. How would I know? How would anyone know? What we do know is that in the American system of capitalism, the executives have convinced their companies that they are very valuable. Capitalism is as American as apple pie. Capitalism is a defining feature that sets America apart from many other countries in the world. I am not here to question capitalism. I am here, however, to question why Politicians and corporate America only want to restrain capitalism in areas that might have a slight negative impact on a company’s bottom line. This is wrong. Individual Americans deserve the same hands off government treatment as rich corporate America enjoys. And if a jury of twelve decides that a pharmaceutical company should pay an injured victim $5 million then the verdict should be paid and not reduced because of artificial government caps made into law in exchange for campaign contributions.

Forbes.com slidesshow: America’s 25 highest-paid ceos

On June 28, 2011, Pennsylvania Governor Corbett signed into law the Fair Share Act (“Senate Bill 1131”), which represents a significant shift in tort liability law in Pennsylvania. Under the Fair Share Act, when liability is attributed to more than one defendant, each defendant found to be less than 60% liable is responsible for only its proportionate share of the liability (with certain exceptions noted below). Five defendants found 20% liable would each be responsible for 20% of the verdict regardless of the ability to pay.

Pennsylvania Tort Liability Prior to the Fair Share Act

Prior to the enactment of the Fair Share Act, Pennsylvania followed joint and several liability. This concept meant that multiple defendants could be held jointly or separately liable for 100% of all damages owed to a plaintiff. Under this system, when a plaintiff obtained a judgment against multiple defendants, the plaintiff could require an individual defendant to pay the entire liability as long as the defendant was found to be at least 1% responsible. At first blush, that seems harsh. When you understand shell companies and intricate corporate maneuverings, however, the law makes perfect sense. The conventional wisdom behind joint and several liability was that Defendants would not escape liability through sophisticated and underinsured business maneuvers. Plaintiffs would be paid and a Defendant that paid more than its fair share of the judgment would seek compensation from those defendants who paid less than their portion. The innocent, injured victim would be paid and the business partners could fight their own battles.

Tort Liability Under the Fair Share Act

Under the Fair Share Act, defendants are now required to pay only their proportional share of liability, except in the circumstances listed below. Courts must now enter separate judgments in favor of the plaintiff and against each defendant for their apportioned amount of liability, rather than a single judgment covering all parties. A single defendant may still be required to pay the entire amount of damages under the following circumstances:

1. An action for intentional misrepresentation;
2. An action for an intentional tort;
3. Where the defendant has been held liable for 60% or more of the total liability;
4. An action over the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance;
5. An action concerning a violation of the Liquor Code.

In these situations, the prior law of joint and several liability applies and a single defendant can be forced to pay an amount of damages higher than their proportionate liability and that defendant is entitled to recover compensation from any other defendant who paid less than its fair share.

Additionally, defendants who became nonparties because of a release from the plaintiff may be brought back into the action for purposes of determining their respective share of the liability among all the other defendants.

Business groups such as the Chamber of Congress and insurance companies applauded The Fair Share Act. Governor Corbett publicly and proudly acknowledged that the new law is intended to benefit companies doing business in Pennsylvania because it may limit risk of liability for all damages in cases involving multiple defendants. Of course, there are no statistics or legitimate studies proving his assumptions. More troubling, however, is how the average citizen was misled into believing The Fair Share Act benefited them.

Consider this example of how the law works. Let's assume there are two defendants racing down a highway who collide and critically injure a single working mother of three. Accident investigations clearly conclude that both drivers are each 50 percent at fault. Driver one has state minimum liability insurance of $15,000, Driver two is in a company car carrying $5,000,000 in insurance. The parties all agree that it will take $ 7,000,000 to care for the quadriplegic mother and her children. Under the new “fair” law, the family will receive $15,000 from driver one and $3,500,000 from driver two. Who pays the balance of the $3,500,000? The victim is paralyzed and doesn’t have the ability to pay. Defendant two is protected thanks to Governor Corbett and the Chamber of Commerce.

So who pays? You guessed it. It’s you as a Pennsylvania taxpayer. The new law effectively transfers responsibility from corporate wrongdoers onto the shoulders of the taxpayer. Elected officials stating with a straight face that this law is beneficial to the citizens of Pennsylvania is an insult to the intellect of the populous. This law protects business and insurance companies and no one else.

Consider another example. You consent to have a surgical procedure performed a large regional hospital based, in part, on the fact that you see their commercials and corporate logo everywhere and you are confident in the hospital. You also believe the hospital is far more financially solvent than the small neighborhood hospital and, God forbid, if something bad happens the large hospital has the ability to pay for mistakes made. You have the procedure and things go very wrong in the post-op period. It is determined that the surgeon was 60% to blame and the hospital nurses were 40% to blame. Your damages are well in excess of $20,000,000. Under the new law that was touted as being good for you, you collect the $1,000,000 required insurance from the surgeon, $8,000,000 from the hospital and rely on the public to pick up the $12,000,000 shortfall. You also have the ability to pursue the surgeon personally, garnish his personal assets and force him into bankruptcy. Under this example, not a single individual (plaintiff nor defendant) was helped. The true recipients of the “fairness” of the new law were the large, wealthy regional hospital and its insurance company.

The legal principle behind the old joint and several liability rested upon the premise that defendants were in the best position to pay for the plaintiff’s damages. Now, under the “Fair” Share Act, injury victims may be under-compensated and the taxpayers will be forced to support the injured.

We suggest that Governor Corbett and the Pennsylvania Legislature invest in dictionaries and additional education because they certainly do not know the meaning of “fair.”

Millions of Americans start their day with a cup of coffee and some pay outrageous prices for their morning fix. My law school roommate went through a pound of coffee a week. Being on a tight, student budget, I often indulged as well since there was rarely anything else to drink in the apartment. I drank so much coffee that I honestly lost the attraction to do it.

A similar thing happened in college with mac ‘n cheese but that’s a tale for another day. Add a balance disorder and the doctor’s advice to avoid excessive caffeine and coffee has not been welcome in my life for decades. That said, I never had disdain for coffee nor the folks who drink it. That all changed in 1994 when 70 year old Stella Liebeck suffered serious burns from a hot coffee spill at McDonald’s.

I lost count, years ago, of how many jurors cited the “McDonald’s coffee case” as prime example of why there should be a limit on juror awards. The tales of a jury system gone mad echoed through the halls of every courthouse I have been in since that verdict. I also lost count of the number of times that I have tried to explain the truths behind Stella’s case: that McDonald’s knowingly decided to serve its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees (40 above industry standards and recommendations) because it increased sales, how McDonald’s knew its coffee severely burned multiple people every year, how McDonald’s decided to pay the burn victims instead of serving safer coffee, how all Stella wanted to settle her claim was her medical bills paid and McDonald’s refused (she was hospitalized for 8 days), how the jury awarded Stella one weeks worth of coffee sales to teach McDonald’s a lesson, and how the judge reduced the award.

My goal in these discussions was never to convince my audience anything about Stella’s case. To the contrary, I only wanted them to understand that the 12 people who heard all of evidence made a decision and, as a result, justice was served. One of the founding ideals upon which this country was founded was a trial by jury. Although not perfect, our civil justice system is still the greatest system known to man. Trial by jury is a fundamental right that all citizens should fight to preserve. I am always shocked by the public’s willingness to concede their fundamental rights back to the government. For this, we unquestionably have the media to blame. The media’s sensationalism of Stella’s claim was so irresponsible as to be criminal. The true facts of her case were never made known. And true facts are rarely reported by mainstream media. There is nothing sexy, nothing worth reporting, when a child who was severely injured by a doctor’s incompetence receives a verdict that is capped by tort reform laws. There is nothing sexy, nothing worth reporting when a family who lost their father receives $15,000 because that is all the insurance that the state requires a bad driver to purchase. Instead, the media ceases on large awards, twists the facts and frightens the public into believing that the civil justice system is out of control, that lawyers are to blame for the rising costs of health care and are chasing doctors from the state. None of it is true. To repeat, none of it is true.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time or the money to bring the truth to the millions of Americans who have been hoodwinked and fooled by powerful lobbyist groups advancing their own agendas ahead of the fundamental rights of American citizens. Fortunately, Susan Saladoff, a trial lawyer, took the time to make a difference. Her movie “Hot Coffee” airing on HBO is an insightful look into the David versus Goliath world that an ordinary citizen faces when tragedy strikes and the citizen needs the civil justice system. If you have not seen the movie, you should - if for no other reason, to understand how important the civil justice system will be in the event that you or a loved one is seriously injured by the carelessness of another.

Visit the website at http://hotcoffeethemovie.com

Here is a glimpse of what you will see - Watch Trailer

After watching Hot Coffee, regardless of your previous views, I hope you will understand why I am proud to say that I am a trial lawyer representing victims of preventable tragedies. I won’t ask you to like me – a trial lawyer! No big deal there, I get my rewards from the people I am privileged to help. My hope is that you at least understand me, understand us trial lawyers. Also, I hope you will become an advocate for the civil justice jury system where a jury of your peers hears all of the facts and dispenses justice unfettered by limitations imposed by the government. As Americans we owe it to each other to preserve our fundamental rights free from government intrusion. I certainly hope that views can be changed by a movie instead of by being thrust into a warped system of justice because of a family tragedy only to learn that the government has restricted the system’s ability to help. Trust me, I have met too many clients in my life who said, “If I had only known the truth, I never would have supported the changes.” If the current trends aren’t changed, someday the government’s response may be to ban the sale of coffee. Stranger things have happened.

The legal profession often has negative connotations associated with it, especially in the field of personal injury law. When an individual thinks of a personal injury lawyer, they often conjure images of a man with a briefcase who pounds the hallways of a hospital attempting to secure business from injured patients or a man chasing an ambulance. In reality, these stereotypical images could not be further from the truth. Lawyers, in every field of the legal profession, are held to a high standard of professional ethics and conduct and the court systems go to great lengths to ensure that those standards carry on.  In fact, no other profession has stricter ethical standards than the legal profession. 

A recent article from The Journal Gazette cites that on October 14th, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court amended the professional attorney conduct rules to prevent personal injury lawyers from contacting the victims or families of victims immediately after they have been involved in an accident. With seventy years experience as personal injury attorneys, we highly value the victim’s desire for privacy and recuperation time in order to make informed decisions after an incident.  At Rosen Louik & Perry we have never actively “chased” a case and we never would.  Hiring a lawyer is an important decision and we respect the privacy and decision-making process of potential clients.  As a result, we wait to be contacted by friends or family members and are always ready to provide immediate help once contacted. 

Under the new Indiana rules, solicitation of business by an attorney or law firm cannot occur until a minimum of 30 days has passed after the date of the accident. Essentially, an attorney is forbidden to contact an accident victim in person, through hand written letters, or electronic solicitation. This amendment has been put into place to protect those who are injured or who are grieving the loss of a loved one. The ISBA Special Committee on Lawyer Advertising Rules Committee does admit that, in the past, abuse of victims, during this highly sensitized period, has occurred. Attorneys or law firms who do not adhere to these rules may be charged with professional misconduct. The Indiana State Supreme Court has the final jurisdiction over attorney discipline.

In addition to protect fragile victims of an accident, the Indiana State Supreme Court also hopes that these new rules of conduct will enable the state’s citizens to obtain the required information to make informed choices concerning their legal rights. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is expected that other states will quickly follow suit in adopting similar legislation. In addition to the aforementioned changes, other modifications have been enacted to more closely follow the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  The rules have been devised to modify attorney communication in general, but with particular regards to the manners in which attorneys advertise. Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Shepherd explained the ruling in further detail stating, “Indiana is fortunate the overwhelming majority of attorneys act in a reasonable and honorable manner. These rule changes are designed to ensure that practice continues.”

In some instances, it will be necessary for the victim of an accident, or the family of the victim, to retain legal counsel. By their own admission, most insurance companies attempt to settle injury claims as quickly as possible. Protracted litigation often costs insurance companies money that they are not willing to spend. Most times, the settlement offer of an insurance company will not be adequate enough to cover all of the medical expenses or property damage costs that the victim of an accident incurs, let alone provide adequate compensation for pain and suffering.   Whenever there is any question, the person injured or their family should immediately contact an attorney.  In firms like Rosen Louik & Perry, there is NEVER a fee for consultation.  Under certain conditions, the victim of an accident should always retain legal counsel, such as:

• A dispute over who was at fault in the accident.


• If the victim was seriously injured in the accident. Serious injuries are not always immediately evident in an accident.


• If an individual is involved in an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

Seeking recommendations from friends and family members can  provide an ideal starting point in the search for a personal injury lawyer. Rosen Louik & Perry, P.C. has settled hundreds of personal injury cases and maintains a supreme satisfaction rate and reputation.

The practice of personal injury law requires intricate analysis, ongoing strategic decisions, negotiating skills and many other variables that can directly affect the outcome of a victim’s claim or case. Therefore, it is imperative that an accident victim choose an attorney who has experience on their side. The victim of an accident has only one opportunity to pursue a claim, and it should not be unnecessarily wasted. Although an automobile accident can be both an emotionally and physically devastating time for an individual or the family of a deceased victim, the victim(s) will be able to obtain solace from the fact that provisions have been enacted to protect their rights. Whether in Indiana or another state, the personal injury attorney that the victim selects will be required to adhere to the professional standards as set forth by The American Bar Association and state law

Accidents happen every minute of every day due to reckless drivers, unsafe gun care, medical malpractice, and many other acts of irresponsibility. When a loved one has been lost in a tragedy, the effects can have a devastating impact on the family members surviving the departed.  In addition to grief, families can be forced to deal with economic problems, insurance companies and numerous problems and obstacles that were not foreseen.  Unfortunately, the law of Pennsylvania relating to a death caused by the carelessness of another is equally confusing.  As a result,  many families turn to legal counsel for advice and assistance. At Rosen Louik & Perry, a Pittsburgh Law Firm, we have been helping  families understand the legal and financial options available, and obtain compensation from those accountable.

Although a death may be unintentional, it is still the responsibility of the defendant to provide proper and adequate compensation for the decedent as well as the family survivors.  In Pennsylvania, family members of the departed  and/or a personal representative can file claims against those responsible up to 2 years after the death.  Many people belief that the term “wrongful death” is a special legal cause of action different and distinct from a general negligence, or carelessness, claim.  In fact, it is not.  Under Pennsylvania law, when a person’s life ends as the result of the carelessness of another two legal causes of action are created:  a wrongful death claim and a survival claim.  These claims are brought in one lawsuit.  The purpose of the Wrongful Death Act is to compensate certain enumerated relatives of a deceased for the pecuniary loss suffered by the relatives as a result of the deprivation of the part of the earnings of the deceased and certain other pecuniary benefits  that the relatives would have received from the deceased if he lived.    The Wrongful Death Act provides that the right of action shall exist only for the spouse, children or parents of the deceased.  In order to recover under the Wrongful Death Act the beneficiary must not only have the requisite family relationship to the deceased, but must show that by reason of the wrongful death he suffered the loss of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage.  In a wrongful death action, the recovery is for the damages suffered by the decedent’s beneficiaries and not for the injuries to the decedent.   Therefore, damages under the Wrongful Death Act are determined from the standpoint of the beneficiaries rather than from that of the decedent, and recovery cannot be obtained for injuries suffered solely by the decedent such as the decedent’s pain and suffering.  In addition to damages based on the portion of the decedent’s earning that would have gone for their benefit, the beneficiaries in a wrongful death action may also recover for certain other types of lost benefits, such as a spouse’s loss of the decedent’s services, society and companionship, a parent’s loss of the services of a child, and a minor child’s loss of the guidance and nurture of a deceased parent.

At common law a right of action for personal injuries, regardless of whether suit had been commenced before death, did not survive the death of either the injured person or the wrongdoer.  This situation was remedied by the enactment of a series of statutes, commonly known as the Survival Act.    A survival action is , in effect, the personal injury action that could have been brought by the decedent if he had lived, now brought by the decedent’s personal representative.   As such, this is where pre-death pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures and other claims personal to the decedent are to be compensated.  A survival claim is not a new cause of action, but merely a continuation in the decedent’s personal representative of the right of action that accrued to the decedent under the common law because of the tort.   The damages recovered in a survival action are subject to estate and inheritance taxes and to the claims of creditors.  The damages in a survival action are distributed according to the decedent’s will if he died testate or according to the intestate laws if he died intestate.  By contrast, a wrongful death action belongs to the designated beneficiaries.  The action does not belong to the estate.  Damages are not subject to estate or inheritance taxes or to the claims of creditors and are distributed according to the intestate laws regardless of whether there is a will.

When malicious, grossly negligent, or intentional acts are involved in a wrongful death case, punitive damages may be awarded to the family of the victim as a punishment to the offending party as a means to dissuade similar acts from occurring in the future. These damages are imposed in addition to compensatory damages. Juries have the power to assess punitive damages at whatever amount they deem appropriate for the most part. However, a judge may overrule or decrease the punitive damage compensation if they believe it to be excessive or improper.

Unfortunately, certain state legislatures have placed limits on the amount of money that juries are permitted to award families who have lost a loved one as the result of the carelessness of another.  Limits on compensation for wrongful death suits vary state by state.   In most states, employees have forfeited their right to bring private lawsuits for money damages in exchange for guaranteed medical and reduced wages payments under a workers’ compensation system.

Monetary compensation can never cure the anguish, distress and pain caused by the loss of a family member or loved one.  Monetary verdicts and settlements can help lessen the burden of financial difficulties left by the loss of a family member and guarantee that the family is  cared for in the absence of the victim.

Speaking with an attorney can provide invaluable support and assistance when dealing with a suspected wrongful death.   Rosen Louik and Perry, P.C. has won hundreds of  wrongful death cases thereby providing families with proper compensation for the loss of loved ones.  Families are entitled to know if their loved one’s death was caused by another’s careless act.  Call for a free consultation, 412-281-4200.

When a person visits the doctor’s office or the emergency room of a hospital, they are entitled to receive a certain standard of medical care. Unfortunately, the standard of this “medical care” varies widely from hospital to hospital. In the most extreme incidences, the very hands that are suppose to be helping a patient can ultimately become the cause of their death. Below are examples of why medical malpractice litigation is necessary and ultimately the most effective insurance against insufficient or negligent medical care.

1) Dana Carvey Bypasses Wrong Artery
In 2001, USA Today reported one of the more well known cases of medical malpractice happened to Saturday Night Live alumni, Dana Carvey. Roughly two months after the double bypass operation that was suppose to preserve his life, Mr. Carvey received the news that the surgeon had bypassed one of the wrong arteries. The surgeon, who performed the surgery, stated that it was an honest mistake that occurred due to the unusual positioning of Mr. Carvey’s artery in his heart. Dana Carvey felt quite differently, and subsequently, he filed a $7.5 million lawsuit against the surgeon and the hospital.

2) Doctors Perform Heart Surgery on Wrong Patient
It would be quite easy for most readers to dismiss the aforementioned case as an anomaly. Before disregarding its merits, consider the following two cases. A 67 year old woman, who was given the pseudonym of Joan Morris, was admitted to a teaching hospital to have a cerebral angiography performed. After the procedure was completed, Ms. Morris was returned to a hospital room on a different floor than her original one. Instead of being discharged as planned the next morning, she was whisked away to have an open heart procedure performed. After having been upon the operating table for over an hour, a doctor from a different department called and asked what they were doing with his patient. Once the mistake was realized, the procedure was canceled, and Ms. Morris was returned to her room in stable condition; however, the potential consequences of the extra surgery performed included significantly increased risks of heart attack, stroke, internal bleeding and infections.

3) Surgeon Drills Hole on Wrong Side of Head
In a similar manner, surgeons at the Rhode Island Hospital performed surgery on the wrong side of a patient’s head, for the third time in one calendar year. This particular incident occurred in November of 2007. An 82 year old patient required the operation to stem the flow of bleeding from her brain to her skull. The surgeon immediately started the procedure off incorrectly by drilling a hole on the wrong side of the patient’s skull. This action occurred despite the fact that a CAT scan, performed only moments before, indicated that the bleeding was happening on the left side of the brain. The mistake was caught early on, and the resident surgeon closed the initial hole and proceeded to the correct side of the patient’s head. Although the patient survived the surgery in fair condition, two other similar incidents had occurred within the last year, one of which had resulted in the death of an 86 year old man.

4) Girl Dies from Incompatible Blood Type
While these cases are appalling in and of themselves, an individual would think that most doctors would ensure that these types of mistakes did not occur when children were involved. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true. Take the case of JesicaSantillan for example. CBS News unveiled the story of a seventeen year old girl, who was originally from Mexico, who had been in the United States for three years, seeking medical treatment for a life threatening heart condition. A heart and lung transplant was scheduled to be performed at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, North Carolina. The surgeons who performed the procedure failed to check the compatibility of the donor’s blood type with Jesica’s. A second transplant, meant to rectify the mistake made during the original operation, caused complications to occur, which sent Jesica into a coma. Brain damage and other complications caused her death to occur two weeks later. The hospital stated that human error was to blame for Jesica’s death.

5) Woman Seeks Abortion Only to Birth Premature Baby
Another case, involving a teenager named Sycloria Williams, occurred in Florida, according to sources presented by CNN. Ms. Williams sought to have an abortion, which was to be performed at the A Gyn Diagnostic Center. Rather than having the prescribed abortion, an unlicensed doctor was permitted to give Ms. Williams a medication that caused her to deliver a baby girl, who was extremely pre term. According to the patient, her child was born alive. Although the child died shortly thereafter, it took detectives quite awhile to find her remains. The man who performed the medical procedure was charged with tampering with evidence, practicing medicine without a license, and several other various charges.

6) Fertility Clinic Confuses DNA
In a similar story, with a different twist, a fertility clinic in New York impregnated Nancy Andrews, not with the sperm of her husband, but with the sperm of a complete stranger. Rather than giving birth to a child that resembled both of her parents, Baby Jessica, who was born in October of 2004, had significantly darker skin. Subsequent DNA tests revealed that Baby Jessica’s biological parent was of African descent. Although the Andrews have kept Jessica and are raising her as their own, the couple has filed a medical malpractice suit against the fertility clinic and against the embryologist who reportedly accidentally switched the samples.

7) Doctors Ignore Patient Symptoms Resulting in Death
Although these mistakes are horrific enough, there are instances where a patient is unable to even be seen by a doctor before succumbing to their illnesses. One of the most well known cases is that of Esmin Green. Ms. Green visited the emergency room of Kings County Hospital, located in Brooklyn, New York. On that day in June of 2008, Ms. Green waited almost twenty four hours to be attended to by a physician. Eventually, she collapsed on the floor of the emergency room. Others patients in the emergency room reported that employees of the hospital watched the patient lashing about on the floor, but they did nothing to intervene or alleviate the patient’s distress. Subsequently, Ms. Green died on the floor of the emergency room.

8) Man Remains Conscious During Exploratory Surgery
It would seem to be a horrific storyline from a medical drama on television. In the script, a patient awakens during surgery, but is unable to communicate to the surgeons or nurses that he or she is awake and can feel every ounce of pain during the surgery. This situation actually occurred to Sherman Sizemore, a 73 year old Baptist minister from West Virginia. The surgery was originally supposed to explore the cause of the man’s continual abdominal pain. During the surgery, Mr. Sizemore experienced a rare condition known as anesthetic awareness. Essentially, he was able to feel all of the pain, discomfort, and pressure during the surgery. The anesthesiologists present during the surgery did not give Mr. Sizemore the general anesthetic that would have rendered him unconscious until 16 minutes after the surgery began. Family members contend that the trauma of the experience led the minister to kill himself two weeks after the surgery.

9) Surgeons Forget Their Tools Inside Patient
Donald Church, 49, was lucky enough to have had the anesthesia correctly administered during his June 2000 surgery at Washington Medical Center in 2000. The surgery was intended to have removed a tumor located in his abdomen. The tumor was removed. In its stead was left another souvenir, a 13 inch long metal retractor. Doctors at the hospital admitted to accidentally leaving the retractor inside of Mr. Church. It was not the first time that such an “accident” had occurred in the hospital. Four other documented incidences had happened at the hospital between the years of 1997 and 2000. The retractor was removed shortly after its discovery, and Mr. Church did not suffer any long term health effects from the mistake. A settlement was reached between the two parties for the amount of $97,000.

10) Wrong Leg Amputated
In the aforementioned case, Mr. Church was fortunate enough to avoid any long term medical consequences for the surgeons’ mistakes. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for a separate case involving Mr. Willie King. In 1995, the 52 year old Mr. King was admitted to University Community Hospital in Tampa, Florida to have his leg amputated. During the procedure, the wrong leg was amputated. By the time the surgeons realized their mistake, it was too late to reverse the damage caused, and the leg had to be removed. The attending surgeon was fined $10,000, and his medical license was revoked for six months. The hospital paid Mr. King $900,000, and the surgeon personally paid him another $250,000. The hospital admitted that a chain of errors culminated in the wrong leg being prepped for the surgery.

11) Functioning Kidney Removed
Mr. Church’s case is not an isolated one. Surgeons at the Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, removed the wrong kidney in a patient during surgery. The patient was to have one kidney removed, because it was believed that the kidney had a tumor, which was thought to be cancerous. The discovery of the horrific mistake was uncovered when the pathologist on call at the hospital examined the removed kidney and discovered no evidence of cancer. Fortunately for the patient, the suspect kidney remained intact and functioning. Per the family’s request, no more details were released about the incident.

12) Testicular Cancer Risk Treatment Gone Wrong
In another case involving similar mistakes, Mr. Benjamin Houghton suffered the loss of his one healthy testicle. The forty seven year old patient was a veteran of the Air Force, who had been complaining of pain and shrinkage in his left testicle. Due to concerns about the risk of cancer, the decision was made for surgeons at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center to remove the diseased testicle. During the procedure, the healthy, right testicle was removed by accident. Later, it was revealed that a chain of errors, from errors on the patient consent form to failure on the part of the medical staff to properly mark the correct surgical site, resulted in the accident. Mr. Houghton and his wife, consequently, filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the hospital and the surgeons involved.

13) Man on Life Support Dies from Ingestion of Ketchup Packets
Even when a patient has had their medical procedures performed correctly and has received adequate medical care, medical malpractice can still occur. A prime example of this danger is the case of a 36 year old man, from Arizona, who received a traumatic brain injury. His devoted wife kept him on life support when the doctors told her his case was hopeless, and he eventually recovered consciousness and was able to speak again. Every week, on her days off, she brought him home with her. On one of the days she was to bring him home, she received a call from her husband’s assisted living facility that he was vomiting. Shortly upon arriving home, her husband died in her arms. At his autopsy, a number of foreign objects were found in his stomach and his bowels, from unopened ketchup packets to plastic bags to paper towels. These items were determined to be one of the contributing causes to his death, and in a subsequent lawsuit, the jury returned an $11 million verdict against the assisted living facility.

All of these stories are horrific enough themselves; however, they also highlight the imperative need for patients to be vigilant about their healthcare. Furthermore, when it is appropriate, surviving patients or the families of deceased patients need to seek justice where it is due. Rosen Louik & Perry, P.C. has dealt with thousands of medical malpractice cases and helped countless clients receive reparations they deserve.

Months after a government task force rocked the medical community by changing guidelines for mammogram screening, the American Cancer Society (“ACS”) sent a similar shockwave to men. The ACS is urging doctors to make clearer to men that the test used to screen for prostate cancer (a blood test known to most as the “PSA” test) has limits and may lead to unnecessary treatments that do more harm than good.

In fairness to the ACS, it has not recommended routine PSA screening for most men since the mid-1990s. As a result, different doctors have employed different philosophical approaches to the issue of prostate cancer screening. Annually, millions of men elect to have their blood tested for the level of the prostate specific antigen. This latest position from the ACS, however, urges physicians to warn of the limitations of the PSA blood test. The ACS also offers that the digital rectal exam that has been standardly employed for as long as anyone can remember should be an option rather than part of a standard screening. Why the sudden change?

American men have long been urged to have prostate cancer screenings, but over time studies have suggested that most cancers found are so slow-growing that most men could have avoided treatment. A phrase that holds a lot of truth is that most men will die with prostate cancer not from prostate cancer. The consequences of treatment can be severe, incontinence or impotence. With the benefit of long-term data, many believe that changes are required.

The ACS is perhaps the most influential group in giving screening advice. Its new guidance on prostate cancer urges doctors to:

_Discuss the pros and cons of testing with their patients, including giving them written information or videos that discuss the likelihood of false test results and the side effects of treatment.

_Use past PSA readings to determine how often follow-up tests are needed and to guide conversations about treatment.

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in American men. An estimated 192,000 new cases and 27,000 deaths from it occurred last year in the United States.

But prostate cancer is a slow-growing cancer in many cases, and depending on a man's age, he may be more likely to die of something else. Major studies have suggested routine screening doesn't save lives and often leads to worry and unnecessary treatment.

The new cancer society recommendations could change how routine physical exams for many older men are conducted. About 41 percent of men 50 and older get annual prostate cancer screenings. Even though the cancer society doesn't recommend routine PSA tests, many doctors do it without even asking their patients. And there's little conversation about it unless the test gives a worrisome result. The new guidelines may spur doctors to talk to their patients earlier about the pros and cons of getting the test in the first place.

Prostate cancer screening became a medical mantra in the 1990s, thanks to the development of the PSA test. Some celebrities became advocates for routine testing, including former New York City Mayor Rudy.
But concerns about the value of routine screening increased after two large studies concluded screening for prostate cancer doesn't necessarily save lives, and noted any benefits can come at a high price.

The American Urological Association - a longtime proponent of regular screening – has backed off its call for annual tests after age 50. The group said men should be offered a baseline PSA test at age 40, with follow-ups at intervals based on each man's situation.

The group also has stood by the rectal exam as a standard part of screening, saying it can find cancer that the blood test does not.

The cancer society has been more cautious about regular screenings for some time. The organization last issued guidelines in 2001, which said merely that doctors should offer screening and discuss the risks and benefits.
The new guidelines back away even more, dropping the sentence that doctors should offer prostate screening. Instead, the society says some evidence indicates periodic screening can save lives but that there are significant uncertainties about the overall value of finding prostate cancer early. Screening should not take place, the new advice says, unless a patient is fully informed of the trade-offs.

Men at average risk should get detailed information around age 50, the society recommends. Men at higher risk, including African-Americans and men with a father or brother who had prostate cancer before age 65, should get the information beginning at age 45. Men with more than one close relative with prostate cancer before 65 should get such information at age 40.

For men who want to be screened regularly, the new guidelines recommend every other year if the PSA reading is less than 2.5, a measure of prostate specific antigen per milligram of blood. Annual tests are recommended for 2.5 or higher and a 4 suggests consideration of a biopsy.

This is a difficult issue with no clear conclusion to be drawn. Individual doctors will react to these recent guideline changes in different ways. Similarly, individual patients may react to the guideline changes and recent study results in different ways as well. For now, men should know there is a controversy here and discuss the controversy with their doctor. For what it is worth, the lawyers at Rosen Louik & Perry have handled numerous cases and obtained impressive verdicts and settlements in situations where prostate screening and treatment were provided at an unacceptable level. If you believe that you or a loved one may have received inadequate medical care, please call for a free consultation.