Philadelphia Personal Injury Attorney Blog | Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis LLP

New York Governor David Paterson announced a freeze on medical malpractice insurance rates for a year, heading off the surcharge for OB/GYNs that had been feared to exacerbate the obstetrics crisis in New York. The freeze was a bill passed by the NY legislature, and signed by the governor last week.

The hope is that the stopgap measure will allow the state to find a comprehensive solution to the problem by targeting bad doctors who are responsible for the majority of medical errors, and prevent profit-taking by the insurance companies. The overall goal, they say, is to reduce the incidence of medical malpractice and increase patient safety.

If you have been hurt as a result of medical malpractice, contact the experienced medical malpractice lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.

According to a new study by the Agency for Heathcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, preventable surgical errors cost $1.5 billion per year, as much as 30 percent more than previous estimates. The study was based on insurance claims filed as a result of surgical errors, and therefore is based on what insurance companies actually paid as a result of the complications.

The most expensive errors were acute respiratory failures, which cost insurance companies an average of $28,218, or 52 percent, more than successful surgeries without complications. Post-operative infections, one of the most easily avoidable post-surgical complications, cost nearly as much, at an average of $19,480 (48 percent). Other noteworthy costs related to surgical errors included

Nursing care associated with errors $12,196 (33 %)

Metabolic difficulties, such as kidney failure or erratic blood sugar $11,797 (32 %)

Blood clots & other vasculo-pulmonary problems $7,838 (25 %)

Wound opening $1,426 (6 %)

Technical problems like accidental laceration $646 (3 %)

Of course, these are costs at the discounted rates offered to insurance companies. Uninsured patients could pay twice as much or more for a preventable surgical error. The study concluded that preventable surgical errors are responsible for 2 % of all medical expenditures.

And this is just the monetary costs associated with surgical errors. The study also concluded that as many as 11 percent of all deaths within 90 days of surgery were the result of preventable surgical errors.

If you have suffered additional costs or even lost a loved one as a result of a preventable surgical error, contact an experienced medical malpractice lawyer at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

The father of a woman who died as a result of nursing home negligence has filed a lawsuit against Milwaukee-based Extendicare Homes, Inc, claiming that the company cheated thousands of residents out of promised care. The lawsuit seeks class-action status for all residents at Extendicare nursing homes in the state of Washington since 2004.

The man's daughter, a woman aged 49, was in one of the company's homes recovering from a stroke. After less than 24 hours in the hospital, she died when her tracheal tube clogged with mucus, causing oxygen starvation and brain death. The suit says she had been left alone for hours, and was insufficiently monitored.

The potential class action suit alleges that Extendicare was essentially running a fraudulent operation, promising care that it had no intention of providing. The 15 homes were cited for a total of 278 deficiencies in care in 2007, an average of almost 19 per home.

The lawsuit is an attempt to strike at the heart of corporatized elder care. As long as nursing home operators can count their profits from all residents, and their losses only from individuals whose families are able to successfully prove deficient care, it is possible for them to grind out their profit using an inhuman calculus of acceptable loss, but if lawsuits force companies to pay for the deficient care they provide to all residents, such an equation becomes impossible.

If you have lost a loved one as a result of deficient nursing home care, contact an experienced nursing home lawyer at Pomerantz, Perlbgerger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

A 12-year-old boy from Altoona, Pennsylvania was found by a jury to be 50 % responsible for an injury he suffered when a concrete barrier in a church parking lot fell on him eight years ago. A Blair County, Pennsylvania jury found that although the church was negligent in maintaining the wall, the boy was old enough to know that the wall was dangerous and therefore was partly responsible for the accident. They awarded a finding of $253,093 in the premises liability suit, including $103,093 for medical expenses, $100,000 for pain and suffering, and $50,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. However, because the boy was found 50 % responsible, comparative negligence law means that the boy will only collect 126,546.50

Despite testimony that the lot had been used for decades by kids as a play area because of the lack of actual playgrounds in the downtown Altoona area, the church pastor testified that he was not aware that kids were using the parking lot as a play area. And because witnesses said they saw the kids rocking the wall before it fell, the boy was held responsible for the fall. One does not envy the jury that has to make a decision in a lawsuit between a permanently crippled child and a church. Perhaps the 50-50 liability split was their best compromise, but the boy will never walk right again.

If you have been injured as a result of negligent property maintenance, contact the experienced premises liability lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

Former osteopathic surgeon John A. King has become infamous in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the rest of the region for the sheer number of medical malpractice lawsuits that have been filed against him. With 122 medical malpractice suits filed against him resulting from only 8 months in practice at Putnam General Hospital in Winfield, West Virginia. He has previously made the claim that he was a victim of retaliation by doctors who were involved in health care fraud. Now he has filed a lawsuit against his former hospital and its former owner, the Hospital Corporation of America, whose name alone sends chills down the spine of a person concerned about corporate medicine.

King, whose victims have nearly all reached settlements, claims that the hospital paid bonuses to surgeons who processed patients more quickly. If true, this would show one way in which a corporate administration sacrifices quality of care for profits.

Even if King's claims are not true, and his credibility is certainly very low, his case highlights how poor is the oversight at many hospitals. With 122 claims as a result of 8 months of practice, he was generating a malpractice claim four days a week. Some of the cases are chilling, too, cases of unnecessary amputations, operations on non-existent bone fractures, inappropriate use of medical equipment, even so-called secret human experiments. With this level of malpractice, you cannot help but wonder where was the administration? How was this allowed to go on for so long?

If you have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, chances are the doctor is not the only one at fault. At Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP, we can make all of those responsible pay for their part in your tragedy. Contact our experienced medical malpractice lawyers today for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.

It is a definite eye-opener for people who believe that tort reform will not deny average citizens access to courts: a licensed physician whose lawsuit was dismissed because he didn't file a "certificate of merit" signed by a licensed physician.

The lawsuit was filed in West Virginia, where it fell under the authority of the state's 2003 law, the Medical and Professional Liability Act (MPLA), and it involved one doctor, a family physician, who went to another doctor, a urologist, for treatment of kidney stones. The lawsuit alleges that the treating doctor's errors led the doctor being treated to develop Peyronie's Disease and renal failure. So the family physician sued the urologist for medical malpractice as well as slander, fraud, and battery.

The problem is not only that the MPLA disqualifies a physician from making judgments about what constitutes a meritorious lawsuit. While one might argue that a general practitioner is not qualified to make pronouncements relevant to a specialized field of medicine, I would contend that a GPs assertion should be sufficient to at least get a lawsuit into court, where the final merit of the suit would be evaluated. Of course, a physician might be disallowed from signing his own certificate of merit, but still be allowed to file a certificate signed by another GP.

The second problem with the MPLA becomes clear when you see that the family physician went to a dozen urologists to get a certificate of merit, and only two of them were willing to sign the certificate, and they each wanted $40,000 to perform the service. This level of pre-trial payment is completely out of the reach of many people attempting to file a lawsuit. And can we assume that the doctor's difficulty was because his suit really did lack merit, and only unscrupulous doctors would sign for cash? There are many reasons why urologists might have been reluctant to sign the certificate, including professional ties to the doctor in question, but if unscrupulous doctors will sign any certificate for money, the MPLA only serves to deny access for people without money, the very people most in need when they suffer as a result of a medical malpractice injury.

Of course, the family physician's real mistake was trying to file the lawsuit without an experienced medical malpractice lawyer. It was not until his first suit was dismissed that he decided to engage a lawyer.

Don't make that mistake. If you are trying to file a medical malpractice lawsuit, you need a medical malpractice lawyer. Contact Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

According to studies, gasoline prices are having a positive effect on traffic fatalities. As we talked about before, several studies have predicted that high gas prices would lead to a decline in auto accident fatalities. Now, preliminary figures are showing that not only are traffic accidents in decline, but they may reach their lowest level since 1961.

Traffic fatalities in 1961, when gasoline was $0.31 per gallon, were just over 36,200. Since then, traffic fatality rates have risen, and peaked at 55,600 in 1972. After years of steady decline, the number hovered just above 42,000 per year. Then last year it dropped to 41,059, and this year, the number of fatalities dropped sharply, 22 % in March, and 18 % in April. If the trend continues, fatalities will be less than 37,000 this year for the first time since 1961.

The changes, also as predicted, are not uniform across age groups. Teenagers and the elderly, who are the most likely to die in traffic accidents, are adversely affected by gasoline prices and tend to change their behaviors first.

Even if the numbers have declined, they are still too many, especially if that number includes someone you loved. If someone you love has suffered wrongful death as a result of an auto accident, contact the experienced auto accident lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

Last week, a 50-year old man who suffers from dementia, pled not guilty of beating his nursing home roommate to death with a clock radio. Witnesses report seeing him standing outside his room with blood on his shoes and hands.

The roommate was a 77-year-old victim of Alzheimer's disease. Coroners report his injuries were consistent with being struck on the head with a clock radio. His family has filed a suit alleging nursing home negligence on the part of the All Faith Pavilion for pairing the two men together in a room.

According to officials, the nursing home has a history of public health violations, including at least two prior wrongful deaths linked to neglect. Although the roommate may have wielded the weapon, it is a sure thing that the nursing home is responsible for the elder man's death. When you put your loved one in a nursing home, you must be careful to learn as much as possible about his or her roommates, because in many cases the staff doesn't consider the possible ramifications of such placements.

If you have lost a loved one as a result of nursing home negligence, contact an experienced nursing home negligence lawyer at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that three employees of a nursing home had been wrongly convicted of nursing home patient abuse. The appeals court ruled that because the dead cannot be classified as patients, the three employees could not be found guilty of the crime of patient abuse. The Attorney General had filed misdemeanor charges of patient abuse against the three employees who had already been fired from their jobs following the incident. The Attorney General's rationale was that the corpse was still under the care of the nursing home and therefore should have been treated responsibly. The judges ruled that the actions of the employees--including posing for pictures with the corpse and asking the woman to wake up--may have been "reprehensible and disrespectful," but were not criminal, since Michigan has no statute against corpse abuse.

Of course, the treatment of the corpse is a window into the employees' attitudes, and it does make one wonder about the incidence of nursing home neglect at the home.

In Pennsylvania, however, there is a statute against corpse abuse. Pennsylvania statute 5510 states that "Except as authorized by law, a person who treats a corpse in a way that he knows would outrage ordinary family sensibilities commits a misdemeanor of the second degree." If you believe the remains of your loved one were not treated in a respectful manner at the nursing home, you may be able to receive compensation.

If your loved one has suffered as a result of nursing home abuse or neglect at a Pennsylvania nursing home, even after he or she has passed on, contact the experienced nursing home abuse lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation and case evaluation.

One of the common accusations leveled at the tort system is that it causes doctors to practice so-called "defensive medicine," ordering numerous tests and procedures to protect themselves against medical malpractice lawsuits. Supposedly extra tests run by doctors cost us $124 billion a year, and they run these tests only to protect themselves from accusations of medical malpractice. Perhaps this is the case in New York City, where medical malpractice insurers are asking a premium of $50,000 per medical malpractice insurance policy for obstetricians, forcing many obstetricians out of practice. One central Bronx hospital has even stopped delivering babies.

Perhaps defensive medicine is the reason why cesarean-section rates are skyrocketing all around the country. From 2000 to 2006, c-section rates rose 41 % to 31 % of all births. This must be because doctors are afraid of medical malpractice lawsuits and are taking extra precautions to avoid causing birth injuries like cerebral palsy or fetal death, right?

Wrong. Actually cesarean births are significantly more dangerous than natural vaginal births. The definitive study of complications related to different birth methods, known as the Towner study, based on the records of 583,340 live born singleton infants born to first-time mothers, found that the rates for almost every form of birth complication were increased following c-section birth as compared to vaginal birth. In fact, the rate of neonatal death, death of the infant between delivery and discharge, was four times higher for c-section births than for vaginal births. If this is true, it seems that the rise in medical malpractice insurance rates may be due to the increase in c-section births rather than the other way around.

So why are c-section rates rising so dramatically? There are a number of reasons. Doctors might think they are practicing defensive medicine. This seems increasingly unlikely, unless doctors are obstinately ignorant of recent studies.

Doctors may also be performing more c-sections for their own convenience. Instead of having to get out of bed at night to deliver babies, the babies can be delivered during normal business hours.

Another possibility is that doctors and hospitals love c-section deliveries because they are profitable. Studies have shown that c-section deliveries cost 76 - 100 % more than vaginal births, and that is just in immediate costs. Women who had c-section deliveries were twice as likely to be rehospitalized in the first month after delivery than mothers who delivered their babies vaginally.

Is it cynical to suggest that doctors and hospitals see increased c-section rates as a way to increase revenues? Perhaps. But since they're obviously not being done to protect women and children, it remains a possibility. And the case of c-sections casts doubt on the entire "defensive medicine" hypothesis.

Whatever the reason, the increase in c-section rates is most likely hurting women and babies. If either you or your infant were injured by an over-intervention during the birthing process, contact the experienced medical malpractice attorneys at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

Many people enjoy that telecommuting allows them to perform their work from home. People who do all their work on the computer, often think they ought to be allowed to work from home. This may be true for those who are programmers or writers or designers, but what about radiologists?

Modern digital x-rays have the advantage not only that they expose patients to less dangerous radiation, but that they can be stored, transmitted, and reviewed more easily than traditional x-ray films. However, in at least one case, the use of digital x-rays and remote workstations has led to a medical malpractice claim.

A 72-year-old woman who tripped over her comforter and hit her head went to the emergency room when the bump swelled excessively. The mother and her daughter waited for hours in the emergency room for help. Meanwhile, the woman's x-rays were sent to a radiologist working from home, using a laptop with a 12-inch screen, who said that there was apparently nothing wrong on the x-ray. The woman was then sent back home, where she lost consciousness and died within hours from bleeding on her brain.

The radiologist claims that he would have seen what appears to be a small bleed on the woman's brain if he had been looking at the x-ray at the hospital. But, because he was working at home, he missed it and a woman died.

The trend toward outsourcing radiology to independent operators is increasing. Some hospitals use it to ensure a radiologist is available at all times, while others depend on remote radiologists to review all their scan reports. The combination between increasing demand for radiologists and a decline in their numbers has led to a shortage of radiologists that has increased reliance on remote specialists. Unfortunately, this may also lead to an increased number of medical errors that lead to wrongful death.

If you have lost a loved one as a result of a remote radiologist's error, contact the experienced medical malpractice lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

A Virginia woman has been indicted on charges that she confronted her doctor and his wife with a gun. She blamed the doctor for the birth injury suffered by her 1-year old son, who was born with cerebral palsy. She claims that the boy was born with cerebral palsy because she was forced to wait an hour and a half for her emergency delivery. The woman drove to the doctor's home, rang the doorbell, then walked in with gun drawn when the doctor's 11-year old daughter answered the door. Inside, she put the gun to her head and threatened to kill herself. However, she wanted the doctor to feel what she described as "fear" and "hopelessness" as they waited the same amount of time she waited for the delivery. While the couple waited, however, the daughter secretly made her way to the neighbor's house and called the police, who convinced the woman to put the gun down and took her into custody.

Although it sounds like it, this is not the action of a madwoman. The mother is a George Mason University professor and a midwife who has delivered more than 1,000 babies. She knew that for a baby's health, an emergency Caesarean section should be no longer than 30 minutes "from decision to incision," but this only made her feel more powerless as she waited, knowing her child was in danger. At least she had the consolation that she had a birthing contract with the doctor that would guarantee lifetime benefits for her child if he suffered from an injury due to a lack of oxygen at the time of birth. But when she learned that the doctor was not making the payments to the fund that guaranteed benefits, meaning her son was ineligible even though he had suffered injury, she had no recourse but to file a lawsuit. As the lawsuit dragged on, and a judge ordered that several of the counts against the doctor be dismissed, the woman felt the system had failed her. She had devoted her life to serving patients, but found in the end that not even those close to her held the same ideals.

Medicine is supposed to be a higher calling, but not everyone honors that call. If you have been hurt as a result of medical malpractice, you cannot count on the doctor to give you just compensation for your suffering. Contact the experienced medical malpractice attorneys at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

I wrote earlier today about nursing home abuse as a corporate crime motivated by greed. A clear-cut example of the kind of greed that motivates many nursing home owners is given by the three Texas men who have received prison sentences ranging from four to ten years in prison for a nursing home scam to cheat the government of $34 million in taxes.

The three men controlled about 40 nursing homes in Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Virginia, and Oklahoma, licensed for about 6000 residents and appearing to employ 4500 employees, although the actual number of residents and employees is not available. The men took the employees withholding taxes and placed them into 150 sham staffing and payroll "entities" designed to launder the money.

Stephen Michael Ewing, represented as the ringleader of the case, was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay $11.6 million in restitution that will go into the Medicaid and Medicare fund. Gary R. Trebert was given a reduced sentence of six years for turning states' evidence against Ewing, and ordered to pay $ 11.6 million in restitution. Larry Gordon May was also given a reduced sentence of four years, but was apparently not required to pay restitution.

But is this merely a monetary crime? No, because while the conspirators were absorbed in laundering their money, they were not monitoring care at their facilities. At least one resident died in the "care" of one of the nursing homes run by the conspirators. The wrongful death lawsuit against the company concluded last week, with a verdict for $2.1 million in favor of the relatives. Although 79, the resident was relatively healthy when she entered the nursing home for physical therapy. Within a month, she was dead from kidney failure after being prescribed three times the recommended dose of a painkiller and suffering from an untreated urinary tract infection. The doctor who had written the prescription had previously been restricted from prescribing drugs because he over-prescribed them, but had been hired as medical director at the nursing home anyway. The urinary tract infection went untreated because of a broken fax machine that the staff neglected to fix and therefore did not receive important medical information.

If you have lost a loved one as a result of nursing home abuse or neglect, chances are your tragedy was allowed to happen for someone else's profit. Do not let them keep their ill-gotten gains. Warn others of the dangerous conditions at the facility. Contact an experienced nursing home neglect attorney at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free consultation.

This week, John Riems, a 22-year veteran nurse who worked as a nursing home supervisor, was served with more charges of rape and "felonious sexual penetration." Police say the man may have worked in as many as 10 nursing homes in three Ohio counties, and, according to his confession, may have abused as many as 100 residents. His victims were generally disabled and unable to defend themselves.

What makes these crimes even worse is that they do not occur in a vacuum. Instead, while Riems was abusing residents, he had coworkers and supervisors who should have known and many of them probably did. Coworkers who have come forward have described him as physically and verbally abusive to residents and coworkers. Some said they went to management with complaints about evidence of abuse and neglect at the nursing home where Riems had been promoted to nighttime supervisor, but management was "sweeping stuff under the carpet."

Nursing home abuse and neglect is a corporate crime. In addition to the individual criminals, there is a support structure of facilitators, often managers and executives who are happy to turn a blind eye to abuse or neglect, as long as costs are kept low and profits high. If your loved one has suffered abuse or neglect in a nursing home, it is unlikely that only the perpetrator is to blame.

If you or a loved one has suffered as a result of nursing home abuse or neglect, it is important to target the revenue stream that motivates executives to turn a blind eye to the conditions at their facilities. To stop nursing home abuse, abusive nursing homes must become unprofitable. Contact an experienced nursing home injury attorney at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP, to make sure everyone responsible is made to suffer for what they have done to you.

When a man came back to the town where he grew up to see his mother, aged 85, for the first time in several years, he found her in an awful state. Weighing over 200 pounds, the weight was heavy on the frame of the former nurse and department store model, and it combined with ulcers on her legs and bodily swelling to keep her from managing stairs or even get out of bed. Concerned for her health, he checked her into a hospital.

With all her children living out of town, the woman, who feared hospitals and refused to move into a nursing home, had withdrawn from all activities, and survived on the charity of her neighbors, who cooked meals and brought them to her. Her son thought he was doing the right thing by checking her into a hospital for care of her condition. Three days later on September 13, she was dead. According to the coroner's original report, she died of a traumatic brain injury that led to bleeding in the brain, an injury she received at home on September 10. Now the coroner has changed the date the injury was received to September 12, when she was in Euclid hospital.

She had fallen on the 10th, but as part of her admission to the hospital, she was given a CAT scan, which showed no injuries. However, when she died her body was scraped and bruised, on her lips, face, chest, upper arms, and elsewhere, in addition to the blunt trauma to the head. But her hospital record shows mention of a fall or other injury. The question is how could a patient who, according to a statement by the hospital, "was being carefully monitored because she was on a blood thinner," possibly sustain an injury of this magnitude without anyone knowing? At the best, this is medical negligence. At the worst, the woman may have been the victim of an attack by hospital personnel.

If one of your relatives has suffered wrongful death after being left in the care of a hospital, contact an experienced wrongful death attorney at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

In this blog we have often discussed that it is not medical malpractice lawsuits that are driving doctors out of practice in some states, but, rather, it is the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance which drives doctors out of practice. For example, the obstetrics crisis in neighboring New York was brought on by the possible approval of a $50,000 surcharge on every medical malpractice insurance policy for an obstetrics doctor. Statistics from a recent report by the Manhattan Institute for Public Research show that on average, costs at least twice as much for doctors as the amounts paid to innocent victims of medical malpractice (including lawyers' fees). It seems, then, that doctors might be able to save money by taking the risk of not having insurance.

In fact, many doctors in Florida (35 % in the Miami area, 25 % in Broward County, 21 % in Palm Beach County, and 12 % statewide) are trying this very solution (allowed under a state law), and for them it works well. Doctors know that bankruptcy laws will protect them in the event of a large decision against them, and, at any rate, doctors are not obligated to pay more than $250,000 per medical malpractice award, and no more than $750,000 per year. When doctors can be asked to pay $200,000 or more per year for premiums, but only have a medical malpractice claim every eight years on average, the math for doctors is clear. And financial advisers have begun specializing in sheltering doctors' assets from malpractice verdicts. They advise doctors to drop coverage and, if sued, offer patients a paltry settlement or no settlement when the doctor goes bankrupt.

This is clearly "solution unsatisfactory" to the problem for patients and society as a whole, even if we discount the corrosive effect such cold calculations have on the morality of the medical profession. If a doctor makes a mistake, a person can be permanently disabled or can die, leading to a life of hardship for dependants. And, without money from insurance companies or doctors, the disabled patient or his or her dependants end up depending on the state for support.

Even Florida legislators could see the flaw in the system, but their attempt to fix the problem is just as botched as the initial flaw. To make insurance a better option, legislators passed a law in 2003 limiting damages for pain and suffering to $500,000 for most cases, $1,000,000 for wrongful death cases. In response to this, medical malpractice insurance rates have fallen by 10 %, but insurer profits have grown by 20 %.

If doctors are to be allowed to go without insurance, they must face the full consequences of their mistakes. At the very least, every dollar a doctor earns by providing care must be vulnerable to medical malpractice settlements. This gives doctors a very real incentive to provide good care. An even better solution might be to force doctors to pool their money, so that one doctor is vulnerable to the mistakes of another doctor. This would encourage doctors to police one another, something that is currently taboo. A very few doctors are responsible for the vast majority of medical malpractice claims. According to a study by Public Citizen, less than 5 % of Pennsylvania doctors (all of whom had more than 3 medical malpractice settlements a year) were responsible for more than 50 % of the payouts. Less than 11 % of doctors were responsible for over 84 % of payments. Simply getting rid of bad doctors would be a tremendous stride toward reducing the cost of medical malpractice to the population as a whole.

If you have been hurt as a result of a doctor's medical malpractice, contact an experienced medical malpractice lawyer at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

In addition to physical, mental, and financial abuse, Philadelphia's nursing home residents are subject to another form of abuse. Nursing home abuse can take the form of political disenfranchisement, or, worse, pure exploitation. Absentee voting has made it easier for some residents to get their voices heard. With the loosening of restrictions for voters with physical disabilities that prevent them from making their way to an inaccessible polling place, and with blanket permission for voters over the age of 65 to use absentee ballots, Pennsylvania is allowing more elderly to vote than ever.

However, this comes at a price, as some nursing home administrators abuse the voting rights of mentally disabled residents. In 1999, Austin Murphy, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania was convicted of one count of voter fraud (out of 4 original charges, 3 of which were dropped as part of the settlement) for forging nursing home residents' ballots. Although Murphy's conviction is a rarity, there are many dubious practices followed in collecting votes from elderly residents. In one common practice, nursing home operators take payments for each resident who votes in favor of a certain candidate.

Make sure that your elderly relatives get their vote counted as it should be. Don't leave assistance to the nursing home operator, who may have other designs. Visit the Pennsylvania Department of State's online voting information and resource center for more information on helping elderly and disabled relatives to cast their ballots.

If you think you or a relative has been a victim of political abuse, contact the experienced nursing home abuse attorneys at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

In neighboring Ohio, residents of a nursing home outside of Columbus, Ohio escaped a potentially deadly fire thanks to the astute action of a visitor. A woman who was visiting her friend at the nursing home smelled smoke and called 911. Her quick action was crucial to making sure that her friend and other wheelchair-bound residents were able to make their way out of the home without injury.

This event calls attention to another Ohio nursing home that is being sued by a former resident, who claims that nursing home neglect forced her to have surgery. While at the home rehabilitating from a hip fracture, she developed a bedsore and infection that reached the bone. In addition, an inspection report of the home found nine deficiencies in health care and five fire safety violations.

Fire safety violations are a dangerous combination of nursing home neglect and dangerous premises. By failing to maintain fire safety at the nursing home, operators can potentially cause the wrongful death of many residents who are unable to evacuate the home quickly enough.

If you fear the Philadelphia nursing home where your loved one lives is unsafe, contact an experienced nursing home neglect attorney at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

Federal election laws allow major corporations to advocate specific political candidates to executives, stockholders, and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. However, Wal-Mart has been calling its department supervisors, who are hourly employees, into mandatory meetings and warning them that if Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama were elected president, people would lose their jobs. The language was not quite so explicit, but the impression was very clear, as supervisors came out of the meeting saying, "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote."

Wal-Mart denies that it was doing any such thing. A spokesperson said, "If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval." But the meetings were mandatory and did link the victory of democratic candidates with legislation that the company opposed and said would lead to job cuts as labor costs rose.

Wal-Mart has long opposed the penetration of unions into their stores and distribution centers. Just last week, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee who supported the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation in Kingman, Arizona.

Central to the meetings at which the alleged political pressure occurred is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which includes three main provisions:

· Current one-time secret ballot provisions would be supplemented with the option for unions to certify support by having employees sign support cards, and allowing union representation to take place if the majority sign such cards

· A mediation board, such as that which oversees contracts of firefighters, policemen, and other civil servants, will be in place to allow a rapid resolution of the first contract between representing union and the employer

· Stronger penalties for employers who are guilty of wrongful termination of employees during the unionization.

Currently, the EFCA has passed the House of Representatives, but was stopped by a filibuster in the Senate. Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama, have pledged support of the act, whereas Republican candidates and industry lobbying groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce (a private lobby commonly mistaken for a governmental organization), have pledged to oppose it.

If you feel you have experienced unfair workplace practices, such as intimidation with respect to your political orientation, contact the experienced employment lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation.

In response to the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance rates, a hospital in Brooklyn has decided to close its obstetrics department. Although the hospital will maintain a gynecology department, it will no longer be delivering babies. Last year, the hospital delivered nearly 3000 babies, and it will likely deliver more than 2200 this year, but the department carries a significant deficit. The hospital runs an annual deficit of about $34 million, and the obstetrics department is responsible for a significant portion of it: $11 million, or nearly 33 % of the total deficit.

What is the reason for the deficit? Medical malpractice insurance is a huge part of that cost. The department pays $8.8 million in insurance every year, 33% of the total paid by the hospital, and 80 % of the department's deficit. Does this mean that medical malpractice lawsuits are forcing obstetricians out of business?

No. Although medical malpractice insurance rates spiked by 14 % last year, payouts for medical malpractice have actually remained constant against other expenses incurred by doctors, including increasing costs for supplies.

Medical malpractice insurance, then, is a major problem, as it represents an opportunity for corporate profit to add another layer to the costs paid by doctors. Better regulation of the insurance industry is necessary to keep it from raising rates while enjoying record profits.

If you or someone you love has been hurt as a result of a medical malpractice birth injury, you know the mother and child have significant expenses that must be taken care of, and it is unfair for you to pay for the outcome of someone else's mistake. Contact the experienced birth injury lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, and Lewis, LLP today for a free initial consultation and learn how you can make sure your loved ones are cared for.