Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Louisiana: Manufacturer of medicine (Main Street Family Pharmacy) and group of doctors sued by patient who received allegedly contaminated injection

GRETNA – A woman who claims her arm was severely infected and needed surgery after she received a contaminated injection is suing a healthcare provider and the producer of the medication.
Michelle Ellzey filed suit against Dr. James Patterson, Dr. Jorge Contreras, an unknown doctor, Pelican State Outpatient Center and Main Street Family Pharmacy in the 24th Judicial District Court on Dec. 26.
Ellzey asserts that on Dec. 26, 2012 she went to the Pelican State Outpatient Center located in Harahan with complaints of body aches, tiredness, cough and nasal congestion and was seen by Patterson who diagnosed her with an upper respiratory infection. The plaintiff alleges that an unknown employee of Pelican State Outpatient Center injected her with what was thought to be DepoMedrol a drug that was manufactured by Main Street Pharmacy. Ellzey claims that on July 19, 2013 she received a letter informing her that the drug that she injected was recalled due to contamination.
The plaintiff asserts that after receiving the injection the puncture hole from the needle became swollen and she began to experience pain in the area. Ellzey alleges that upon examination of the area Contreras advised her that the pain was normal and that he did not believe she was in any danger because the skin was not discolored and she did not have a fever. On Oct. 1, 2013, the plaintiff claims what she thought was a tumor was found in the area of the injection and that when a surgeon removed the growth it was found to be an infectious mass that was a result of the contaminated injection.
The defendant is accused of product liability and medical malpractice.
continue to read here

Saturday, June 30, 2012

C.R. Pharmacy Services d/b/a Fifth Avenue Pharmacy and Fifth Avenue Compounding Litigation in Iowa; Doctor Sued


Iowa court denies new trial in pharmacy lawsuit

Updated 07:13 p.m., Friday, June 29, 2012Share
Page 1 of 1
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A woman left with eye problems when she didn't get the right medication after surgery won't get a new trial in her lawsuit against a pharmacy, even though new evidence that surfaced as the trial was beginning surprised her attorney, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The case centered on medication prepared by C.R. Pharmacy Service, which does business as Fifth Avenue Pharmacy. The medication was to be applied by Misty Whitley's doctor immediately after surgery. However, after Whitley developed problems, it was discovered she did not get the right medication.
Whitley, of Marengo, sued Dr. Lee Birchansky and the Cedar Rapids pharmacy in 2007 but dropped Birchansky from the lawsuit and pursued a malpractice and negligence claim against the pharmacy claiming it supplied the wrong product for her surgery. A jury found a verdict in favor of the pharmacy.
Whitley has since filed a new lawsuit against Birchansky after the pharmacy manager discovered documents that indicated the medication ordered by Birchansky had not been picked up by his office from the pharmacy until after the surgery had been completed.
Those documents were at the heart of the appeal that led to the Supreme Court's decision Friday. The manager who discovered the documents a few weeks before the trial told his attorney. However, that information was not passed on to Whitley's attorney.
The Supreme Court found the pharmacy's attorney violated a duty to disclose the new information, but it said the judge did nothing wrong in allowing the evidence. The judge delayed the trial so Whitley's attorney could explore the new evidence and interview additional witnesses.
The saga began when Whitley went to the Fox Eye Clinic in Cedar Rapids in 2005 hoping to improve nearsightedness with a procedure that involves using a laser to sculpt the shape of the cornea. Then, in March 2006, she had a corneal scraping procedure to repair scarring of the cornea in both eyes, a common risk with laser eye surgery.
After that surgery, her eyes developed signs of cataracts and glaucoma. An investigation and testing revealed the substance applied to her eyes after surgery was not the medicine ordered by her ophthalmologist Birchansky.
She had to undergo corneal transplant surgery. After a subsequent accident, she lost her left eye.
Whitley asserted the pharmacy delivered the wrong prescription, which the doctor applied to her eyes. The pharmacy maintained it delivered the correct prescription and the doctor mistakenly applied the wrong substance.
Then, at the beginning of the trial, the pharmacy's attorney said it could not be at fault because it didn't deliver the medication before the surgery took place. The attorney disclosed the documents on the second day of the trial during questioning of the doctor.
Whitley's attorney wanted the evidence excluded from the trial, but the district court judge denied that request.
The Iowa Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, finding that the surprise Whitley's attorney encountered by the new evidence was too prejudicial for the district court to refuse to exclude the evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision and agreed with the district court judge that the evidence should have been allowed.
"The district court did not abuse its discretion when it made its decision to grant a continuance and deny the request to exclude the evidence," the justices wrote. "Based on the circumstances existing at the time the decision was made, the trial court pursued a reasonable course of action."
Robert Breckenridge, of Ottumwa, who represented Whitley, said he continues to believe the conduct of the pharmacy's attorneys should not have been rewarded by the court.
Court records show a scheduling conference in the lawsuit against Birchnasky is set for July 24.
Birchansky's attorney, Hayward Draper, of Des Moines, said the case was dropped against the doctor the first time because Whitley's attorneys concluded the doctor provided good care and did nothing wrong in his treatment of her.
"The new lawsuit is completely without merit because Dr. Birchansky did provide good care and did do nothing wrong," Draper said.
An attorney for the pharmacy, Chris Bruns, of Cedar Rapids, said the pharmacy had not authorized him to comment further about the case.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Iowa-court-denies-new-trial-in-pharmacy-lawsuit-3674230.php#ixzz1zHhIPTy1


To review the Iowa Supreme Court decision click here.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Successful Lawsuit Based on IV Compounding Error in Hospital Pharmacy; settled for 8.25 Million

Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (IL), which admitted that a pharmacy technician’s IV machine data entry error in 2010 killed a baby, settled the family’s lawsuit for $8.25 million. 

The wrongful death suit alleged an IV bag was incorrectly filled with 60 times the amount of sodium. In a statement in 2011, a hospital spokeswoman said, ""It was determined that a data entry error was made in the formulation of the IV solution. The dosage of sodium for an IV bag from an order had been incorrectly entered into the machine that mixes IV solutions."  Read about this story here.  Another article points out:

Hospitals across the country rely extensively on pharmacy compounding, for products ranging from simple oral capsules and liquids, to sterile products intended for intravenous, intramuscular and intrathecal use. Though the practice of compounding is regulated by state law, with oversight by state boards of pharmacy, the federal Food and Drug Administration has for years taken the position that while “traditional” pharmacy compounding is not of concern, certain types of compounding practices could fall within FDA’s jurisdiction.

To read this article, click here.