APPEALS LAWYER

Student Loan Wage Garnishment

If the payment you skipped for a few months is your student loan, the IRS can take any refund you may be entitled to or the government can take your federal benefits such as Social Security and Social Security Disability Benefits or a private lender or the government can sue you to collect or the government may take “garnish” of your pay check.

The most common is a garnishment from your pay check. The government can take a portion of your wages to up to 15% but not more than 30 times the current federal minimum wage. But you do have some options when dealing with a garnishment which will depend on whether or not you are delinquent with your payments or in default. Default is when you have not made a payment in nine months and the entire loan balance becomes immediately payable.

In most cases, people end up on a default status. A lender can also declare you in default if you fail to meet other terms of the contract for nine months. A delinquency period starts on the first day after you miss a payment. When this happens, the lender has to follow certain guidelines and must at least send one written letter during the first 15 days of when payment was missed and they must let you know about the Student Loan Ombudsman. The Student Loan Ombudsman is available at the Federal Student Aid office of the Department of Education and helps settle disputes and other problems with the student loans. If your delinquency continues for nine months whether or not you reach out to available resources you will be considered in default.

After you are considered in default, the next step is always wage garnishment if employed. If you feel that it is unfair for some reason or there are explanatory circumstances, the first thing to do is write a letter of appeal which, unfortunately, does not work for most people. There are two ways to attempt to stop a garnishment and the best way is to try to contact the student loan collection agency and work out a payment plan to repay over 12 months that you can stick to. And the next thing to do is consolidating any delinquent loans.

If you do get a wage garnishment, many people think they can be fired from their jobs which is not true. An employer cannot legally fire you because of wage garnishment even though it does require additional paperwork or anything else on them. If you do get more than one wage garnishment, for some reason you are no longer protected by law from termination.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

How to Find the Best Mesothelioma Lawyer

If you or someone you love has been struck down by mesothelioma then you may have already decided that you should engage a mesothelioma lawyer. After all, shouldn’t the expensive medical treatments as well as the eventual loss of income be paid for by the company responsible for causing the disease in the first place?

With everything that has been going on since the diagnosis you may be very tempted to just type in “mesothelioma lawyer” into a search engine on the Internet and choose one of the names that pop up.

Deciding which is the right firm to choose can be rather challenging because you will find that there are many firms to choose from.

So you may decide to just go with the first name on the list – a lot of people do just that.

However, with all that is at stake do you really want to put your fate in the hands of someone you chose by making a rather arbitrary decision?

If you feel that more research is warranted then you may want to consider asking the following questions.

Ask any potential mesothelioma attorney that you are considering hiring how many mesothelioma cases they have actually handled. Asbestos cases in general are just too broad a category. You want to know the specific number of mesothelioma cases the attorney has represented. Obviously, the more experience they have the better off you are.

Next, find out the results of these cases. Were there out of court settlements? If the cases went to trial did they win them or lose them? Are there any on appeal? Get the exact numbers.

Unbeknownst to outsiders, many attorneys that you interview may refer your case to another firm that may have more experience with your particular situation.

This could be a good thing for you because you will then have the services of two firms without accruing any additional costs. So make sure to ask if the attorney whom you are interviewing will personally represent your case.

You will also probably want to be assured that your attorney will be available to you when you need to speak to him or her. And, if they are not free when you call find out how long they will take to return your calls.   During the interview process decide whether or not you fully understand and are satisfied with their answers. If you are having a problem now it will probably get worse if you choose to hire them.

These cases are very expensive to investigate and conduct. Therefore you will definitely want to know if your case will be accepted on a contingency basis. If they agree then your attorney will only get his or her expenses and fees if they win the case for you.

Find out how strong the attorney’s network is. If your attorney knows others across the country that will share expertise and research then it is more likely that a solid case can be built for you.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

How to Find the Best Mesothelioma Lawyer

If you or someone you love has been struck down by mesothelioma then you may have already decided that you should engage a mesothelioma lawyer. After all, shouldn’t the expensive medical treatments as well as the eventual loss of income be paid for by the company responsible for causing the disease in the first place?

With everything that has been going on since the diagnosis you may be very tempted to just type in “mesothelioma lawyer” into a search engine on the Internet and choose one of the names that pop up.

Deciding which is the right firm to choose can be rather challenging because you will find that there are many firms to choose from.

So you may decide to just go with the first name on the list – a lot of people do just that.

However, with all that is at stake do you really want to put your fate in the hands of someone you chose by making a rather arbitrary decision?

If you feel that more research is warranted then you may want to consider asking the following questions.

Ask any potential mesothelioma attorney that you are considering hiring how many mesothelioma cases they have actually handled. Asbestos cases in general are just too broad a category. You want to know the specific number of mesothelioma cases the attorney has represented. Obviously, the more experience they have the better off you are.

Next, find out the results of these cases. Were there out of court settlements? If the cases went to trial did they win them or lose them? Are there any on appeal? Get the exact numbers.

Unbeknownst to outsiders, many attorneys that you interview may refer your case to another firm that may have more experience with your particular situation.

This could be a good thing for you because you will then have the services of two firms without accruing any additional costs. So make sure to ask if the attorney whom you are interviewing will personally represent your case.

You will also probably want to be assured that your attorney will be available to you when you need to speak to him or her. And, if they are not free when you call find out how long they will take to return your calls.   During the interview process decide whether or not you fully understand and are satisfied with their answers. If you are having a problem now it will probably get worse if you choose to hire them.

These cases are very expensive to investigate and conduct. Therefore you will definitely want to know if your case will be accepted on a contingency basis. If they agree then your attorney will only get his or her expenses and fees if they win the case for you.

Find out how strong the attorney’s network is. If your attorney knows others across the country that will share expertise and research then it is more likely that a solid case can be built for you.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.

7 Disability Attorney Lessons From a CFS Denial Disability Lawsuit

A recent case that came before a U.S. District Court reflects the fact that the Court system is beginning to hold ERISA short-term disability plans and long-term disability plans accountable for decisions to deny disability benefits to claimants with CFS when they provide all the medical evidence it is currently possible to provide with medicine’s current understanding of this mysterious syndrome. This case teaches certain lessons which any disability attorney is wise to consider.

Disability Attorney Lesson #1:

First, a disability attorney should seek any information available into the potential conflict of interest which could have existed when the plan administrator had both the power to decide who deserved disability benefits and to interpret what the plan document meant. If initial research suggests that a conflict of interest may have motivated the decision to deny benefits, a motion to compel may be filed with the Court.

Every effort should be made to demonstrate a conflict of interest, as it heightens the standard with which the Court will review the disability claimant’s claims file. Instead of the Court merely looking at the file to determine whether or not the disability plan made a reasonable decision, the Court also considers how much the conflict of interest played in the decision making process. This increases the probability that the Court will find the decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Disability Attorney Lesson #2:

Next, move on to discovering whether the disability insurance plan has a practice of denying claims for “subjective” illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Collect a list of court cases where the disability insurance company or plan has been before the Court already for denying CFS claims. This may be used to help support a discovery request and demonstrate bias to the Court among other things.

Disability Attorney Lesson #3:

In general, it is difficult to secure a de novo review (a new look at the evidence) under ERISA. Whenever the benefit plan gives the administrator of the plan discretionary authority to determine who is eligible for benefits and to interpret how the plan’s terms apply to individual cases, the Court will use the arbitrary and capricious standard as mandated by Congress when it passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

ERISA states that as long as the plan administrator can demonstrate its decision was supported by substantial evidence, the Court must uphold the decision of the disability insurance plan administrator. This makes it all the more important for a disability attorney to assist a CFS client with making sure that the medical record in the file is as thorough and complete as possible. Tests that demonstrate how CFS has limited a client’s ability to function in a real-world work environment are vital. The Courts recognize that there are no diagnostic tests for CFS, but the Courts do uphold the expectation of the disability insurance plan that some type of functional capacity testing that demonstrates the CFS is severely limiting should be present in the record.

Disability Attorney Lesson #4:

Make sure that the disability insurance plan has given value to the opinion of the treating physician(s). While the Court will not ask a long-term disability plan to give more weight to the opinion of your client’s doctors, the Court does expect the plan administrators to consider the opinion expressed. Especially in the case of a CFS client, a disability attorney should never overlook the type of medical review the disability insurance plan used as evidence. Did the disability insurance plan order an independent medical exam, or only conduct a paper review? Did the plan gather the necessary medical evidence to confirm or disprove the claimant’s disability?

Disability Attorney Lesson #5:

Look at the denial letter very carefully. Does it give reasons for the decision to deny short-term or long-term disability benefits? Does it provide clear guidance as to what specific additional information the disability insurance plan needs during an appeal of the denial. Does it explain why evidence presented by the claimant is being rejected? ERISA requires the denial letter to include specific reasons for denying the claim and specific instructions on how to provide the necessary documentation to change the denial. If the plan has failed to do this, the decision of the plan has been arbitrary and capricious.

Disability Attorney Lesson #6:

Expect the disability plan to try to discount the symptoms because CFS is primarily a self-reported condition. This is where a long-term history with a physician or even a series of physicians can be helpful. It is vital if the disability attorney is involved during the administrative appeals process to make sure that the medical record is filled with detailed notes from the CFS claimant’s treating physicians. This will make it easier to demonstrate that a decision to deny benefits was not reasonable.

CFS specialists and the Court have recognized the connection between Epstein-Barr infection and CFS. Other aspects of the syndrome may include sleep apnea, with resulting fatigue and difficulty concentrating. Pain all over the body is another common feature of this complex-the intensity of which cannot be measured objectively. The Court also recognizes the fickleness of the syndrome. One day may be better than another.

Disability Attorney Lesson #7:

Look for clues that the disability insurance plan failed to give a full and fair review. Failure to order an independent medical exam in the face of several opinions favorable to the claimant before issuing a denial could be a clue. Failing to send the medical file to a physician qualified to review CFS medical records or withholding some information that should be in the file is another hint that a full and fair review of the CFS claim has not occurred.

These disability attorney lessons are also useful information for anyone considering hiring a long-term disability insurance attorney to represent him/her in a lawsuit against one of the disability insurance plans. They can help with the evaluation of a claim’s merits. The best disability attorneys prefer to have clients who understand the risks involved in bringing their claims before the Court and who are fully committed to securing their rights.

Man Pursues $2,750,000 Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Delaying His Cancer Diagnosis Posted By : J. Hernandez

Prostate cancer strikes African-American men earlier and often more aggressively from the rest of the population. Men of African-American descent are at greater risk of having prostate cancer at a younger age. Because of this, doctors typically acknowledge that physicians ought to go over prostate cancer screening wiith males of African-American descent once the patient turns forty-five. By commencing earlier with African-American men screening ought to lead to the detection of the cancer at an earlier and possibly curable stage. When physicians do not follow the guidelines for cancer screening andthe individual is subsequently diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that physician might be liable for medical malpractice.

Aside from standard screening for cancer, doctors also should really be able to recognize and follow up when a patient has complaints suggestive of possible cancer. Doctors also should either perform screening testing requested by a patient or make it clear to the individual that they will not perform the test and that the patient will need to see another doctor if he still wishes to be screened. For example, in a documented lawsuit the patient was an African-American man, age 41, who requested to be tested for prostate cancer. The patient requested for the screening test after participating in a campaign to improve awareness concerning the risk middle-aged African-American men face when it comes to prostate cancer.

There are two tests generally used to screen for prostate cancer. They are both done since they look for distinct indicators. The first is a physical examination of the prostate gland. The other is a blood test that quantifies the PSA level in the patient’s blood stream. In keeping with the patient’s request the physician conducted a physical examination of the prostate. The doctor did not discover any palpable abnormalities on the prostate. The doctor then ordered blood tests. The tests, however, did not include a PSA test. The physician did not tell the patient that no PSA test had been done. The patient was seen again by the same physician 2 years later. This time the physician failed to conduct a physical examination of the prostate and just as before did not order a PSA test.

What this physician did was to give the patient a false sense of security. By doing the digital examination of the prostate and ordering blood tests the physician left the patient with the perception that the physician had conducted a full screening. In situations like these, most patients would probably feel that a PSA test was actually ordered along with the rest of the blood tests which has bee ordered on the second visit. Either way, though, he clearly was justified in believing he had gone through a full screening in the earlier visit.

Advance to later that same year. The patient returns to the same medical practice but is seen by a different doctor. This physician both completed a digital examination and order a PSA test. The result – the patient had stage 4 prostate cancer which had spread to the bone. Due to the fact that the male patient was now approaching 45 and under the guidelines the doctor would normally only at this time have at least had a conversation about screening. In this instance, however, the individual had specifically asked to be screened earlier and the actions of the doctor had led him to expect he had been.

The patient filed a lawsuit against the physician who had failed to get the PSA testing. The law firm that represented the patient published that it took the case to trail where a jury awarded the plaintiff $2,750,000. The defense appealed and the parties settled for a confidential amount as the appeals was pending. Although the amount of the settlement was confidential it was less than the amount of the verdict. This is not an unusual way for both parties to reduce the risk of an adverse ruling by the Appeals Court. In this case the Appeals Court subsequently denied the appeal.