Oh my god that is gruesome!

[SlyPokerDog]

Newborn’s Decapitation at Birth Prompts Malpractice Lawsuit

A Missouri couple filed a lawsuit Sept. 28 against four defendants for a birth gone horribly wrong. The New York Daily News reports Friday that Arteisha Betts and Travis Ammonette of Florissant, Mo., claim their newborn son, Kaden Travis Ammonette, died while in the birth canal. The baby's head was allegedly decapitated from its neck when the doctor tried pulling the baby out of the birth canal.

* The media report claims court documents reveal Dr. Susan Moore told the couple in February 2011 their baby would have to be born with a Caesarian section because his abdomen was too large. The delivering doctor allegedly refused to perform a Caesarian and instead chose for a vaginal birth. The attending doctor, Gilbert Webb, then supposedly did not allow the couple to go to another hospital.

* Courthouse News Service states Betts and Ammonette went to St. John's Mercy Hospital on March 22, 2011, when the mother started having contractions. She was 28 weeks and five days into her pregnancy.

* The lawsuit alleges Kaden's head came out normally, but the abdomen got stuck in the birth canal. The doctor then allegedly tried traction on the baby's head and then the head became separated from the cervical spine.

* The story gets worse. At the point, the plaintiffs say blood from the baby's neck splattered into the labor and delivery room in plain sight of the mother and father. The couple then claims the doctor did the unthinkable --Webb supposedly pushed the baby back into the uterus and ordered an emergency Caesarian section.

* To make matters even more disgusting, the couple claims Webb then started performing the emergency procedure on the mother before she was sedated. This caused Betts "significant physical pain and suffering," according to Courthouse News Service's reading of the complaint.

* The New York Daily News article shows a picture of Betts' tattoo she received after the baby's death. The newborn's hand prints are inscribed in Betts' left shoulder with the date "3-22-11." The article states the defendants refused to comment for the story.

* TruTV reveals Betts, 21, and Ammonnette, 20, conceived a child via in-vitro fertilization. Midwest Maternal & Fetal Medicine specializes in complicated pregnancies. Both doctors, Moore and Webb, work for the clinic.

* A search of Missouri Case Net records reveals Betts and Ammonette are represented by Brian Patrick Millikan of Millikan Wright, LLC. The attorney once served as a police officer for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department before opening his own law firm in 2006. Millikan specializes in personal injury, criminal, traffic and DWI cases.

* Four defendants are listed in the case. Midwest Maternal & Fetal Medicine, Signature Medical Group, Webb and Moore are being sued for unspecified damages in a wrongful death and medical negligence lawsuit.

* The statute of limitations for medical negligence cases is two years in Missouri. That time would have expired in March 2013.



http://news.yahoo.com/newborn-decapitation-birth-prompts-malpractice-lawsuit-191400728.html

 

[Wheels]

that is AWFUL

 

[MARIS61]

Medical negligence will eventually be the leading cause of death in America. That's what happens when people in certain professions come to think they are some sort of god.

Medical Malpractice... By the Numbers

65,000 to 200,000 The minimum annual number of deaths due to medical accidents, according to
hospital records.

For comparison: The annual total of all other causes of accidental death is 98,000, of
which 46,000 are from auto crashes and 11,000 are from workplace accidents.

25,000 to 120,000 The minimum number of the above deaths due to negligence. That is, deaths caused
by medical malpractice each year.

0.8% to 1% The percentage of hospital patients who become victims of malpractice.

2.9% The percentage of victims of malpractice, as reflected in medical records, who file claims.

4:1 The ratio of injuries and deaths caused by malpractice in hospitals to that reflected in medical
records. (In other words, many errors go unrecorded.) This means that the number of malpractice deaths
and injuries is probably about four times that reflected in the numbers above.

4.8% The percentage of physicians responsible for half of the malpractice claims filed in the U.S. Just

1.7% of physicians were responsible for 27.5% of all malpractice awards.

5% The percentage of patients who are victims of malpractice who receive some payment through a
negotiated settlement of the claim

1/3 of 1% The percentage of patients who are victims of malpractice whose cases go to trial.

1/10 of 1% The percentage of patients who are victims of malpractice who win a trial verdict in their
favor.

70% The percentage of malpractice awards reduced by the court.

1:4 The ratio of total malpractice premiums to total economic losses suffered by victims of malpractice.

In other words: Doctors and hospitals avoid paying 80% of the economic harm their errors inflict on
patients and their families.

http://centerjd.org/cjrg/Numbers.pdf

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

http://www.harrell-nowak.com/blog/2...s-die-each-year-from-medical-negligence-79031

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

That is so incredibly sad.

 

[dviss1]

This is why they are handing out C-sections like candy at Halloween. 34 minutes in and out of a sterile environment without a chance to have a malpractice suit. Bang, the doctor gets $3600.

One of the 10 procedures to think twice about during pegnancy:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/what-to-reject-when-you-re-expecting/index.htm

http://www.fitpregnancy.com/labor-delivery/labor-delivery/why-you-dont-want-c-section

http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/c-sections-don’t-trigger-key-protein-in-brain/

 

[dviss1]

Medical negligence will eventually be the leading cause of death in America. That's what happens when people in certain professions come to think they are some sort of god.

Especially when Republicans want to institute Tort "reform" (really means they want to put a cap on how much you can sue for) for the entire nation.

Don't you guys know that we are informed? Tort "reform" has been in TX for years! How's healthcare in TX? 25% uninsured. Shameful.

 

[Denny Crane]

Especially when Republicans want to institute Tort "reform" (really means they want to put a cap on how much you can sue for) for the entire nation.

Don't you guys know that we are informed? Tort "reform" has been in TX for years! How's healthcare in TX? 25% uninsured. Shameful.

Lack of insurance does not mean lack of health care.

 

[Denny Crane]

A true story.

I have a friend who's a lawyer. My wife was in the hospital a few years back and I got to know her doctor very well. He's a renowned professor of neurology and runs one of the most state of the art labs in the country. I asked him if he knew my friend the lawyer, and he said "if he sued me, I probably met him."

Also, this is interesting:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...le-of-6-billion-health-care-building-boom.ece

 

[MARIS61]

Also, this is interesting:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...le-of-6-billion-health-care-building-boom.ece

No surprise there. Healthcare is a great investment for the 1%ers right now. All the boomers are gonna need it and it's got an enormous profit margin for all involved. Any time you invest in something people need to stay alive you're going to be able to profit at criminal proportions. Bend's medical community never missed a beat during the last 10 years, no effect at all on it during this recession.

 

[Denny Crane]

The vast majority of hospitals are non-profit.

1 in 6 are for profit.

 

[dviss1]

Lack of insurance does not mean lack of health care.

Foolish statement.... Don't equate Emergency trips as healthcare. Especially when they drive up the price for those that have insurance.

 

[dviss1]

The vast majority of hospitals are non-profit.

1 in 6 are for profit.

What does this have to do with for profit insurance companies? Not a damn thing. See the truth of the matter is that we don't need them.
And healthcare never used to be for profit until Nixon and Kaiser created their HMOs. We see where that got us.

 

[dviss1]

Lack of insurance does not mean lack of health care.

Tell that to someone who is uninsured...

 

[Denny Crane]

What does this have to do with for profit insurance companies? Not a damn thing. See the truth of the matter is that we don't need them.
And healthcare never used to be for profit until Nixon and Kaiser created their HMOs. We see where that got us.

The 1 in 6 for profit hospitals aren't the problem with health care prices.

Why do you think it is that the insurance companies can offer life insurance for a fraction of the price of health insurance, pay bigger claims than for brain surgery, and all that knowing that everyone dies (not everyone needs brain surgery)?

And you don't have to go to an emergency room to get health care if you don't have insurance. Any doctor or clinic will see you for a fraction of the cost of a month's insurance premium.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits . . .

 

[Denny Crane]

Frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits . . .

It's not a panacea, but nothing should be off the table.

I suggest it's govt. interference in the market. They aren't so interested in life insurance, so the market there is realistically priced.

 

[MARIS61]

The vast majority of hospitals are non-profit.

1 in 6 are for profit.

"Non-profit" is legal-speak for tax dodge. Nothing more.

Same absurd wages, same absurd profit for the owner. Just don't pay taxes.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You guys are ruining a great headless baby thread.

 

[MARIS61]

And you don't have to go to an emergency room to get health care if you don't have insurance. Any doctor or clinic will see you for a fraction of the cost of a month's insurance premium.

Don't equate "being seen" with healthcare.

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't equate "being seen" with healthcare.

Don't equate a flu shot or a check up with an emergency room visit.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Especially when Republicans want to institute Tort "reform" (really means they want to put a cap on how much you can sue for) for the entire nation.

AFAIK, the massive awards are supposed to be punitive in nature rather than for restitution of actual damages. But if the giant awards are being paid by malpractice insurance providers rather than the doctor, who is really being punished by the punitive award? Answer--consumers of healthcare.

 

[Denny Crane]

AFAIK, the massive awards are supposed to be punitive in nature rather than for restitution of actual damages. But if the giant awards are being paid by malpractice insurance providers rather than the doctor, who is really being punished by the punitive award? Answer--consumers of healthcare.

I'm all in favor of restitution of actual damages. I sat on a jury trial where a little girl was thrown from a car and paralyzed from the neck down as a result. The parents sued everyone they could, including Chrysler. Their expert witnesses testified that a fair judgment amount would be on the order of $3M to $6M, which would cover her living expenses and medical care needs for life.

Meanwhile, two recent cases in Maryland awarded $21M and $55M.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...ice-gary-wais-national-practitioner-data-bank

A 2010 survey done for the American Medical Association found that more than 60 percent of doctors had been sued by the time they were 55, and among obstetrician/gynecologists and surgeons it was 70 percent. Among the suits, 65 percent were dropped or dismissed and 5 percent went to trial. Defendants prevailed 90 percent of the time.

Doctors and hospitals said they are bracing for a trickle-down effect of more lawsuits and rising malpractice insurance rates because of the recent judgments. They argue that malpractice costs could become so burdensome that doctors would decide to stop working in certain locations and specialties.

"Hospitals who provide medical care to high-risk patients — particularly obstetrical patients — are questioning how much longer they will be able to continue providing that care in Baltimore City," said Mary Lynn Carver, a spokeswoman for the University of Maryland Medical Center, in an email.

 

[dviss1]

The 1 in 6 for profit hospitals aren't the problem with health care prices.

Why do you think it is that the insurance companies can offer life insurance for a fraction of the price of health insurance, pay bigger claims than for brain surgery, and all that knowing that everyone dies (not everyone needs brain surgery)?

And you don't have to go to an emergency room to get health care if you don't have insurance. Any doctor or clinic will see you for a fraction of the cost of a month's insurance premium.

I never said they were. It's the insurance companies and Steven Hemsley's Bloated salary that he got every penny from denial of care.

Insurance companies are against a Public option because they know that they won't be able to compete.
They know their CEOs and Stockholders won't make as much money.

To the second point, what happens when you lose your job? What then? You don't deserve healthcare if you aren't employed?

I also don't believe that at all.

 

[Denny Crane]

I never said they were. It's the insurance companies and Steven Hemsley's Bloated salary that he got every penny from denial of care.

Insurance companies are against a Public option because they know that they won't be able to compete.
They know their CEOs and Stockholders won't make as much money.

To the second point, what happens when you lose your job? What then? You don't deserve healthcare if you aren't employed?

I also don't believe that at all.

Insurance companies have no reason to deny legitimate claims. They don't deny them for auto insurance or life insurance. The claims for life insurance are 100% guaranteed to happen, too.

It is just plain batshit crazy to confuse health insurance with health care.

http://www.walmart.com/cp/Walmart-Clinics/1078904

Get Well Stay Well visits at these clinics are $65 or less. Health insurance that provides a $50 co-pay will cost you $400+ a month.

The doctor owned/run clinic up the street from me charges $115 for the first visit and $70 for each successive visit in a year.

If you're worried about getting sick and going bankrupt because of the medical bills:

http://www.catastrophic-health-insurance.org/costs-of-catastrophic-health.php

A catastrophic plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida for a nonsmoking 21-year-old female, with a $250 deductible and $2,500 out-of-pocket limit after exceeding the deductible, costs $29 per month.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

smoking 21-year-old female

go on

 

[dviss1]

Insurance companies have no reason to deny legitimate claims. They don't deny them for auto insurance or life insurance. The claims for life insurance are 100% guaranteed to happen, too.

It is just plain batshit crazy to confuse health insurance with health care.

http://www.walmart.com/cp/Walmart-Clinics/1078904

Get Well Stay Well visits at these clinics are $65 or less. Health insurance that provides a $50 co-pay will cost you $400+ a month.

The doctor owned/run clinic up the street from me charges $115 for the first visit and $70 for each successive visit in a year.

If you're worried about getting sick and going bankrupt because of the medical bills:

http://www.catastrophic-health-insurance.org/costs-of-catastrophic-health.php

A catastrophic plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida for a nonsmoking 21-year-old female, with a $250 deductible and $2,500 out-of-pocket limit after exceeding the deductible, costs $29 per month.

Sorry, I'll take a public option (on it's way and there's nothing you can do about it) and Subsidized healthcare. It costs us WAY less as a country.

Oregon, California, Montana, and Vermont all have Single payer plans ready to go. Let's see what happens in 2014.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

To the second point, what happens when you lose your job? What then? You don't deserve healthcare if you aren't employed?

I also don't believe that at all.

To me, this has always been the crux of the issue. You believe that just because someone is unemployed, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve healthcare.

I believe that nobody deserves healthcare, at all.

 

[Denny Crane]

To me, this has always been the crux of the issue. You believe that just because someone is unemployed, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve healthcare.

I believe that nobody deserves healthcare, at all.

REP

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/

What Do Actual Doctors Think About Obamacare Now?

Meanwhile, contrary to those doctors selected to legitimize ObamaCare in the staged media event (where the White House actually handed out white lab coats to generate the image of official credibility), an overwhelming 70 percent of doctors said, even back in 2011, that they disagreed with the AMA’s position on health reform, while only 13 percent agreed with it. In fact, almost half of doctors in that survey even went so far as to say that the AMA stance on ObamaCare was the factor causing them to drop AMA membership.

This past February, 60 percent of more than 5,000 doctors surveyed said the Obama health law would have a negative impact on patient care, while only 22 percent thought it would be positive.

And more than half thought it would have a negative impact on their relationships with patients, while only 11 percent thought the doctor-patient relationship would be better.

A startling 43 percent said the health care reform itself would likely lead them to retire over the next 5 years, and only 37 percent said that was an unlikely consequence of this law. It is worth repeating that sentiment to understand the impact of ObamaCare – it is viewed as being so destructive that almost half of doctors said they would “likely” soon retire directly because of the law itself.

Last month, in answer to the question “Which of the following best describes your feelings about the ACA?” 55 percent of more than 3,000 doctors chose “repeal and replace” whereas 40 percent said “implement and improve” it.

But perhaps the most impressive statement of all is found in looking at the doctors’ voting intentions. Votes for Governor Romney trounced those for President Obama by 19 percentage points (55 to 36 percent), with only 5 percent undecided.

 

[BrianFromWA]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/

What Do Actual Doctors Think About Obamacare Now?

But perhaps the most impressive statement of all is found in looking at the doctors’ voting intentions. Votes for Governor Romney trounced those for President Obama by 19 percentage points (55 to 36 percent), with only 5 percent undecided.

Duh. Greedy 1% bastards.