Feb 3, 2010
A Young Lawyer’s view of the St. Joseph’s Stent Cases
On Friday, January 22, 2010, my law firm was the first in the area to file suit against Dr. Mark Midei and St. Joseph Medical Center for improperly placing stents in patients when it was not medically necessary. As most of you know, the story itself, as well as the cases that have been filed, have made local and national headlines.
In case you live under a rock somewhere, I’ll summarize the situation as quickly as possible: for reasons that are not entirely known at this point, the federal government began a probe into the stent procedures being performed at St. Joseph Medical Center. The federal probe apparently sparked an internal investigation. As part of the internal investigation, St. Joseph Medical Center identified 369 patients from 2008 to 2009 who may have had stents placed when it was not medically necessary. The common denominator in all the cases was Dr. Mark Midei, a cardiologist at St. Joseph Medical Center, and the director of St. Joseph’s cardiac catheterization laboratory. In response, St. Joseph’s began notifying the 369 patients, as well as each patient’s primary cardiologist, via letter.
Even though I have only been doing this work (i.e., medical malpractice) for three years, I can say with great conviction that these cases are unlike anything I’ve seen before. The senior partners in the firm have echoed a similar sentiment. What makes these cases so different is that it appears as though the acts of this particular physician may have been deliberate.
Not surprisingly, every single client that has walked through our doors with a St. Joseph stent letter in hand has been full of emotion. They generally feel as though they have been violated in the worst way.
One of our clients, who professed to be an avid supporter of tort reform, broke down in tears when we began discussing her case. She did not want to believe that a doctor was capable of the acts alleged. But she strongly believes the allegations are true. Sadly, her faith in the medical system has been shattered. Both St. Joseph and her treating cardiologist confirmed that the single stent she had placed in her heart was not medically necessary. Dr. Midei had told her that her artery was 80 percent blocked, when in fact it was only 20 percent blocked. She’ll now have to be on medication for the rest of her life.
These cases have brought out some pretty unique emotions in me as well. My job is to sue doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. As a result, I see horrible cases of medical negligence every single day of my life. Yet, no case before these stent cases has shaken my faith in our medical system.
Unfortunately, I’m seeing things a little differently now. Only time will tell…
![[Print]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[Facebook]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
Keith, it seems you want to argue that tort reform would be a mistake because it would let negligent doctors off the hook. While I would argue that the status quo of frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums is what has caused the current state of our medical system in the first place. When a doctor can be sued at the drop of a dime, he/she will always be concerned first and foremost with covering their own behind, and not the best outcome for the patient. Additionally, it is simple economics – if lawyers and businesspeople get paid more than doctors, the best and brightest of society will always be turned to these professsions instead of medicine. That being said, in such blatant malpractice cases such as this, I am all for taking this guy to the cleaners.
Seriously, could this blog be any more one sided? Just who does the Justice League know to be getting all this free publicity?
This blog post is a blatant violation of Rule 3.6(a) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility, which states:
A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Mike–are there any opinions you can direct us to reflecting sanctions or disciplines given in similar circumstances?
I find it hard to believe that this could materially prejudice any upcoming proceeding. Especially in light of the publicity the stent issue is receiving in the media–this blog post doesn’t reveal anything that is not already public knowledge.
John:
Given that you are also a Plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer I am not suprised that you believe it is ethical to discuss the alleged details of a litigation investigation in a blog post, including alleged attorney-client communications, as well mixing in self serving statements such as “Yet, no case before these stent cases has shaken my faith in our medical system.”
Give me a break. Your statement that such information is already public knowledge is absurd. This post serves no other purpose than rousing the public in hopes of obtaining additonal clients.
Compared to the press conferences held by lawyers week in and week out to discuss their cases and clients, this is one of the more meaningful statements I’ve read.
Mr. Forman plays it safe here with the post, while providing some serious insight.
Thank you for this.
The tone that this post takes is sickening. Since when could a lawyer, or anyone without an M.D. for that matter, possibly know when an act like this could be deliberate? You are not fooling anyone with this self-righteous drivel. The only reason this and other similar blogs exist is to stir up either fear or new clients, or the real golden egg: both. It is unfortunate that your faith in the medical system has been shaken. Lucky for you, Keith, and fellow members of the bar, very few people have any faith in the justice system with which to begin.