<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Medical Malpractice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/medical-malpractice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Medical practice was liable, doctor was not&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/medical-practice-was-liable-doctor-was-not/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/medical-practice-was-liable-doctor-was-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 13:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Johnny E. Morrison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portsmouth Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia has reinstated a jury verdict against a Portsmouth medical practice for alleged sloppy management in the case of a 24-year-old patient who died of pneumonia. The trial judge ruled the $3.5-million verdict had to be set aside because the jury made inconsistent findings &#8211; exonerating the doctor, but finding the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/medical-practice-was-liable-doctor-was-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massive bleeding during hysterectomy resulted in brain damage &#8211; $1,600,000 Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/massive-bleeding-during-hysterectomy-resulted-in-brain-damage-1600000-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/massive-bleeding-during-hysterectomy-resulted-in-brain-damage-1600000-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:48:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Settlements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The plaintiff alleged that defendant obstetricians inadvertently cut blood vessels in and around her pelvis during a laparoscopic hysterectomy and failed to timely convert to an open procedure to find the bleeders and stop the bleeding. The surgery began at 1:35 p.m. on March 17, 2011. It should have taken two hours with minimal blood [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/massive-bleeding-during-hysterectomy-resulted-in-brain-damage-1600000-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff claims heart attack should have been diagnosed sooner &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/plaintiff-claims-heart-attack-should-have-been-diagnosed-sooner-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/plaintiff-claims-heart-attack-should-have-been-diagnosed-sooner-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Lorraine Nordlund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff alleged that defendant cardiologist failed to timely diagnose and appropriately treat plaintiff’s myocardial infarction. Plaintiff was left with diminished ejection fraction of 30 percent, and required an implantable cardioverter-defribilator. Defendant denied all liability. After all of the arguments and evidence were presented, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants after deliberations [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/13/plaintiff-claims-heart-attack-should-have-been-diagnosed-sooner-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Missed Diagnosis Claim Not ‘Gross Negligence’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 13:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk Circuit Court sustains a demurrer to a gross negligence claim filed by the estate of a woman who allegedly died as a result of the defendant resident physician’s failure to diagnose the woman’s ectopic pregnancy; the Norfolk Circuit Court sustains defendant physician’s demurrer to the gross negligence claim, but overrules the special plea [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/missed-diagnosis-claim-not-gross-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prostate cancer treatment had painful side effects &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/prostate-cancer-treatment-had-painful-side-effects-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/prostate-cancer-treatment-had-painful-side-effects-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 11:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arlington County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge William T. Newman Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff, age 69 at the time of trial, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in December 2007. He consulted with his urologist and then the defendant radiation oncologist about his treatment options. On May 1, 2008, plaintiff underwent prostate brachytherapy with defendant. The procedure involved inserting needles into the prostate gland and depositing 119 radioactive Iodine [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/prostate-cancer-treatment-had-painful-side-effects-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dentist cut patient’s lip during crown removal &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/dentist-cut-patients-lip-during-crown-removal-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/dentist-cut-patients-lip-during-crown-removal-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 10:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesapeake Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge V. Thomas Forehand Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The plaintiff’s lip was cut during the removal of a temporary crown. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant used a dangerous dental tool and excessive force while attempting to remove the temporary crown, instead of using safer alternatives. Plaintiff alleged that her labial artery and nearby muscle were severed. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendant dentist’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/06/dentist-cut-patients-lip-during-crown-removal-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voluntary Dismissal Allowed, With Condition&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/voluntary-dismissal-allowed-with-condition/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/voluntary-dismissal-allowed-with-condition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 13:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his suit alleging negligent removal of his gall bladder by laparoscopic surgery, on the condition that he only refile any suit arising from this same set of operative facts in a Virginia state court; however, the Abingdon U.S. District Court denies defendant physician’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Prior [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/02/voluntary-dismissal-allowed-with-condition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff claims surgeon should have used different instrument &#8211; Defense Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/plaintiff-claims-surgeon-should-have-used-different-instrument-defense-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/plaintiff-claims-surgeon-should-have-used-different-instrument-defense-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clarence N. Jenkins Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Defense Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richmond Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff was 54 years old when he first presented to defendant otolaryngologist in November 2003 for symptoms of occasional difficulty swallowing and choking and complaints of spitting out undigested food due to a Zenker’s diverticulum (“ZD”). Defendant repaired the diverticulum using an open procedure through the neck. After the surgery on Jan. 19, 2004, plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/plaintiff-claims-surgeon-should-have-used-different-instrument-defense-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Birth Injury Recovery May Exceed Cap&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73962</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A med-mal carrier is required to defend an action filed by parents who alleged defendant physician represented that he participated in Virginia’s Birth Injury Fund, but failed to pay into the Fund, which is not available to cover neurological injuries suffered by their child at birth; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms declaratory judgment for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/birth-injury-recovery-may-exceed-cap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Informed Consent’ Evidence Excluded&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/informed-consent-evidence-excluded/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/informed-consent-evidence-excluded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jackson L. Kiser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a plaintiff’s suit alleging malpractice by three ophthalmologists, a Danville U.S. District Court says evidence of plaintiff’s informed consent to the cataract surgery is not relevant and will be excluded, and evidence of known complications may be used only to support the contention that a complication may arise even if a surgery is performed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/informed-consent-evidence-excluded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
