The Warshafsky Law Firm recently filed a very unusual Writ of Mandamus to determine why the Medical Examining Board has not taken action against Dr. Cully White, a D.O based in Milwaukee. To recap, plaintiff Kenneth Plants alleged that Dr. White operated on the wrong side of his back, causing severe and permanent debilitating injuries. The case settled in the Summer of 2009 for 2.9 million. A Writ of Mandamus was filed to determine why, after being provided with ALL the medical records and pertinent testimony, the Medical Examining Board has failed to take any action against Dr. White.
Just this week, Milwaukee County Judge Thomas Cooper signed an Order to Show Cause, which requires Defendant Kelly Sankbiel to appear in court and provide testimony as to why the Medical Board should not provide the petitioner with a report regarding the Board's investigation of Dr. White, and to explain what steps the Board has taken in furtherance of said report, should it not exist.
Also Ordered to appear is Dr. Gene Musser, Chairman of the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board. He has been ordered to explain the details of the investigation by the Board, and what information the Board still needs to complete its investigation, should it request additional information.
The Order signed by Judge Cooper is a step further in the plaintiffs' ultimate goal - to figure out why, after receiving every piece of documentation if may need to discipline Dr. White, the Board has not yet taken action against Dr. White and failed to respond to the Warshafsky Law Firm's request for information. The testimony of Musser and Sankbiel will hopefully shed light on how doctors in Wisconsin are disciplined, and how long it takes determine appropriate discipline.
The show cause motion is set for August 13, beginning at 10:30 A.M. The hearing is open to the public.
Friday, July 30, 2010
12 Year Old Girl Injured at Wisconsin Dells
The Jounal Sentinel is reporting that a 12 year old girl was injured when safety nets for a thrill ride at Extreme World failed to break her 40-foot fall to the ground. The incident occurred at Extreme World, a one-of-a-kind thrill seeking venture in Wisconsin Dells offering bungee jumping, go-karts, and an ejection seat ride.
The accident appears to have been caused by several unfortunate events, 1) the girl's harness probably failed; and 2) the ride's safety net failed as the last line of defense. Authorities are likely to conduct their investigation to determine whether any criminal charges should be filed. Likewise, OHSA will probably conduct their own investigation because the accident occurred at a workplace. Extreme World likely also faces severe civil liability if their employees are determined to have been reckless or negligent in maintaining the ride. This determination will necessarily be made by qualified personal injury attorneys and private investigators.
Personal injury lawsuits involving entities in Wisconsin Dells often present challenges in finding the proper party to sue. Typically, companies in the Dells operate under many different umbrellas and sub-corporations - usually all very similar on paper, but yet different corporate entities. It becomes important to identify the proper entity early on so negotiations can begin immediately, and evidence can be preserved.
If you or someone you know has been injured, the Warshafsky Law Firm offers free consultations and at-home visits. Call 800-728-4970 today to speak with a Warshafsky lawyer.
The accident appears to have been caused by several unfortunate events, 1) the girl's harness probably failed; and 2) the ride's safety net failed as the last line of defense. Authorities are likely to conduct their investigation to determine whether any criminal charges should be filed. Likewise, OHSA will probably conduct their own investigation because the accident occurred at a workplace. Extreme World likely also faces severe civil liability if their employees are determined to have been reckless or negligent in maintaining the ride. This determination will necessarily be made by qualified personal injury attorneys and private investigators.
Personal injury lawsuits involving entities in Wisconsin Dells often present challenges in finding the proper party to sue. Typically, companies in the Dells operate under many different umbrellas and sub-corporations - usually all very similar on paper, but yet different corporate entities. It becomes important to identify the proper entity early on so negotiations can begin immediately, and evidence can be preserved.
If you or someone you know has been injured, the Warshafsky Law Firm offers free consultations and at-home visits. Call 800-728-4970 today to speak with a Warshafsky lawyer.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Warshafsky Files Mandamus to Protect Public
As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported, a very unusual writ of mandamus has been filed against the Department of Licensing and Regulation involving Dr. Cully White of Milwaukee. A writ of mandamus (latin for “we command”) is used in situations where the government has a clear duty to act but has not. While unusual and rare in fiings, it is most commonly used when government agencies fail to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. This writ of mandamus seeks investigative materials relative to alleged malpractice committed by a prominent local surgeon.
In 2004 Ken Plants filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Cully White alleging Dr. White operated on the wrong side of his spine, causing severe and permanent nerve damage. The lawsuit also alleges Dr. White billed for a surgery ($7000) he did not perform and subsequently lied to Ken Plants about the surgery. The lawsuit settled in August 2009 for 2.9 million. Ken Plants refused a confidentiality clause that would have made the terms of the settlement confidential.
The writ targets the Medical Examing Board, which has the responsibility to “investigate allegations of unprofessional conduct in a reasonable time.” Despite hand delivering every possible piece of evidence to the Board, the Board has not provided Plants or his attorney with investigation materials, or even if the investigation has begun. The writ demands the Board do the following: 1) provide the petitioner with the Board’s report generated in this matter; 2) if not report has not been generated, an update on actions in furtherance of a report; or 3) how the Board intends to complete its report and when.
This Writ follows an interview with ABC 12 last Fall where the Board admitted that it takes 4, 5, or even 6 years for the Board to take any action following settlement or trial involving medical malpractice. A typical medical malpractice case takes about 3 years to settle or go to trial. It then takes 4-6 years before the Board takes any action against the doctor. Essentially, it could take upwards of 10 years before a doctor is disciplined by the State of acts of negligence. Prospective patients have absoulutely no way of knowing a doctor they are choosing is being investigated during that 10 year period. The writ appers to force the Board to provide greater transparency and actually carry out the Wisconsin statutes aimed at protecting the citizens of Wisconsin.
In 2004 Ken Plants filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Cully White alleging Dr. White operated on the wrong side of his spine, causing severe and permanent nerve damage. The lawsuit also alleges Dr. White billed for a surgery ($7000) he did not perform and subsequently lied to Ken Plants about the surgery. The lawsuit settled in August 2009 for 2.9 million. Ken Plants refused a confidentiality clause that would have made the terms of the settlement confidential.
The writ targets the Medical Examing Board, which has the responsibility to “investigate allegations of unprofessional conduct in a reasonable time.” Despite hand delivering every possible piece of evidence to the Board, the Board has not provided Plants or his attorney with investigation materials, or even if the investigation has begun. The writ demands the Board do the following: 1) provide the petitioner with the Board’s report generated in this matter; 2) if not report has not been generated, an update on actions in furtherance of a report; or 3) how the Board intends to complete its report and when.
This Writ follows an interview with ABC 12 last Fall where the Board admitted that it takes 4, 5, or even 6 years for the Board to take any action following settlement or trial involving medical malpractice. A typical medical malpractice case takes about 3 years to settle or go to trial. It then takes 4-6 years before the Board takes any action against the doctor. Essentially, it could take upwards of 10 years before a doctor is disciplined by the State of acts of negligence. Prospective patients have absoulutely no way of knowing a doctor they are choosing is being investigated during that 10 year period. The writ appers to force the Board to provide greater transparency and actually carry out the Wisconsin statutes aimed at protecting the citizens of Wisconsin.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Injured Inmate May Collect From State
A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision correctly ruled that an inmate injured due the negligence of another inmate may collect damages. In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court and trial court in finding that "governmental immunity" did not extend to an inmate who disregarded the most basic rules dismantling horse stalls at Wisconsin State Fair Park.
The case delivers a blow to the oft-used and ever-extending scope of governmental immunity. In general, government employees are immune from negligence lawsuits if there actions were done in course and scope of their employment. However, this is not true if the act causing the negligence was "ministerial" in nature; meaning, the task was so specific and concrete that it does not require the use of discretion. Immunity also does not extend when the government employee acts in the facts of a "known danger".
Perhaps this decision will force governmental agencies and their attorneys to more readily consider settlement of smaller claims without protracted litigation. Whatever the effect, the Court seemingly made it clear that exceptions to governmental immunity are alive and well, and that cases against governmental entities may be more viable in the future.
If you or anyone you know has questions regarding an injury caused by a governmental agency, please contact the Warshafsky Law Firm to discuss your rights.
The case delivers a blow to the oft-used and ever-extending scope of governmental immunity. In general, government employees are immune from negligence lawsuits if there actions were done in course and scope of their employment. However, this is not true if the act causing the negligence was "ministerial" in nature; meaning, the task was so specific and concrete that it does not require the use of discretion. Immunity also does not extend when the government employee acts in the facts of a "known danger".
Perhaps this decision will force governmental agencies and their attorneys to more readily consider settlement of smaller claims without protracted litigation. Whatever the effect, the Court seemingly made it clear that exceptions to governmental immunity are alive and well, and that cases against governmental entities may be more viable in the future.
If you or anyone you know has questions regarding an injury caused by a governmental agency, please contact the Warshafsky Law Firm to discuss your rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
