Wrongful Death - Philadelphia Injury and Malpractice Attorneys - The Beasley Firm

I heard the sirens going by my office today and shortly thereafter the news flashed across my computer screen: the building at 22^nd and Market that housed the Salvation Army had collapsed, trapping people inside.  When an awful tragedy like that occurs, catastrophic injury lawyers feel the same rush of empathy and emotions as everyone else, but then the wheels start turning: how did this happen? Structural engineering is one of the oldest arts in the world, and buildings today don’t just collapse unless someone did something wrong. The Kensington Warehouse Fire that killed two firefighters, for example, wasn’t just “an accident” — it was the result of gross neglect of the property, and it was completely preventable.

The moment the news started reporting that the collapse was part of a demolition, I immediately wondered: “did the contractor use helical piers to support the next door foundation?”

The helical pier (a/k/a screw pile) was invented in 1830 by Alexander Mitchell, an Irish engineer.  It looks like a giant steel drill bit, and it was originally used to stabilize beachfront structures such as light houses built on sand. The piers were made of cast or wrought iron (or steel) and would be literally screwed into the ground to underpin the foundation. These piers provide more firmness and stability than straight piers.

Without the use of helical piers, the urban demolition contractor is simply asking for trouble. Buildings in the Philadelphia metropolitan area tend to be old, and often lack adequate support for the foundations.   In certain sections of the city, foundations can be merely 8-12 inches deep. So, common sense would suggest that tearing away its buttressed walls, could cause collapse. In a tear-down, it is critical that the demolition contractor strengthen the neighboring buildings’ foundations.

Before I joined The Beasley Firm, I used to represent demolition companies that would perform tear-downs in row homes and row businesses in blighted neighborhoods for the City of Philadelphia.   Inevitably, lawsuits would be filed for damage to the adjacent structure, as the next-door demolition would cause partial and/or complete collapses to its neighboring structure. There is usually a warning that a neighbor’s structure has been compromised and, as a matter of course, the first thing I would obtain in my investigation was the City of Philadelphia Inspector’s file to see how the project had been progressing and/or whether there was any notice to the contractor that damage to the adjacent property had been made.

Obviously, the same needs to be done here by any lawyer representing the victims of the collapse. I would want to know if the company or any of its subcontractors were given any earlier violations and/or citations from the City and/or OSHA. I would look to see whether the blue prints (if there were any prepared) required the use of helical piers during demolition, and to ensure every precaution was taken to prevent foundational damage to the adjacent structures, like using bracing on any walls that had weak foundations, or from which supports had been removed.

Since I used to be the one to come up with them, I already know the defenses the demolition contractors will raise:

• Center of City of Philadelphia buildings are all tied in together;
• There was no immediate damage to the bricks of the adjacent building;
• The adjacent building had been compromised previously due to long-term rain water and faulty roof leakage;
• The blueprints did not call for the use of helical piers;
• The architect and the City Inspector’s office had approved of the demolition work.

But the simple answer to all of those defenses is: “use helical piers.” When demolition is being performed, it is imperative that shoring equipment and supports be used during and after the demolition.   Few currently standing building are so weak that they can’t be reinforced for the demolition — or, if they are that weak, then the demolition contractor has an obligation to recognize that, to warn the property owner, and to call off the demolition.

I would be interested to see the blueprints and the Inspector’s file on the 22^nd and Market project. Right now, with nothing more than a news report, I am quite sure that we would find that no contractor lent the Salvation Army Building the support of helical piers, that an inadequate assessment of the risks was performed, and that bracing wasn’t added to walls and ceilings as their support was removed.

This isn’t rocket science; most of it is required by law. For example, OSHA regulation 1926.850(a) requires:

Prior to permitting employees to start demolition operations, an engineering survey shall be made, by a competent person, of the structure to determine the condition of the framing, floors, and walls, and possibility of unplanned collapse of any portion of the structure. Any adjacent structure where employees may be exposed shall also be similarly checked. The employer shall have in writing evidence that such a survey has been performed.

Did the demolition contractors do that? I’d say probably not — if they had, this wouldn’t have happened. Odds are, either they didn’t do a proper survey, didn’t use helical piers, or didn’t add bracing to a structure after removing the supports. There’s good odds they didn’t do any of those. It’s our experience that catastrophes  whether they be airplane crashes or building collapses, are the result of multiple simultaneous failures. Indeed, rumors have surfaced about the quality and safety of work there, including this disturbing claim that, a month before the tragedy, someone in the neighborhood filed this complaint with Philly311:

The workers are not wearing any safety equipment (not even hardhats while working to demolish brick facades with crowbars). The sidewalk is not adequately protected, and there appears to be no adequate plan to prevent the collapse of walls or facing materials onto pedestrians and those exiting the subway.

If true, then this tragedy was not merely preventable, and not merely negligent; it was criminal.

For over fifty years, The Beasley Firm has set the standard for representing the injured in catastrophic accidents, with hundreds of successful verdicts and settlements for our clients. Our construction accident team include attorneys who have more than 30 years combined experience in handling construction accidents, injuries and fatalities, alongside the top investigators, structural engineers, and demolition experts in the country.

If your loved one has been injured in a building collapse and you are investigating the possibility of filing a workers’ compensation claim and/or third party lawsuit, contact our firm for a free, confidential review by our experienced construction accident lawyers. You can use the online form above, or call the firm’s main line at (215) 592-1000.

The headline started with the phrase “$109 Million Personal-Injury Award,” but two phrases from the article better summed up what really happened: “Mommy is on fire,” and “the power line that had killed her had collapsed in the family’s yard twice before, [but] no serious attempt was made to find out why the line failed.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s article on the recent verdict in the Goretzka v. West Penn Power Co. electrocution case  is concise yet thorough, portraying the extraordinary lawsuit in an even-handed manner. The $109 million verdict has two components.

$48 million of the award was for compensatory damages, split between the “wrongful death” claim for her husband and her two little girls, and the “survival claim” representing the compensation she would have recovered had she lived. (More about that divide in this post on wrongful death damages.) The number is certainly at the top end of compensatory damages verdicts, but it is not surprising. Lawyers who have worked on a number of catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases spend a lot of time talking with physicians who provide expert testimony about the pain caused by various injuries, and few disagree that the two most painful experiences a person can suffer are electric shock and significant burns. Ms. Goretzka had both: 20 minutes of severe electrocution that caused her burns over 85% of her body, followed by three days in agony at the hospital. The article doesn’t say what she died from specifically, but under the circumstances, I assume infection, as burn victims tend to die from infection.

She suffered thus suffered pain almost beyond comprehension. The thought of it reminded me of the words of George Wilson, a Scottish chemist who had his foot amputated in 1843, before use of anesthesia:

During the operation, in spite of the pain it occasioned, my senses were preternaturally acute. I watched all that the surgeons did with a fascinated intensity. Of the agony it occasioned, I will say nothing. Suffering so great as I underwent cannot be expressed in words, and thus fortunately cannot be recalled. The particular pangs are now forgotten; but the black whirlwind of emotion, the horror of great darkness, and the sense of desertion by God and man, bordering close upon despair, which swept through my mind and overwhelmed my heart, I can never forget, however gladly I would do so.

$61 million of the award was for punitive damages, the subject of the article. That figure was reached through a surprisingly generous calculation: the jurors took one quarter of the company’s retained earnings after dividends and expenses, and awarded that.

(The article also reveals that, just prior to trial, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for $50 million and a commitment for the company to fix improperly installed electrical wires across Western Pennsylvania, but the company backed out the next day.)

But the article bothered me nonetheless, because it could leave a mistaken impression with readers. This case was, by any interpretation, extraordinary, and the presence of punitive damages was extraordinary as well. Punitive damages are one of the great bogeymen of tort reformers, who repeatedly point to verdicts like this and then claim that they are commonplace and destroying American business. Nothing could be further from the truth: punitive damages are barely even presented to the jury, even more rarely reported, even more rarely sustained on appeal, and even more rarely actually collected against the defendants.

A 2005 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that, in the mere 3% of civil cases that were resolved by a trial, punitive damages were awarded in fewer than 1% of typical tort cases, like negligence, product liability, and malpractice cases. (If intentional torts — like criminal assaults — are included, the figure rises to 3% of tort cases.) The study looked at Allegheny County specifically, and found that punitive damages were only even sought in 3% of civil cases, including intentional torts and fraud claims. Even when those criminal cases are included, the median punitive damages verdicts were still only $64,000.

That’s certainly my experience, as most of my cases don’t even involve punitive damages. But even in the big punitive damages case, the verdicts don’t necessarily translate into actual money paid. A few years ago I was co-counsel in a wrongful death trial in Philadelphia that resulted in a large verdict, including a $15 million punitives damages component. When all was said and done, after all of the appeals and bankruptcies, we collected not one penny of those punitive damages, and the defendant is still out there, doing business as usual, hurting people just the same.

So while I applaude the Inquirer from bringing attention to the awful facts of this case — and thus showing to the public how justified they were — I do wish they would have put more into explaining how rare punitive damages are.

Anesthesia or conscious sedation can be a wonderful thing.  It allows patients to undergo surgery or other invasive procedures without experiencing pain or discomfort.  It has come a long way since chloroform, ether, and opium but it is still not without risk of harm.  Current statistics show that 1 in every 200,000 to 300,000 patients die and others are seriously injured due to anesthesia complications or mistakes.

Three common types of anesthesia include:

• Local anesthesia which is used to numb a small, specific area of the body, such as a tooth.
• Regional anesthesia to numb a larger section of the body.  Spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia are examples of regional anesthesia
• General anesthesia that results in unconsciousness and lack of sensation

Anesthesia is not only administered in hospital operating rooms (OR).  It is also used in surgical centers, dentist offices, emergency departments, intensive care units, outpatient procedure units, pain clinics, plastic surgery offices, ambulatory surgery facilities (ASF) and short procedure units.

The following are anesthesia mistakes or negligent acts that can happen when a patient is receiving anesthesia:

• Anesthesia dose or medication error resulting in too little or too much anesthesia
• Improper intubation or failure to properly oxygenate the patient leading to hypoxia or a brain injury
• Delay in receiving the medication due to a faulty intravenous (IV) line
• Not monitoring an IV line that could lead to fluid or medication infiltration and compartment syndrome
• A failure to recognize any complications during anesthesia or surgery
• Failure to respond quickly enough to an emergency situation or if the patient becomes unstable
• Traumatic or forceful intubation that could perforate the esophagus
• Placing an epidural in the wrong spot
• A failure to monitor or address unstable vital signs
• Improper padding or limb protection
• Damage to nerves or spinal column
• Give the wrong medication
• Not monitoring the pulse oximetry (pulse ox) to check on proper oxygenation or turning the alarms off.
• Ignoring alarms
• Leaving the head of the bed and leaving patient unattended
• Allowing the oxygen source to come too close to electrical equipment causing a flash fire, sparks or burns
• Defective equipment
• Not having the proper resuscitation equipment in case of a medical emergency

An anesthesia error or anesthesiologist mistake can cause tracheal or esophageal damage, a lack of oxygen to the brain, blindness, stroke, heart attack, damage to a limb, birth injury in a pregnant mother, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, paraplegia, nerve damage, coma or even death.

If you or a family member were injured while undergoing a surgical procedure or receiving anesthesia by an anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist (CRNA) you may be eligible for compensation.  Here at the Philadelphia Beasley medical malpractice law firm we have on staff doctors and nurses who have actually worked in hospitals or centers where anesthesia was administered.  To date, our experienced legal and medical teams have had over $2 billion awarded on behalf of our injured clients.  Please feel free to contact one of our lawyers, doctors or nurses at 1.888.823.5291 for a strictly confidential and free consultation.

Research published by the American Diabetes Association shows that non-critically ill patients who develop hyperglycemia or a high blood sugar after receiving total parental nutrition (TPN) or hyperalimentation are more likely to die in the hospital.

TPN is used in patients who cannot or shouldn’t get their nutrition by eating.  TPN may include a combination of sugar, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, electrolytes and trace elements.  TPN is administered to any patient, from premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to the elderly if it is medically necessary for nutritional purposes.

The research found that patients who were not critically ill who had an average blood glucose or blood sugar level above 180 mg/dl due to TPN had a 5.6-fold increase in wrongful death as compared to those patients whose blood sugars were below 140 mg/dl.  The increase in mortality persisted even after accounting for patient age, nutritional status, sex, other medical conditions, high blood sugar prior to TPN, diabetes, C-reactive protein level, albumin level, hemoglobin levels or infections.

Hyperglycemia or too much sugar in the blood can cause the following problems:

• Polydipsia – frequent or excessive thirst
• Polyphagia – frequent or pronounced hunger
• Polyuria – frequent urination
• Fatigue
• Blurred vision
• Weight loss
• Dry mouth
• Poor circulation
• Poor wound healing
• Dry or itchy skin
• Numbness or tingling in the extremities, especially the feet and legs
• Erectile dysfunction
• Recurrent infections
• Seizures
• Irregular heart beat or cardiac arrhythmia
• Coma
• Death

This most recent research data suggests that the goal of blood sugar control in patients who are not critically ill, with or without diabetes, who are receiving TPN or hyperalimentation, should be to have a blood glucose level below 180mg/dl.  According to the authors, “This study opens the door to further prospective studies in non-critically ill patients to determine whether stricter blood glucose control during TPN infusion improves the outcome for patients and reduces mortality.”

If you or a loved one developed complications from a high blood sugar or hyperglycemia, we may be able to assist you.  Here at the Philadelphia Beasley medical malpractice law firm we have on staff physicians and nurses who have cared for patients on hyperalimentation or who had hyperglycemic episodes.  Please feel free to contact one of our lawyers, doctors or nurses at 1.888.823.5291 for a strictly confidential and free consultation.

For over 50 years we have been a leader in Philadelphia’s legal community when an individual who has been harmed, is looking for a law firm to represent them. Since 1958, The Philadelphia Beasley Law Firm attorneys have represented some of the most prominent and powerful people in the area and obtained record setting verdicts and settlements, including the first ever million dollar verdict in Pennsylvania. Our Firm has obtained hundreds of verdicts or settlements that were $1 million and above, and has had over two billion dollars awarded on behalf of our injured clients.

In September 2010, a 24 week premature little boy was born in an Illinois hospital.  Due to his prematurity, he had to receive all of his nutrition from intravenous (IV) fluids and electrolytes.  The newborn was doing very well after birth until a grave mistake made by a pharmacy technician caused an extremely high level of sodium in his little body or hypernatremia.

The pharmacy technician, who was following a doctor’s order, filled the IV bag with 60 times the amount of sodium that should have been added.  It was also discovered that the initial label on the IV bag correctly identified the incorrect amount of sodium.  Instead of discarding the IV fluid with the incorrect sodium amount, a new label was created showing the correct sodium dosage and was placed over the first label.  The nurse administering the IV fluid was not made aware of the mistake or the creation of a new label.

In the following days, when this little boy’s lab tests were showing an extremely high sodium level, it was chalked up to being an incorrect lab result.  Sadly, it was not an incorrect lab result and he died of hypernatremia or excessive amount sodium in his body.  His parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit blaming a series of hospital, pharmacy, nursing and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or neonatologist negligence that led to his untimely death.

Hypernatremia or a high sodium level in the body can cause mental status changes, confusion, lethargy, irritability, weakness, edema or swelling, muscle twitching, exaggerated reflexes, tremors, seizures, coma and death.

In addition to receiving an overdose of sodium, individuals can suffer from hypernatremia if they do not have enough water intake or are dehydrated.  The elderly, chronically ill, children and overworked athletes are at a high risk of developing hypernatremia.  It is very important that a healthcare provider diagnose and quickly treat a high sodium level before it results in a catastrophic injury or death.

Our highly specialized legal and medical teams here at the Philadelphia Beasley wrongful death law firm have evaluated numerous cases where hypernatremia, dehydration or a high sodium level was not properly diagnosed or treated in a timely manner, and it led to a catastrophic injury or wrongful death.  If you think you or a loved one has suffered due to a medication error please feel free to contact one of our lawyers, doctors or nurses at 1.888.823.5291 for strictly confidential and free consultation.

A national report ranked the state of New Jersey (NJ) as the 21^st most dangerous state to be a pedestrian or walk in.  Transportation for America found that roads or highways in New Jersey frequently lack sidewalks or crosswalks, leaving walkers no other choice than to be in harms way especially in areas where cars or trucks are traveling at a high rate of speed.  This is especially true in the winter months when both the roads and side of the roads are covered with ice, snow or freezing rain.  Experts agree that there is heavy traffic in New Jersey especially around malls, shopping centers or stores and limited safe paths for walkers.  Anyone who is struck by a car can be left with limb amputations, blindness, brain damage, spinal cord injury, internal bleeding and organ damage, paraplegia, quadriplegia or even death.

The report that was released showed that in between 2000 and 2009, in the Garden State, 21.3 percent of “traffic” deaths involved a pedestrian, and that 1,514 people were killed in auto-pedestrian car accidents.  Both Monmouth and Ocean Counties had 87 pedestrian fatalities over the 9 year period.  Middlesex County had 145 pedestrian deaths.  Union county had 144 auto-pedestrian deaths.  Morris County had 50 pedestrian traffic fatalities.  Somerset County had 33 deaths and Hunterdon County had 17 deaths.  The Group also indicated that Route 130 in Burlington County was the most dangerous road for pedestrians to walk on since there has been 17 people killed on that road while walking in just the last five years.

The report also showed that African-Americans, Hispanics, and senior citizens are more likely struck and killed than Caucasian pedestrians, which places New Jersey as the eighth highest in the nation for elderly or senior citizen auto-pedestrian deaths.

Our experienced motor vehicle accident lawyers here at the Beasley Law Firm employ the most skilled and experienced auto-pedestrian related investigators, engineers, safety experts, and accident reconstructionist to thoroughly investigate any auto or car accident related injury case.  In addition, we also have on our staff two registered nurses and two physicians who are very familiar with the catastrophic injuries that one sustains after being hit or run over by a car or other motor vehicle.  Two of our registered nurses were certified emergency room nurses and trauma nurses.

If you or a loved one has been involved in an auto-pedestrian or hit and run accident which has caused a catastrophic injury or death, the Pennsylvania (PA) and New Jersey Transit auto accident attorneys of the Philadelphia Beasley Firm is where you want to turn to for help. Our medical and legal teams have a proven track record since 1958 in handling serious and catastrophic injury litigation and wrongful death cases. Please feel free to contact one of our auto accident lawyers, doctors or nurses at 1.888.823.5291 for a strictly confidential and free consultation.  To date, we have had over $2 billion awarded on behalf of our injured clients.

Pyelonephritis is urinary tract infection (UTI) that has traveled up and out of the bladder, into the ureter and reaching the pelvis of the kidney.   Women who are sexually active, infants, the elderly and patients with indwelling urinary catheters are at an increased risk of developing pyelonephritis.

If you have a urinary tract infection (UTI), you may experience burning with urination, an urgent or frequent need to go to the bathroom, cloudy or dark urine, and pelvic or lower abdominal pain.  A low grade fever may or may not be present.  If a UTI is not diagnosed and treated properly, it could lead to the development of pyelonephritis.

Patients with pyelonephritis, or kidney infection, may present with a high fever, fast heart rate, painful urination, blood in urine, nausea, vomiting, shaking chills, night sweats, abdominal pain or tenderness over the costovertebral angle.  The costovertebral angle is located on either side of the back in between the 12^th rib, and vertebral column, where the kidneys are located.  Pain is also present in that area if there is a kidney stone or inflammation of the kidney.  If there is a failure to diagnose or treat pyelonephritis, it could lead to urosepsis or an overwhelming bacteria invasion of the blood stream.  Sepsis or septic shock can lead to a very low blood pressure, fast heart rate, difficulty breathing, decreased urine output, organ failure, coma or even death.

Bladder infections, UTI’s or pyelonephritis can be caused by E. coli, enterococcus faecalis, coliform bacteria, enterococci, pseudomonas or klebsiella.  In order to confirm what organism could be causing the infection, a urine culture with antibiotic sensitivity needs to be performed.  Not only will the test diagnose what bacterium is causing the infection, it will determine what antibiotic is best to help treat the infection.  Most times, if the infection is diagnosed and treated early enough, the patient will only have to take oral antibiotics or pills to treat the infection.  However, if there was a delay in diagnosing the infection, the patient may need to be admitted to the hospital for intravenous (IV) hydration and IV antibiotics.  If urosepsis or septic shock is present, additional medications may be needed to maintain the blood pressure and other vital organ functions.  A failure to properly treat urosepsis could lead to an infection related death.

If you, your child or a loved one has suffered due to a delay in diagnosing and treating a UTI, kidney infection, bladder infection or pyelonephritis, please feel free to contact one of our experienced medical malpractice lawyers, doctors or nurses at 1.888.823.5291 for a strictly confidential and free consultation.  To date, we have been awarded over $2 billion on behalf of our injured clients.

Most times, a stomach virus, stomach flu or food poisoning is not dangerous to your baby while you are pregnant.  A pregnant mother who is vomiting or who has diarrhea while pregnant is treated with bed rest and fluids or admitted to the hospital and administered intravenous (IV) fluids until she is able to keep food and fluids on the stomach.  However, a recent finding may make Obstetricians, Pediatricians and Neonatologists pay more attention if a mother is sick during pregnancy or if a newborn becomes ill shortly after birth.

Swiss researchers reported that a newborn became ill with a type of E. coli bacteria after he acquired it from his mother during delivery.  What was really unusual about this finding is that the mother did not have any symptoms of a stomach virus or food poisoning during pregnancy.  Two days after a normal delivery, the newborn started vomiting and within a week, developed seizures and kidney failure.  The baby eventually developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) that was caused by a shiga toxin.  When the mother was tested, it showed that she was infected with a strain of E. coli that produces the shiga toxin.  Stool testing from both the mother and baby showed that both were infected with the same strain of E. coli and shiga toxin.

This less potent strain of E.coli bacteria meant that the pregnant mother was able to carry this bug without having any symptoms such as nausea, vomiting or diarrhea.  However, since her newborn baby’s stomach was still germ free or sterile, the bacteria were allowed to multiple in the baby’s body without other bacterium attacking it.

The E. coli bacterium can be found in contaminated food such as undercooked meat, dairy products, and juice.  It can also be present in swimming pools or lakes that are contaminated with feces and at petting zoos. Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) develops when the E. coli that is in the stomach or intestines starts to make toxins or poisons that get into the bloodstream and destroy the red blood cells and platelets.

Even though there are only a few other cases, that we know of, where there was mother-to-baby transmission of shiga toxin-producing E. coli, this must always be a possibility as a source of infection in a newborn even if the mother was not sick during the pregnancy or delivery. Just like any other bacteria, including herpes or group B strep (GBS), that is known to pass from mother to baby during birth, a failure to diagnose and treat the E. coli infection could lead to serious injuries or even death to a newborn.

Here at the Philadelphia Beasley birth injury law firm, we have been award numerous million and multi-million awards and settlements on behalf of birth injured newborns and babies infected with GBS and other infections during labor and delivery.  Our experienced lawyers, doctors, prenatal nurses, labor and delivery nurses and neonatal intensive care (NICU) nurses are here to help you if your baby was injured during birth or developed an infection in the newborn period.  Please feel free to contact us at 1.800.588.0310 for a strictly confidential and free consultation.

We investigate a lot of wrongful death and medical malpractice cases here, which means we spend a lot of time requesting and reviewing the decedent’s medical records. When it comes to potential medical malpractice lawsuits where a family member has died, we are required to obtain and review the medical records before we can file a lawsuit. Indeed, all three of the states in which we primarily practice law (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware) have “certificate of merit” or “affidavit of merit” requirements, meaning that, after we have reviewed the records and determined that the client has a case, we must also provide those records to a qualified physician expert who will attest to the possibility of malpractice.

In short, when it comes to malpractice cases, we need medical records as soon as possible, because the process of reviewing the records – which sometimes comprise thousands of disorganized pages, many of them containing barely legible hand written notes – and having them reviewed by an outside expert can take months itself. One of the things we have learned through our over 50 years of malpractice experience is that patients’ family members can usually obtain their loved one’s medical records much quicker than we can.

There are a lot of reasons for that difference. Part of it is sheer bureaucracy: we usually have to make a request through complicated record-keeping services, which then make their request through a hospital or physician practice group’s records department, which then evaluates and approves the request through its own internal bureaucracy. In contrast, patients can usually go directly to the provider in question, or to the doctor’s or hospital’s record-keeper, and demand a copy be made of the records. Part of it is pettiness: healthcare providers usually aren’t in a rush to give records when they think the records are being reviewed for potential malpractice claim.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of potential clients who have just lost a spouse, a child, or parent given the runaround by hospitals that make unnecessary demands and force family members to jump through hoops and fill out strange forms, just to deny the request and then make them fill out entirely different forms. Thankfully, there are federal and state laws that mandate when a deceased person’s medical records must be provided. The Journal of The American Health Information Management Association has answers to frequently asked questions about access, and some more information in this blog post, and we summarize much of the law below.

In short, usually what you need is to be appointed executor of the decedent’s estate, and then bring that paperwork to the hospital or doctor’s office.

Federal regulations (45 CFR 164.502, read more from Health & Human Services here) require that hospitals and other health care providers “treat a personal representative as the individual,” and then say specifically:

Deceased individuals. If under applicable law an executor, administrator, or other person has authority to act on behalf of a deceased individual or of the individual’s estate, a covered entity must treat such person as a personal representative under this subchapter, with respect to protected health information relevant to such personal representation.

In other words, the executor of the estate is usually the best person to request the records, and what they’ll normally need is (a) a death certificate for the deceased person and (b) letters of administration appointing them the executor of the estate. Some hospitals require these “personal representatives” also fill out a HIPAA authorization for the deceased person; that’s not required by law, but it’s usually easier just to do the form.

Pennsylvania law (28 Pa. Code § 115.29) states that “Upon the death of a patient, the hospital shall provide, upon request, to the executor of the decedent’s estate or, in the absence of an executor, the next of kin responsible for the disposition of the remains, access to all medical records of the deceased patient.” Notice how that can be a bit broader than the federal rule — if no one has been appointed executor of the estate, then the “next of kin” responsible for the decedent’s remains can obtain the records.

New Jersey law (N.J. Stat. § 2A:82-42, but no official copy online I could find) states that “Any person who has been injured, or his legal representative, who has asserted, or who is about to assert a claim for compensation or damages for personal injuries or death resulting therefrom, shall be permitted to examine the records of any hospital pertaining to the claim of such injured or deceased person.” This guide about medical records rights prepared by Georgetown law (PDF file) has more detail.

Delaware doesn’t have a specific statute for deceased person’s medical records, but that just means the federal rule applies.

Since 1958, The Beasley Firm, based in Philadelphia with attorneys licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and other states, has fought hard for wrongful death survivors, obtaining over $2 billion in jury awards and settlements, $1 billion of it in wrongful death cases. If you lost a loved one and suspect negligence or malpractice was involved, contact our wrongful death lawyers for a free and confidential consultation.

As negligence lawyers, we spend a lot of time looking at tragedies in hindsight. To win a case, we have to prove that a catastrophic accident could have been, and should have been, prevented through the use of reasonable precautions. We thus spend a lot of time investigating accidents to reveal what the defendant should have done differently.

Two recent tragedies in the news have reminded me of the deadly consequences of shared responsibility.

“Shared responsibility” sounds like a sensible idea – two sets of eyes are better than one, right? And even more eyes is even better, right? The ironic truth, however, is that people often become less safety conscious, and thus more irresponsible and reckless, when they believe others are looking out for them.

In the Netherlands, for example, many cities and towns have experimented with an idea that sounds crazy at first: removing all of the lights and signs at intersections. Road designers in Europe have found — and many road safety experts in the United States believe — that these safety features cause people to stop thinking about the circumstances around them. Instead of promoting safety, the traffic signals cause people to turn off their brains and blindly follow the signs. Removing the signs, then, forces drivers and pedestrians to be on guard about their own safety and safety of others, resulting in a reduction in overall crashes.

Which brings me back the two tragedies. An article in this month’s Outside magazine describes in detail how a group of expert skiers somehow found themselves voluntarily skiing in an avalanche-prone area right after new snowfall, causing an avalanche that left three of them dead. When each of the skiers went out, they mistakenly depended on each other to be vigilant about their own safety; in the end, none of them really thought through the situation. As the article explains:

ALL OF THE WARNING signs had been there, glaring and obvious: heaps of new snow, terrain that would funnel a slide into a gully, a large and confident group with a herd mentality, and a forecast that warned of dangerous avalanche conditions. All of us had been trained to recognize these risk factors, yet we did not heed them. Why?

“In a group, you feel less accountable for making decisions,” Peikert said later. “Because it’s one or two people making the call. It’s like a riot—if one person throws a rock, everyone starts throwing rocks.”

There is a sea change occurring in avalanche education. A decade ago, courses focused on digging snow pits and analyzing weak layers. But then, says Lel Tone, an avalanche-safety instructor, “we realized we were giving people a false sense of confidence. Looking at the statistics, there was a period of time when people who had taken an Avy 1 course were the ones being caught in avalanches.”

In the other tragedy, last weekend the residents of Midland, Texas were shocked by an unbelievable accident in which a tractor-trailer carrying Iraqi and Afghanistan war heroes in a parade was struck by a train. The NTSB has already concluded that, at the time of the accident, the train crossing’s signals were working properly, and that they had given off their warnings well in advance of the actual accident. Despite the train crossing warnings, the driver of the truck not only drove onto the tracks, but did so without adequate room in front of him to drive all the way through, a blatant violation of safe truck driving practices.

How on earth could that happen? How could a licensed, qualified commercial driver foolishly ignore railroad crossing signals and enter the tracks without adequate room to pull forward? I think that, in time, the NTSB investigation will reveal that the problem was, ironically, the police escort. I don’t mean that the officers did something wrong — but my hunch is that the truck driver, in the middle of a parade with several police escorts, figured that the police officers were looking out for traffic hazards in general, and so let his guard down and blindly followed the parade float ahead of him.

These two tragedies are thus a reminder to us all to beware the dangers of shared responsibility. If you’re not 100% sure who is looking out for safety, then it’s up to you and you alone.