Blood thinners are a common medication prescribed for individuals that are prone to clotting or suffer from cardiovascular medical conditions. Xarelto, a popular anticoagulant released in 2011 by drug manufacturers Bayer and Johnson & Johnson was originally intended for use after knee or hip replacement surgery. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration then approved the drug to help treat blood clots and atrial fibrillation. According to the website of the lawyers at Williams Kherkher, over 7 million people are currently prescribed Xarelto.
Previously, Warfarin was the leading blood thinner on the market. The older drug had been used for more than 50 years at the time of the release of Xarelto. Xarelto presented a simpler option for users as it did not require the constant physicians’ visits and blood work that Warfarin required. While Xarelto did not have the negative attributes of Warfarin, it also did not have some of the positive features of the older drug.
Unlike Warfarin, Xarelto does not have an antidote or reversal agent. Blood thinners, while aiding many Americans in treating their health conditions, also increases the risk of excessive bleeding. The purpose of Xarelto and other anticoagulants is to prevent blood from clotting. If a patient on a blood thinner were to fall and obtain a flesh wound, that injury would be at risk of severe blood loss. Some of these incidents are fatal.
The lack of antidote was not advertised information to the public being prescribed Xarelto. Patients experiencing bleeding events do not have many treatment options. Other blood thinners can use vitamin K or specific reversal agent injections to keep blood loss under control. Xarelto does not have these options and, furthermore, cannot be flushed from the system with dialysis. Patients must wait until the drug is removed from the blood stream naturally.
Manufacturers of faulty products should be held accountable for the pain and suffering of their clients. If you experienced adverse side effects while taking Xarelto, consult a lawyer that specializes in Xarelto cases to discuss your legal options.
There has been a lot of attention focused on legislation that seeks to limit (cap) non-economic awards for medical malpractice lawsuits in an attempt to reduce healthcare costs. However, that is rather like closing the barn doors after the horses have fled, because the purpose of medical malpractice is not to get monetary awards but to motivate health professionals to honor their duty of care to patients. As found on the website of The Benton Law Firm, patients have the right to expect that they receive the appropriate medical care.
Take for example the case of a Connecticut hospital that reduced medical malpractice claims by half by simply improving their patient care system. There are no medical malpractice caps in Connecticut, which clearly illustrates what really needs to be done to reduce malpractice claims: better patient care.
Healthcare professionals, especially medical doctors, and especially specialists, have bought into the belief that they are gods, and that they can do no wrong. Consider the case of a celebrated cardiologist in Fresno who left an open-heart surgical procedure before it was done, leaving it to an assistant to finish the job. The patient went into a vegetative state, and the doctor is now being sued for medical negligence.
Because healthcare professionals literally have our lives in their hands, they are stringently trained and expected to conform to a high standard of care. When they breach that duty through willful or reckless behavior, they need to be held accountable for the damage they inflict on people who have put their utmost trust in them. Because medical malpractice often results in life-changing injuries or death, it is just right that the victims or their survivors receive at least significant financial compensation for their losses.
If you have been a victim of medical malpractice and suffered grievous injury as a result, financial compensation is the least that is owed you. A medical malpractice lawyer may not be able to “make whole” what has been lost, but they can help in giving you the best shot at it.
There is often something in the news about someone who slipped and fell on an icy patch in front of an establishment winning spectacular amounts of money in a personal injury lawsuit. The fact of the matter is, establishing fault let alone negligence in a slip-and-fall case is not at all easy.
There are two concepts essential in premises liability cases that may seem simple enough in everyday use but can involve quite a bit of legal complexity. One is reasonableness, and the other is foreseeability. The first concept pertains to the injured party while the second one to the premises owner.
People have a right to expect to be relatively safe when they go about their daily lives, but with right comes the responsibility to take “reasonable” care to avoid harm or injury. For example, if a woman wears high heels even though she knows the sidewalk is icy and slippery, she cannot blame anybody for falling down and breaking her leg. On the other hand, a premises owner had or should have foreseen that anyone even in appropriate footwear could be injured when passing the sidewalk fronting his store, but did not take steps to make the sidewalk less slippery or at least post a warning he or she could be held liable for injuries to passersby.
Before considering a lawsuit for a serious slip-and-fall injury, the potential plaintiff is encouraged to consult with a reputable personal injury lawyer to find out if it does indeed involve negligence of the premises owner. The consequences of such an injury can be life-changing, but without competent legal representation you will have little chance of making any headway in your claim.
Most personal injury lawyers offer free initial consultation, so take that opportunity to get your case assessed. It is important that you take that first step which can change the rest of your life.