Fresenius Lawsuit Update – Can A Customer Sue A Dialysis Manufacturer For Cause?

There was a recent F Fresenius Lawsuit Update regarding the compensation being paid for dialysis patients. The plaintiff, identified as J.R. suffered an injury while operating a dialysis machine at his Florida home. The incident report indicates that he was operating the equipment when the machine began to make unusual noises and was subsequently instructed by the doctor not to use the machine anymore.

Fresenius Lawsuit Update

During the ensuing discussion with the doctor, the plaintiff’s son came over and joined in the conversation. What took place at this point is that the plaintiff’s son began to give what is termed as lectures to the senior member of the team which were recorded by the video camera. This action allegedly constituted medical negligence on the part of the doctor and therefore caused the victim to file a lawsuit against the doctor and the company that make the dialysis machines. There were also reports that some members of the medical staff were seen attempting to discourage the family members from filing the lawsuit. Such actions were referred to in one of the hospital’s internal review Reports, however, none of these reports have been corroborated by any medical authority or by any member of the Fresenius Medical Care Management Corporation (FCMC).

See also  Atlas Roof Shingles Class Action Lawsuit

The following paragraphs summarize the results of an internal investigation report filed by the Orlando-based medical board which is responsible for the supervision and licensing of all Florida health providers.

The report indicates that the doctor engaged in inappropriate communication with one of the plaintiffs’ sons who is a patient at the same time as the plaintiff. The doctor did not inform the plaintiff that there had been previously unresolved conflicts between the patient and one of the family’s doctors regarding the billing of medical expenses. This resulted in the doctor inappropriately billing the plaintiff’s son for medical care which was denied by the senior doctor. The result of the subsequent litigation resulted in substantial payment of medical bills to the patient. However, according to the administrative report the family was not entitled to receive the money because the billing dispute arose out of an ordinary negligence on the part of the doctor.

Following the conclusion of the internal review, the company’s board conducted its own investigation.

At the conclusion of the review, the board recommended disciplinary action against the doctor. The recommendation related to whether the doctor had knowledge that certain products promoted by his company contained cardiac arrest warning labels. Based on the review, the company determined that the doctor’s awareness of these cardiac arrest warning labels was not appropriate or necessary for him to treat patients with that intent. Accordingly, the company removed the labels.

The second case relates to a Florida resident who purchased a Fresenius Medical Care Product called Dazzleblend from the company’s web site without having read the detailed overview of benefits provided with that product.

Subsequently, following a non-recitalized written procedure instructing him to consume three pills each day, the plaintiff experienced hypothermia, which resulted in a heart attack and stroke. As a result of those incidents, he is unable to consummate any further contact with that company’s products. He is suing the company for contributory negligence in violation of his right to provide for his own health needs.

See also  The Legal Definition of Sodomising
Both of these situations are from personal experiences of patients who experienced either damage or loss as a result of their respective dialysis treatments.

It seems apparent from the details of both of these cases that the intended result was the same: dialysis patients were subject to increased dangers when they consumed the oxygen-rich contents of certain dialysis treatments while away from the treatment room. While it is not entirely clear from the complaint and the response from Fresenius that this intent was not communicated to the patients, it does appear that this is a reasonable cause for the negligence of the company in creating the products that caused harm to patients. If you have been injured as the result of the negligent conduct of a medical professional with whom you are familiar, it is wise to consult with an experienced litigation attorney who can provide you with guidance in dealing with these types of cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *