legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info

A Class Action suit involves less rigorous examinations of individual cases and puts more emphasis on a pattern of conduct. A Class Action suit can provide out-of-court settlements or, court verdicts with as little pain as possible." - Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

---

Kaiser is one of the hospitals named in the suit against Trasylol.

The following is from the law firm of Anapol Schwartz

Aprotinin/Trasylol doubles the risk of kidney failure and stroke and increases the risk of heart failure or heart attack by 55 percent. Aprotinin/Trasylol is an injection used to prevent excessive blood loss during heart bypass surgery. Aprotinin is linked to encephalopathy, degenerative brain diseases. Are you or a family member eligible for an aprotinin lawsuit?


Please note Aprotinin is the generic word for the brand name Trasylol.

Why do hospitals use it? Maybe because Bayer funds hospital programs and research grants.

The generic alternatives Amicar (aminocaproic acid) and Cyklokapron (tranexamic acid) were studied too. These generic drugs were confirmed to be both safe and effective. Researchers estimated that if hospitals stopped using Trasylol and instead used the above generic drugs, it would save 9,000 to 11,000 people every year from kidney dialysis.

The difference in bypass surgery drugs is alarming:
Trasylol costs $1,300 per dose (manufactured by Bayer AG)
Amicar costs only $11 per dose (generic)
Cyklokapron costs $44 per dose (generic)

http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices/trasylol/

and

If you or someone close to you has received Trasylol (aprotinin injection) during heart surgery, and then suffered from kidney problems (kidney failure), heart attacks, stroke, or other serious medical conditions, you are urged to contact the law offices of Alexander Hawes, LLP at 800.921.1776 to speak to an attorney. The call is free, and there is no obligation. You may also email us below. Act now, as delays can harm your case.

http://www.alexanderlaw.com/trasylol/

---

June 05, 2006 08:11 PM US Eastern Timezone

Eisenberg & Gray Law Firm Files Class Action Suit Against Kaiser Kidney Transplant Program
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 5, 2006--A class action complaint was filed today in San Francisco Superior Court against Kaiser, who closed their kidney transplant program in San Francisco last month. The lawsuit was filed by Irvine attorneys Eisenberg & Gray LLP, who are also lead counsel in the transplant litigation against the UCI Medical Center.

"It appears that Kaiser was more concerned about the bottom line than the health of their member patients. They forced their Northern California kidney transplant patients to leave the University of California at San Francisco and University of California at Davis and become patients at Kaiser's in-house transplant facility in San Francisco. Kaiser did not want to pay for ongoing kidney transplant medical care for approximately 2,000 Northern California patients, so they attempted to open their own facility but totally failed in the process," said Irvine attorney Larry Eisenberg. "This is an outrageous example of gross mismanagement at the highest level. Kaiser interrupted ongoing transplant medical care and rejected donor kidneys, which caused patient deaths and severely compromised the health of their members," said Eisenberg.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, fraud and misrepresentation due to Kaiser's inability to properly administrate the San Francisco Kidney Transplant Program. "It is clear that Kaiser patients did not receive proper medical care and kidney transplants were delayed. There was a complete lack of oversight in the operation and administration of the Kaiser program and the patients and their families paid the price," said Eisenberg.

On January 26, 2005, Seeger • Salvas LLP - http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/pdfs/Kaiser Lawsuit.pdf  filed a class action lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. to stop Kaiser from revoking its members’ health insurance based on the member’s response to a hopelessly ambiguous application question. Question No. 9 on Kaiser’s standard application asks “Do you have any unexplained and/or undiagnosed symptoms such as:” and then lists 14 specific“symptoms” such as chest pain, shortness of breath, and loss of consciousness, followed by boxes for “Other,” and “None of the above.” Kaiser members who do not suffer from any of the specifically listed “symptoms” and check “None of the above” may not realize that Kaiser has used Question No. 9 to retroactively revoke health care coverage. After a member is diagnosed with a significant medical condition, Kaiser’s insurance people have poured through the member’s medical history – using 20/20 hindsight – trying to find something that might have been a “symptom” of that disorder. Once such a “preexisting symptom” is found, Kaiser revokes the member’s health care insurance, claiming that the member intentionally misrepresented his or her health status by not checking “Other” on Question No. 9.

---

Ex-worker sues Kaiser over X-ray standards 
A former Kaiser Permanente employee filed a whistle-blower lawsuit this week against the health care network, claiming he was fired for complaining to regulators about Kaiser's X-ray standards. 
http://nwnews.kaiserpapers.info/xraystandards.html

---

Kaiser sued in instrument scare
A class-action lawsuit was filed Monday in Sacramento Superior Court on behalf of more than 1,000 Kaiser Permanente patients who may have been exposed to contaminated instruments.
http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/soupy.html

---

Nonprofit health council sues Kaiser over medical disclosures
The California Consumer Health Care Council has sued the Kaiser Foundation over what it says is inappropriate disclosure of private medical records. 

The council contends that when Kaiser learns of a suit or potential suit by a patient, its legal department opens and studies that patient's private medical records without notifying the patient. This alleged review by Kaiser's legal department is inappropriate, said the council, because Kaiser's legal employees have no role in the patient's health care. 

"If a patient has a claim against Kaiser for negligently cutting off a little finger, why should a clerk in Kaiser's legal department be able to review the patient's entire medical file, which might include information on unrelated sexual, psychiatric or personal problems ...?" asked Martin Blake, one of the lawyers who filed the suit in Alameda County Superior Court for the council on Monday. 

John Metz, the chairman of the council, said that Kaiser has put its own legal interests above the protection of its patients' privacy. "It is just wrong," he said in a statement

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/03/15/daily21.html?jst=b_ln_hl

---

Area physicians sue Kaiser Class-action case stems from HMO's decision to leave Kansas City area
http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/kandyst.html
cross referenced with: http://drphillips.kaiserpapers.info/kansaswaxman.html
and  http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.info/kpmedicalserviceagreement.html
and  http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.info/articlek.html
and  http://ekaiserinsurance.kaiserpapers.info/
and  http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.info/50.html
and  http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.info/unauthorized-outline.html
and  http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.info/scarlinakp.html
and  http://news.kaiserpapers.info/kickedoutnews.html

---

TLPJ FILES CLASS ACTION AGAINST KAISER PERMANENTE FOR FORCING HMO MEMBERS TO SPLIT PILLS 

http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/drinsur.html And for the Actual Text of the Suit http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/timmis_kaiser.htm

---

Kaiser Health Foundation , Inc., et al.
This case is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to enforce the obligations imposed by that statute upon organizations doing business as Kaiser Permanente to disclose and to accurately represent all material facts relating to the insurance benefits (coverage) provided by Kaiser to Plaintiff and the Class.
http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/5370.html

---

Kaiser Bait and Switch Scam - Class Action Lawsuit Information
Patients who belong to Kaiser Permanente health-maintenance organizations aren't being told the truth about how their doctors make decisions about their health care, according to a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Seattle. 
http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/baitnswitch.html

---

Kaiser and the Disabled - contents now removed from original link 

originally located at:http://www.resna.org/taproject/policy/initiatives/privins.html

Kaiser-Permanente HMO Settles Landmark Agreement
Complaint
Settlement Agreement
The nation's largest nonprofit H.M.O. agreed in April 2001 to revamp all its California health centers and policies to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the full range of health care. The agreement, filed in 2000 against the HMO, will settle a class-action lawsuit, the first of its kind in the nation, on behalf of all its California members with disabilities. The lawsuit argued that Kaiser discriminated against patients with disabilities by giving them inferior medical care. Part of the problem, the lawsuit said, is inaccessible medical equipment, like examination tables that do not lower and scales and mammography machines that cannot be used by people in wheelchairs.

http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/settlementagreement.html

---

Victa v. Kaiser and Olsen v. Kaiser are pending in the San Francisco Superior Court.

http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/54972_1.htm

---

Kaiser Faces Lawsuit Over Ad Campaign
A consumer group backed by Ralph Nader is filing a novel lawsuit today that alleges Kaiser Permanente made false advertising claims about its quality of care to recruit new members. 

http://www.kaiserpapers.org/vogt.html

---

Cancer patients say HMOs refused proton beam treatment
http://cancer.med.upenn.edu/cancer_news/reuters/2001/jun/20010531legl002.html
for historical purposes mirrored at:
http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/proton.html

---

Kaiser Members Sue HMO Over Ads.
http://www.lgreen.net/commhlth/CommHealth/Chapter21.htm

SAN FRANCISCO (AP, Mar. 17, 1999) - Members of one of the nation's largest HMOs have sued the organization, claiming they were duped by ads that said its doctors weren't influenced by financial concerns. The lawsuit contends Kaiser Permanente and its parent, The Permanente Federation, compromised care with their policies. "Kaiser has gone beyond the pale with its statements here that doctors make decisions based on medical need and there's no fiscal interference," said Jamie Court of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which filed the proposed class-action lawsuit in Superior Court on Tuesday. The lawsuit contends that Kaiser withheld up to 30% of doctors' salaries and tied physician bonus pay and other compensation to reaching certain profit goals. Kaiser called the allegations "patently false."

---

Outcome of the suit Over False Advertising
Kaiser settles two lawsuits
Accused of holding back on care, the HMO will post its treatment guidelines.
By Lisa Rapaport -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published January 24, 2003)
Kaiser Permanente agreed to make public the treatment guidelines its physicians follow and to disclose how they get paid as part of a settlement of two lawsuits that accused the HMO of misrepresenting how decisions about patient care were made.
http://www.kaiserpapers.org/makethemlookgood.html