St. Joseph Stent Letter Sent to 169 More Patients of Dr. Mark Midei

Donald Saiontz

By Donald Saiontz
Posted March 10, 2010

ADD YOUR COMMENTS 2

St. Joseph Medical Center has confirmed that it sent 169 more letters last month to patients who may have undergone unnecessary coronary stent implant surgery. While we have seen an increase in calls from individuals who recently received a St. Joseph stent letter, a report in the Baltimore Business Journal confirms that the hospital has now sent letters to a total of 529 patients informing them that they may have been victims of unneeded stents by Dr. Mark Midei.

>>INFORMATION: St. Joseph Stent Surgery Lawsuits

The new letters from St. Joseph come as the hospital continues to review coronary stent procedures performed by Dr. Midei between May 2007 and 2009. However, our St. Joseph stent lawyers have no reason to believe that the unecessary stent implants are limited to these 538 patients. As the hospital reviews additional procedures, they are likely to send additional letters in the future. In addition, the hospital is only reviewing procedures that go back to May 2007, and our lawyers are independently reviewing procedures for any heart stent patients of Dr. Midei who received a stent implant since late 2003.

The St. Joseph letter for stent patients warn individuals that they may have undergone cardiac catheterization procedures that they did not need. The stents, which are used to open heavily blocked arteries, are supposed to be implanted only when an artery is substantially blocked. However, many patients received a stent from Dr. Midei for minor blockages, some as low as 10%. Many patients indicate that Dr. Midei misled them into thinking that they had near total blockages, despite what he found during the procedure.

>>PRIOR POST (2/22/2010): St. Joseph Stent Problems Continue for Hospital

ST. JOSEPH STENT LAWYERS

If you, a friend or family member received a stent procedure by Dr. Mark Midei at St. Joseph Medical Center, you may have important legal rights. It is important to protect yourself and your family by contacting our St. Joseph stent lawyers for a free consultation and independent review of your procedure.

All cases are being pursued on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained. In addition, requesting a free consultation does not mean that you have to pursue a lawsuit. After having your case evaluated, it will be your decision whether to hire one of our attorneys to pursue the compensation you may be entitled to.

>>REQUEST A CLAIM EVALUATION ABOUT A ST. JOSEPH STENT<<

2 Comments • Add Your Comments

  • John says:

    Lying, cheating, ambulance chasers need to leave Mark alone. I count 4 people dead today given no chance at survival that Mark would have given hope to. Hope you need a stent soon with no Mark around to do it.

    Posted on June 11, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  • Roberta says:

    There should be NO ROOM FOR adverse interpretation regarding the practices of a cardiologist, ever. His medical protocols and practices should stand up to the strictest scrutiny. If he is using stents when not indicated, he needs to justify his medical position with peer reviewed research evidence before a medical board BEFORE he places them in a living patient; otherwise, it is guinea pig less-than-a-clinical trial setting.
    I had a heart attack and angiogram, but the cardiologist didn’t allow me to view the actual test on screen and tried to knock me out with drugs when I was asking questions. I had not verbally consented to a stent; rather, I wanted to wait until I had seen the angiogram results before deciding. However, I was told I had signed the consent papers without an advocate present while being prepped for the angio. I knew I wanted angioplasty vs stent since there are problems with stents and my body has bad reaction to metals (ears lobes swell and bleed to any other metal except gold, had terrible dizziness and tinnitus for 1 1 /2 yrs due to nickel in an upper back molar crown. I figured any metal in my body would cause inflammation, so I wanted angioplasty. The doctor didn’t know this and I don’t think he cared to know. Stent placed without my knowledge and I was later shown a 95% blockage image. I am wondering if the blockage was from the propofol invisible stainless steel particles since I was given propofol as an anesthetic before a colonoscopy. I also have talked to other stent recipients who claim they, too, wanted angioplasty and these stents were foisted off on them. I believe that cardiologists owe a duty of utmost care to patients who have to trust them and rely on them and need medical decisions that are in the best interest of the patient and not the pocket of the cardiologist. I think financial interests should be absolutely banned by anyone practicing medicine in any medical device, product or procedure that is used by them and violation should be a prosecutable offense. A cardiac patient fears imminent death unless he/she does what the doctor recommends including taking powerful drugs that can have devastating side effects. I don’t think anyone NEEDS a stent – angioplasty is an alternative and while the track record is not great, neither is the stent track record. Autopsies of cardiac stent patients show an inflammatory reaction in the coronary arteries – resulting in death or more stents, then angioplasty of the stents, and then bypass is necessary. Beforehand, I was not told I would have to take numerous drugs afterward and have gained 1-2 lbs a week because I was so lethargic and weak. This is counter to the principles of cardic rehab.

    Posted on June 17, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.