Panish, Shea & Boyle Strength By Your Side

Los Angeles CT Scan Radiation Exposure Attorneys

We are most vulnerable during illness, and as such we put a tremendous amount of trust into the physicians whom we seek care from. And while it is the physician's duty to perform their job with the utmost in care and professionalism, these doctors can only be as accurate and safe as the tools they use on a daily basis. While many people associate medical malpractice with human error, defective medical devices can also play a significant factor, with product liability issues further complicating the malpractice issue.

On October 8, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a notification to hospitals, CT scan facilities and medical professionals encouraging every facility performing CT imaging to review its CT protocols and be aware of the dose indices normally displayed on the control panel. The notification was prompted by the report of radiation overexposures during CT scans at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. During those overexposure instances, patients receiving CT Scans were exposed to eight times the normal dose of radiation, many of them reporting hair loss following the scans.

CT Scanners (by GE Healthcare Technologies)

Computerized axial tomography scan machines, commonly known as CAT scans (and sometimes abbreviated even further to "CT scans"), are one such device that can lead to severe illness and death if it is not properly handled and calibrated. CAT scans work by producing three-dimensional images of the inside of the human body by using X-rays taken from different viewpoints surrounding the human body. That is, by taking individual X-rays from different vantage points, a three-dimensional composite is created that can show the insides of the human body in a more accurate manner.

During the X-ray process, the individual undergoing the exam is exposed to radiation, which, if emitted from a properly calibrated machine, is not terribly harmful to the human body. While the amount of radiation emitted during CAT scans typically ranges anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 millirems, instances have been recorded where individuals have been exposed to as much as eight times the typical amount of radiation released during a typical CAT scan, particularly those scans used to diagnose strokes. Exposure to such high levels of radiation can greatly increase an individual's chances of developing cancer.

One specific CAT scan device that has been deemed responsible for such increased levels of radiation exposure is manufactured by GE Healthcare, Inc. and GE Healthcare Technologies. These devices allegedly expose individuals to higher levels of radiation than is standard, and as such increase the individual's susceptibility to cancer and other detrimental effects that are caused by radiation poisoning. Radiation poisoning damages organ tissue, which in and of itself can lead to organ failure, not to mention the increased likelihood that an individual will become afflicted with cancer, tumors, or other genetic disorders as the result of severe radiation exposure.

Defective Medical Device Attorneys

While the CT Scanners from GE have not been labeled as a "defective" device as of the time of this publication, a variety of other medical devices have been known to fail and have been deemed defective by the FDA and/or their manufacturers. For example, certain brands of pacemakers have been recalled, particularly since the devices have been proven to fail at monitoring heart rate, putting the individual dependent on the pacemaker at serious risk. The same can be said of MPRs (Manual Pulmonary Resuscitators), with numerous instances having been reported of the devices failing to generate enough power to sustain their successful operation in helping an individual breath. Some medical devices have even been known to fail and put individuals at severe risk of serious injury and death simply because their power cords have a propensity to overheat, spark, and ultimately lead to fires. In any event, medical devices can fail for a variety of reasons, including device malfunction, improper use of the medical device, or improper calibration of the medical device.

Panish, Shea & Boyle, LLP continues to monitor the situation with improperly calibrated and potentially defective GE CT Scan machines and represents clients that have suffered from GE CT Scan radiation exposure in Los Angeles, have sustained injury due to product liability, and has experience litigating cases pertaining to pharmaceutical litigation. If you believe that you have been the victim of radiation poisoning due to an improperly calibrated CAT scan machine, don't hesitate to contact our defective medical device attorneys as soon as possible. Our skilled attorneys will examine the details of your injury claim, and will hold negligent parties accountable for their actions. Please call us at 1-877-800-1700 for more information about defective CAT scanners and the damage they may cause unsuspecting patients.


CT Scan Radiation Exposure Cases In The News

Cedars-Sinai head expresses regret for radiation overdoses
October 16, 2009 By Alan Zarembo (LATIMES.COM) - The hospital's chief executive, Thomas M. Priselac, details reforms made after 206 patients were subjected to overdoses caused by erroneous settings on a CT scanner.

read more


Botched CT Scans at Cedars-Sinai Prompt Lawsuit
October 21, 2009 (NEWSINFERNO.COM) - A patient who received a radiation overdose from a CT brain scan at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has filed a class action lawsuit against the hospital. The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, also names GE Healthcare as a defendant.

read more


Cedars-Sinai radiation overdoses went unseen at several points
October 14, 2009 By Alan Zarembo (LATIMES.COM) - The dosage -- eight times the programmed amount -- appeared on technicians' screens during CT scans. Doctors also missed the problem. Experts say blind trust of medical machinery is a growing concern.

read more


Radiation Overdoses Point Up Dangers of CT Scans
October 15, 2009 By WALT BOGDANICH (NYTIMES.COM) - At a time when Americans receive far more diagnostic radiation than ever before, two cases under scrutiny in California - one involving a large, well-known Los Angeles hospital, the other a tiny hospital in the northern part of the state - underscore the risks that powerful CT scans pose when used incorrectly.

read more


Latest Firm News

Michael Nelsen v. Hillyard, Inc., et al. - Record $21 million verdict for Iraq war veteran. 27 year-old Iraqi War veteran Michael Nelsen injured when Hillyard, Inc. truck rear-ended Mr. Nelsen's vehicle on the I-15 freeway.

Tilton v. Sempra - $15 million verdict for brain injury to minor resulting from a power company truck hitting a family vehicle.

Dominguez v. San Francisco - $21 million settlement while case was on appeal. Wrongful death of 4 year-old girl. Largest settlement ever paid by San Francisco.

Contreras v. State of California - $9 million settlement for amputation caused by a damaged freeway guardrail.

Don Gino Dominguez v. South Central Los Angeles Regional Care Center - $2 million verdict for wrongful death of a mentally and physically disabled 39 year-old man. Health care center left man unsupervised and he choked to death.

Doe v. Driver - $5.5 million settlement for death of pedestrian in an auto accident.

Doe v. Oil Refinery - $6.2 Million settlement for wrongful death and personal injury caused by the collapse of tank floating roof.

Avila v. Dresick Farms - $5.64 million dollar jury verdict for girl injured in truck v. van collision. Believed to be the largest verdict in the history of Imperial County, California.

Konrad, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard - Lawsuit filed against Hewlett-Packard for pretexting journalists and their families

Chief Warrant Officers v. Boeing, et al. - $13.55 million settlement for Army maintenance officers severely injured in the crash of Apache Longbow helicopter on a maintenance test flight during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Does v. Doe Auto Manufacturer: confidential multimillion dollar settlement on behalf of a family involved in on-road rollover of sport utility vehicle.

Does v. Van Manufacturer and Rental Company - Confidential multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of the survivors and family members of 14 church group members involved in a fifteen passenger van rollover.

Hill v. Titan Tire - Confidential multi-million dollar settlement for a 42 year old man who sustained brain injuries following a tire failure on his vehicle.

Dominguez v. San Francisco - $27.4 Million Verdict - Mother and 6 others witnessed a city truck driver run over her daughter on a sidewalk. City completely denied responsibility. Largest verdict ever against the City of San Francisco.

Sherman v. Courrege - $25.5 Million Verdict - Wrongful death of mother, father, and son hit by a drunk driver.

Sorenson v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway - $2.8 Million Verdict - Plaintiffs were parents of a 48 year-old man killed when a freight train crashed into a commuter train.

Doe v. Auto Manufacturer - Major Confidential Settlement Fuel fed fire caused by defectively designed 15 passenger van rollover. Many occupants killed or severely burned.

Flores v. Continental Tire - Major Confidential Settlement - Woman sustained paraplegia when the right rear tire on the family's Ford Windstar van experienced a tread belt separation, causing the vehicle to roll over.

Panish, Shea & Boyle on TV - The trial attorneys at Panish, Shea & Boyle have been on numerous televisions shows because of their involvement in many high profile cases.

11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles CA 90025 • P:310-477-1700 • F: 310-477-1699 • Toll Free: 1-877-800-1700

Copyright © 2010 Panish, Shea & Boyle, LLP - California Product Liability Lawyers - Los Angeles Defective Medical Product Attorneys - All rights reserved.

CT Scan Radiation Exposure Injury Lawyers Disclaimer: The medical product liability, product recall, defective product, faulty product, or other legal information presented at this site should not be considered formal legal advice, nor the formation of a lawyer or attorney client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Please note that you are not considered a client until you have signed a retainer agreement and your case has been accepted by us.

Website Design and Search Engine Optimization by SLS Consulting | Sitemap