Preview Newsletter
Morcellation Media Monitoring 11/05/2015
-
Brigham, hospital critic clash as wife has surgery
Nov 4, 2015 | Boston Globe
By Liz Kowalczyk
When Brigham and Women’s Hospital discovered that Dr. Amy Reed was scheduled for lung cancer surgery Monday, it took pointed action: The Harvard teaching hospital assigned security guards to shadow Reed’s husband, also a physician, and search their bags. -
Judge Rebukes Brigham for Placing Morcellation Critic Under Guard While His Wife Was in Surgery
Nov 3, 2015 | The Cancer Letter
By Matthew Bin Han Ong
A Boston judge ruled Nov. 3 that Brigham & Women’s Hospital had violated the First Amendment rights of a couple who led an aggressive national campaign to stop power morcellation, a surgical procedure routinely used by gynecologists. -
Power Morcellator Lawsuit Surge Sparks Creation Of MDL
Nov 2, 2015 | Press Release
By Tracey & Fox
Tracey & Fox reports that as lawsuits against various power morcellator manufacturers continue to increase and add up, the federal judicial panel has coordinated over two dozen to form Multidistrict Litigation (or MDL). The lawsuits which have been consolidated all similarly allege that the power morcellator device, used during gynecological surgeries, is causing women to develop aggressive and widespread cancers. -
Power Morcellator Lawsuit Plaintiffs Joined By Campaigning Doctors
Nov 4, 2015 | Press Release
By Tracey & Fox
Tracey & Fox reports on a married couple from Boston who has spearheaded the campaign against power morcellator use in gynecological surgery. The couple, both doctors, have been speaking out against the use of power morcellators since 2013.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Morcellation
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Brigham, hospital critic clash as wife has surgery
Nov 4, 2015 | Boston Globe
By Liz Kowalczyk
When Brigham and Women’s Hospital discovered that Dr. Amy Reed was scheduled for lung cancer surgery Monday, it took pointed action: The Harvard teaching hospital assigned security guards to shadow Reed’s husband, also a physician, and search their bags.
Her spouse, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, objected that the security measures violated their civil rights and were imposed in retaliation for his aggressive national campaign to stop a routine hospital surgical procedure known as power morcellation.
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Fahey on Tuesday ruled in the couple’s favor, granting their request for a temporary restraining order against the hospital. She ordered the Brigham to stop the searches and the security escorts, finding that Reed and Noorchashm “will suffer irreparable harm.”
The Brigham had justified its security response by asserting that e-mails sent by Noorchashm were — based in part on the advice of a former state trooper — a “credible threat to the safety’’ of hospital staff.
The episode is the latest twist in the ongoing battle between Noorchashm and the Brigham’s leaders — one that has drawn in doctors and colleagues from several of Boston’s most esteemed medical institutions — following his wife’s life-threatening complication from surgery there in October 2013. Reed, an anesthesiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at the time, underwent a hysterectomy at the Brigham to treat what she was told were probably benign fibroids. During the laparoscopic procedure, the gynecologist used a power morcellator to shred the tissue and extract it through small incisions. View StoryLetter from Brigham to Noorchashm
Follow-up tests on the removed tissue found that Reed had uterine leiomyosarcoma, an aggressive cancer, and later imaging tests showed that the cancerous tissue had been spread throughout her abdominal cavity during the surgery, giving her stage 4, advanced cancer.
Since that 2013 surgery, Noorchashm, who was a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Brigham at the time, has fought an aggressive and public battle against morcellation and against the hospital, which he said should have stopped using the device when it learned that the same gynecological surgery had caused cancer to spread in a previous Brigham patient. The hospital said it could not discuss the case because of a pending lawsuit. Noorchashm has written thousands of strongly worded letters and e-mails to hospital executives, members of the press, and government regulators.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
He has had marked success in helping curb the practice — the Food and Drug Administration has restricted the use of morcellators and insurers have turned back coverage — but the e-mails he sent also led the Brigham to conclude he was a safety threat, according to court documents.
Reed, 42, a mother of six children who is fighting a third recurrence of cancer, arrived at the hospital early Monday so that Dr. Scott Swanson could remove a tumor that had grown on her right lung. Since her complication, she has continued to get some of her medical care at the hospital, though the family has moved to Pennsylvania.
Dr. Ron Walls, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Brigham, wrote Noorchashm on Oct. 29 that the hospital would provide “the best possible care’’ to his wife. But at the same time he said if her spouse did not follow the security protocol he would “not be permitted to enter the premise.’’
“This came out of nowhere,’’ said Noorchashm, who said his wife became very anxious when he told her about the security protocol before her operation.
He said he had not caused security problems during prior visits.
In a court filing, the couple’s attorney, Thomas Greene of Boston, included a Nov. 2 e-mail from oncologist Dr. Suzanne George, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Brigham, who said she “never felt threatened or unsafe’’ during the many times she treated Reed in her husband’s presence.
The Brigham argued in court filings that staff are concerned for their safety and that one physician sought advice from a retired state trooper, Greg Foley, who reviewed the “incendiary and concerning’’ e-mails and determined they were threatening. Foley said in an affidavit that he led the investigation into Michael McDermott, who murdered co-workers at a Wakefield technology firm in 2000.
In one typical e-mail sent to Dr. Robert Barbieri, the head of obstetrics and gynecology, in March, Noorchashm said he would “ensure that the eyes of our system of justice are fixed squarely on you and your faculty for grave misconduct leading to deadly harm.’’
In another e-mail that month to Barbieri and hospital president Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, he wrote: “Do not underestimate the gravity of your wrong-doing. Or the magnitude of my commitment to this holding you accountable.’’
The hospital said the security measures were intended to strike an appropriate balance and were not unprecedented. A guard sat outside the door while Noorchashm visited his wife and met with her doctors.
Earlier this year, the son of a patient shot and killed a Brigham cardiovascular surgeon, Dr. Michael Davidson, because he was upset over his mother’s care. The Brigham did not mention the death in its court filings, but did refer to it during the hearing, a hospital spokeswoman said.
Noorchashm acknowledged that his e-mails were “very harsh and very directed” and demanded that leaders at the Brigham step down. But, he said, he stopped there. “My letters were never physically threatening ever,’’ he said in an interview Wednesday.
He said that before the judge lifted the order, guards repeatedly searched his bags and asked to look in his pockets, but he said they were professional and polite. He said his wife’s surgery went well and she was discharged from the hospital Wednesday morning, after which they headed home to the Philadelphia area.
-
Judge Rebukes Brigham for Placing Morcellation Critic Under Guard While His Wife Was in Surgery
Nov 3, 2015 | The Cancer Letter
By Matthew Bin Han Ong
A Boston judge ruled Nov. 3 that Brigham & Women’s Hospital had violated the First Amendment rights of a couple who led an aggressive national campaign to stop power morcellation, a surgical procedure routinely used by gynecologists.
Earlier this week, Brigham provided care to Amy Reed, who needed urgent surgery for a cancer recurrence. However, her husband, Hooman Noorchashm, had to submit to being searched and accompanied by a security guard.
Both Reed and Noorchashm are physicians. She is an anesthesiologist who was formerly employed at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and he is a cardiothoracic surgeon who had practiced at Brigham.
The decision to subject the couple to enhanced security procedures was made by Ron Walls, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Brigham. Hospital officials declined to discuss the matter with The Cancer Letter.
On Monday, after Reed and Noorchashm were searched at the entrance to Brigham, and Noorchashm was put under surveillance, their attorney went to court seeking a restraining order against Brigham for engaging in “retaliatory action” that was brought on by the couple’s public criticism of Brigham leadership in the controversy over power morcellation.
The motion, filed in the Superior Court Department of Suffolk County Nov. 2, states that Reed and Noorchashm were subjected to a “humiliating and distressing physical search” at the Harvard-affiliated hospital.
The next day, at 4 p.m., Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Fahey ordered Brigham to lift all security requirements.
“Allowed as a Temporary Restraining Order, finding that both plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm,” Judge Fahey wrote.
After the ruling, Brigham attorneys notified the couple’s attorney Tom Greene that they will not contest the injunction.
“Brigham had filed affidavits of some security personnel to try to make the point that Hooman posed a security threat,” Greene said to The Cancer Letter. “The judge basically didn’t buy it. Brigham wanted the security restrictions to remain in place, I argued they shouldn’t, and she agreed, and she lifted them.
“There was no justification to have these restrictions in place. Hooman and his wife had visited Dana-Farber and Brigham probably more than a dozen times in the past two years, and they were never required to check in or be shadowed by security personnel, so why now?”
Over the past two years, the couple’s advocacy led to FDA restrictions on the use of power morcellators and largely ended insurance coverage of the procedure. The Government Accountability Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are looking into claims of corporate negligence in reporting adverse events.
“My wife and I, today, were subjected to a useless search immediately prior to her going into the operating room,” Noorchashm wrote in a Nov. 2 email to Walls, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Brigham. “And I will tell you that it was all posturing your leadership had designed to intimidate, because anyone with half a wit would immediately see who my wife and I are.
“That you subjected my wife and I to a security check on a day like this is unbecoming of your MD and of your Harvard professorship.”
A mother of six, Reed, 41, is battling a third recurrence of leiomyosarcoma, an aggressive uterine cancer, which has spread to her right upper lung. Reed, an assistant professor of anesthesia and critical care medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, had undergone surgery and radiation for the past two recurrences, both on her spine.
The metastases can be traced to an Oct. 17, 2013 hysterectomy—performed with a power morcellator at Brigham—that disseminated Reed’s undiagnosed sarcoma (The Cancer Letter, July 4, 2014).
“Dr. Reed’s doctors, both at the University of Pennsylvania and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital believed that it was imperative that the uLMS [lung] tumor be removed from Dr. Reed as soon as possible,” the complaint states. “The thoracic surgeons at HUP expressed reservations about performing the operation due to its proximity to major vessels.
“BWH’s thoracic surgery division is world-renowned and is capable of resecting Dr. Reed’s tumor in a routine fashion. Dr. Reed is expected to stay at BWH for a total of four to five days following the surgery.”
Reed’s lung metastasis was removed Nov. 2 at Brigham under the care of Scott James Swanson and Suzanne George. Swanson is co-director of Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery at Brigham and chief surgical officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. George is an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and clinical director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at Dana-Farber.
According to Noorchashm, Swanson and George had no prior knowledge of Walls’s decision.
“In the many times I have cared for Amy, with you at her side, I have never felt threatened or unsafe or have required any unusual security procedures,” George wrote to Noorchashm when informed of the security measures. “I cannot speak for BWH policies, but only from my personal experience and interactions with Amy as a patient and you as her family.”
Searched at the Door, Followed by Guard
Four days before Reed’s surgery, Brigham COO Walls sent a letter Oct. 29 to Noorchashm describing security measures that would apply to him:
“In light of concerns created by your on-going communications with BWH staff, your presence will be subject to the following standards and expectations:“Upon arrival at the hospital, you will present to the information desk at 75 Francis St. and identify yourself.“A plain-clothed Security officer will escort you to a discreet location where you will be subject to a security screening.“A plain-clothed Security officer will escort you at all times while you are on BWH property, with the exception of when you are in your wife’s inpatient room, or in conference with members of the care team, at which time the officer will remain outside the door.”
Brigham’s policy on patient rights states that patients have a right to a “prompt response to all reasonable requests and a right to personal dignity and to a reasonable extent, privacy,” the complaint states.
Brigham has violated both of these patient rights with regard to its treatment of Reed, the complaint states.
“BWH has refused reasonable requests from Dr. Reed and her husband Dr. Noorchashm to lift the arbitrary security requirements the institution has imposed, despite the fact that no such restrictions were required on any of Drs. Reed or Noorchashm’s previous visit to the hospital,” the couple’s complaint stated.
Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, requested that Brigham revoke the security requirements, because he has no intention of harming anyone. Noorchashm said nothing he has ever said or written in any way constitutes a violent threat.
“I assure you that I pose no physical danger to anyone at BWH—most on the cardiothoracic service are my friends and esteemed colleagues,” Noorchashm wrote to Walls Oct. 31. “We are there at a very difficult time, by choice, for help from the physicians and surgeons we trust.
“I assure you that the strain and duress this BWH corporate imposition is causing on your patient, Dr. Amy J. Reed, and our entire family is unwarranted and unnecessary. And if you choose to persist, it will likely cause extreme psychological duress for my wife and other members of the extended family.”
Walls replied to Noorchashm, saying that his decision is consistent with his mandate to protect Brigham.
“You must understand that nothing relieves me of the responsibility I have to ensure the safety and security of the patients, family members, visitors and staff who enter our doors every day,” Walls wrote. “This requires me to use my best judgment and, after a careful review of your prior communications with hospital staff, I stand by the decision with respect to your upcoming visit.”
On Nov. 2, Brigham security staff searched Reed’s belongings immediately prior to her surgery. Noorchashm was subjected to a physical search, and a member of Brigham’s security team accompanied him at all times—except when he and Reed were in private care meetings with physicians.
Brigham officials declined to provide examples of Noorchashm’s communications that constitute threats of a physical nature. “The hospital does not intend to respond,” a spokesperson said to The Cancer Letter.
Since Reed’s initial morcellation surgery in late 2013, Noorchashm has widely and publicly criticized Brigham’s leadership for ignoring and “stonewalling” the couple’s attempts to address the harm that power morcellators pose to public health. Noorchashm has sent multiple acrimonious emails berating top physicians at the institution for their “corruption,” “atrocious complacency” and “failure” to prevent harm to his wife (The Cancer Letter, July 4, 2014).
“Dr. Walls’ letter explicitly contains a threat against Dr. Noorchashm in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional [First Amendment] rights,” the complaint stated.
Brigham officials are bullying Noorchashm and Reed, said Richard Kaitz, a Boston real estate lawyer whose wife, Erica, died in December 2013 from leiomyosarcoma upstaged by power morcellation at Brigham (The Cancer Letter, Nov. 21, 2014).
“I am completely outraged. This is nothing other than pure, unadulterated harassment,” Kaitz said to The Cancer Letter. “Hooman worked at Brigham for almost a year after Amy’s morcellation. They know Hooman; they know he’s not a threat. He’s the furthest thing from a physical threat to walk this earth!
“I’m absolutely and completely appalled. To do this to a guy when his family is down and undergoing serious medical issues requiring lifesaving treatment at Brigham—it is the height of arrogance, aggression, and bullying.”
Kaitz filed a lawsuit against Brigham earlier this year, alleging that Brigham physicians knew of the risks of the device and are responsible “for the wrongful death of Erica Kaitz, and the conscious pain and suffering she experienced prior to her death, due to Dr. [Jon] Einarsson and BWH’s medical malpractice and their failure to obtain informed consent.”
-
Power Morcellator Lawsuit Surge Sparks Creation Of MDL
Nov 2, 2015 | Press Release
By Tracey & Fox
Tracey & Fox reports that as lawsuits against various power morcellator manufacturers continue to increase and add up, the federal judicial panel has coordinated over two dozen to form Multidistrict Litigation (or MDL). The lawsuits which have been consolidated all similarly allege that the power morcellator device, used during gynecological surgeries, is causing women to develop aggressive and widespread cancers.
It was noted by the United States Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation that power morcellator lawsuits were likely to continue to appear due to the fact that 650,000 women have hysterectomies or myomectomies yearly due to uterine fibroids, and some of these procedures will be completed by using a power morcellator.
In the current consolidated cases, allegations state that a power morcellator which removed uterine tissue or fibroids during a hysterectomy subsequently led to cancer. The device, which is inserted into the abdomen through a small incision, works much like a drill to tear up tissue that is causing problems. The concern is, however, that as this tissue is torn up and spread throughout the abdominal cavity, it uncovers previously undetected cancer cells and spreads them as well. These cells then allegedly cause aggressive and widespread cancer, and therefore are a significant danger to the lifespan of the patient.
Lawsuits filed are against various manufacturers. Manufacturer Ethicon Inc. has since completely discontinued the production of their power morcellators, and has recalled those which were already sold to hospitals. As of the 15th of October of this year, Ethicon faced 22 lawsuits in federal court concerning their morcellator tools.
The United States Food and Drug Administration has warned that it is likely that 1 out of every 350 women undergoing power morcellation procedures to remove benign uterine fibroids in fact have previously undetected cancer, specifically uterine sarcoma. By using the morcellator tool on this area, it can stir up and spread that cancerous tissue and significantly impact their likelihood of survival.
In addition to this warning, the FDA also made note that women undergoing gynecological surgeries such as hysterectomies and myomectomies should not use power morcellator tools. At this time, because there is no way to determine whether or not a patient’s fibroids are cancerous or benign, the tool seems to pose too great of a risk. Although the power morcellator technique is the most non-invasive, there are other surgical options available which may be safer, despite their longer recovery times. The FDA asked all power morcellator manufacturers to increase the information on their warning labels to better indicate the risks associated with the tool.
The morcellation litigation team at Tracey & Fox Law is currently working to ensure that anyone who has undergone a power morcellation procedure and was subsequently diagnosed with widespread or aggressive cancer can explore their legal rights. These individuals may be entitled to compensation. Tracey & Fox is providing free consultations regarding power morcellation at this time.
For additional information concerning power morcellation or the risks associated with this procedure, or to ask questions, please contact Tracey & Fox by calling 713-322-5375 at your convenience.
-
Power Morcellator Lawsuit Plaintiffs Joined By Campaigning Doctors
Nov 4, 2015 | Press Release
By Tracey & Fox
Tracey & Fox reports on a married couple from Boston who has spearheaded the campaign against power morcellator use in gynecological surgery. The couple, both doctors, have been speaking out against the use of power morcellators since 2013.
Dr. Amy Reed is the wife of Dr. Hooman Noorchashm. She and her husband have been fighting to ban power morcellators for gynecological procedures for over two years now, and the subject is one that they are both especially passionate about, having first-hand experience with the alleged problem.
Several years ago, Dr. Reed went to a hospital in Boston after discovering uterine fibroids which were giving her severe pelvic pain. It was determined that she should undergo a hysterectomy procedure to remove them. Rather than making a large incision in her abdomen which would require weeks of recovery time, the physician indicated that a laparoscopic power morcellator could enter through a small incision and get the job done.
The power morcellator is inserted into the abdomen, and its small, spinning blades work to tear apart fibroid tissue, enabling doctors to remove them. Today, many lawsuits allege that the device also uncovers cancer cells while tearing the tissue, and spreads these cells throughout the body, creating aggressive, advanced, and life-threatening cancer in patients.
Shortly after the surgery, the couple was informed that one of the removed fibroids had been found to contain leiomyosarcoma. Both Dr. Amy Reed and her husband believed that the morcellator had spread leiomyosarcoma cells throughout her body during surgery, significantly worsening her prognosis.
The couple decided to try prevent others from the same tragic occurrence. Dr. Noorchashm started an aggressive campaign against the morcellator manufacturers, even reaching out to the FBI. He even threatened to leave his own practice if they did not stop using power morcellators. As Dr. Reed gained strength, she joined his campaign.
In 2014, the FDA took a closer look at things.They issued a safety warning indicating publicly that an estimated 1 in every 350 women undergoing hysterectomies or myomectomies with a power morcellator were at risk of uncovering and spreading uterine cancer cells.
Lawsuits continue to appear across the nation filed by women with similar allegations. They are being filed against a range of power morcellator manufacturers. Recently, those filed against the Ethicon division of Johnson & Johnson were consolidated to form multidistrict litigation.
The attorneys at Tracey & Fox are currently working to help anyone who has had a similar power morcellator experience to Dr. Reed to explore their legal options. These individuals may be entitled to compensation. Tracey & Fox provides confidential and completely free consultations for those affected.
For additional information on this topic or to ask questions, please contact Tracey & Fox by calling 713-322-5375.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Morcellation
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested