CEDAR RAPIDS – She fought the odds after a medical mistake nearly took her life. Many saw her survival as a miracle.
Schelley Sanders, in a January 2010 interview with The Gazette, described how she went into a Davenport hospital in 2003 for a simple procedure — to have her fallopian tubes tied. But the doctor unknowingly punctured two holes in her bladder.
She developed sepsis — a severe infection — and a flesh-eating virus. She lapsed into a “locked in” state, losing all muscle control for several months. She then had to relearn how to walk and talk. After her rehabilitation, she was left with permanent injuries and severe chronic pain.
Sanders sued the doctor for medical errors and won a substantial settlement just before the case went to trial in 2009. The settlement amount was confidential, but it was enough to pay the majority of her medical expenses, which totaled more than $1.9 million, and to provide for her two sons, Robert and Michael.
Sanders died Aug. 11 at age 43 of ovarian cancer, which likely stemmed from having more than 100 X-rays taken since 2003, according to information doctors provided to Davenport attorney Michael Bush, who represented Sanders in the lawsuit.
Sanders’ death came the same month a new study by the New England Journal of Medicine showed how difficult it is for patients, like Sanders, to win payment for medical errors, said Tim Semelroth, a Cedar Rapids lawyer who handles malpractice cases.
According to the study, most malpractice claims are dropped without payment, and the majority of doctors don’t have to pay for any medical mistake they might make in their lifetime.
The study analyzed claims filed by patients with a doctor’s insurance company from 1991 to 2005 from an unidentified major malpractice insurer, which operates in 50 states and the District of Columbia, and involved nearly 41,000 doctors.
In every medical specialty, at least three out of four claims didn’t lead to a payment, according to the study. In many specialties, about nine out of 10 claims didn’t lead to a payment.
Sanders sued the doctor for medical errors and won a substantial settlement just before the case went to trial in 2009. The settlement amount was confidential, but it was enough to pay the majority of her medical expenses, which totaled more than $1.9

The case itself involves a dispute about the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act -- a federal law that bans certain types of kickback schemes. But the lawsuit presents the same key question as dozens of pending lawsuits against Web companies
But they also help ensure lenders' loan files are compliant with the latest Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation Z requirements as well as Fannie Mae's Loan Quality Initiative (LQI) and Uniform Mortgage Data Program (UMDP).
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and its subsidiaries are engaged in providing insurance brokerage and third-party claims settlement and administration services to entities in the US and abroad. Astec Industries Inc (ASTE). Astec Industries, Inc. designs,
"The question presented is whether this mass settlement, which implicates core national interests in the integrity of the financial markets, is immune from review in federal court." Countrywide Home Loans, which is now owned by Bank of America,
The Plaintiff, Denise Edwards, sued First American under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to her purchase of a home in Ohio and a title insurance kickback scheme. First American has argued, unsuccessfully so far, that Edwards has not been damaged and does not have standing to bring suit because title insurance rates are fixed in Ohio and any kickback did not result in an economic loss. Most recently, First American’s argument for dismissal was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari. There has already been a variety of potentially conflicting court decisions related to privacy damages, a fact noted in the Anderson decision. However, there appears to be an increasing understanding (and expectation) that privacy protections have a purpose that goes well beyond monetary damages that can be easily quantified. For entities that handle personally identifiable information, this should serve as yet another reminder to solidify regulatory compliance and measures to safe guard customer data.