Westmoreland judge to review status of stent suits
A Westmoreland County judge has scheduled a March 18 status conference for numerous civil cases that allege two cardiologists performed unnecessary heart procedures.
Four more former patients at Excela Health Westmoreland Hospital in Greensburg filed lawsuits last week against the health system and doctors Ehab Morcos and George Bou Samra, who no longer work for Excela. An exact count of the lawsuits was not available from Judge Anthony Marsili's court staff.
A review of court filings showed that more than 80 separate suits have been filed by patients who claim that in 2009 and 2010 Morcos or Bou Samra implanted stents — tiny mesh tubes placed into an artery to ease blood flow — that were not medically necessary.
“Much has changed over the past year,” said Robert Rogalski, chief executive officer of Excela, in a prepared statement. “In fact, Excela Health has achieved national recognition for quality standards within our cardiac catheterization lab, emphasizing our focus on patient safety.“
Excela Health sent letters to nearly 200 former stent patients in March and June 2011 informing them that an investigation revealed that they may have undergone medically unnecessary procedures in 2009 and 2010.
Excela Health “is committed to being transparent with our patients, even when the information is less than favorable,” Rogalski said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.