[ RadSafe ] Hospital workers subjected to excessive radiation, lawsuits c...
Brad Keck
bradkeck at mac.com
Wed Jan 22 11:25:21 CST 2014
But in fairness, the hospital denies that they were negligent and promises to present facts to that effect. As professionals, we should hear both sides - and insist on actual, adequate hard facts - before reaching any conclusions.
Anyone here that can contribute the hospital's side of the story?
Bradly D Keck, PhD, CHP
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:56 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>
> Radsafe:
>
> What a mess. Tort City??? I expect this CAT Scan facility could be
> modeled using MCNP (Monte Carlo Neutral Particle Program). The repeated
> structure capability might be used in this exercise. If necessary, one MCNP
> run could be done for each XRay source and eventually the results could be
> summed. It might be a bit time consuming.
>
> Somebody did do initial surveys of this facility??? Somebody should
> have isolated these problems initially, and the facility's shielding should
> have been modified as the facility was commissioned. Ouch!!!
>
>
> Joe Preisig
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/21/2014 11:58:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> slgawarecki at gmail.com writes:
>
> What makes this story even more jaw-dropping is that Methodist Medical
> Center is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, one of the original Manhattan
> Project sites, home of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and birthplace of
> health physics. Of course the facility is in violation of the strict
> standards specified by the state of Tennessee which enforces federal
> requirements in this area.
>
> This is what can happen when there is no oversight of a contractor's work.
> Someone with a radiation safety background should have verified the
> installation of shielding.
>
> Regards,
> *Susan Gawarecki*
>
> ph: 865-494-0102
> cell: 865-604-3724
> SLGawarecki at gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Franz Schönhofer <
> franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I am somehow privileged, that I happen to know Susan personally. Yes it
> is
>> her first name, Gawarecki cannot be a first name!
>>
>> This article itself really bothers me a lot. I have been working with the
>> Austrian Standard on shielding of rooms, where radiation is used for
>> medical purposes. There we defined all the conditions necessary to
> prevent
>> any radiation harm to both patients and people outside the area of
>> radiation application. It was more or less what has been followed since
>> years by the hospitals. Whether these conditions are met is controlled
>> yearly. No such installation will be permitted to be installed or
> operating
>> without a control that all requirements are met.
>>
>> Is this really USA-specific? I remember this "Rumsfeld", who called many
>> European countries (explicitely Austria) as "old", because we did not
> send
>> fighting troops to Afghanistan (which is btw prohibited by our
>> constitution). If this article is true - I am not convinced - then there
> is
>> a lack of oversight and licensing. Otherwise it would not be difficult to
>> fend off these claims.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Franz
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: ROY HERREN
>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:48 PM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Hospital workers subjected to excessive
>> radiation,lawsuits claim
>>
>> Susan (at least I think that is your first name),
>>
>> I really appreciate receiving this article. In my experience working
>> at a hospital it is all too common for the sales people to make
> statements
>> that will lead the purchaser to under estimate the expenses involved with
>> the installation of a major pieces of equipment such as a CT.
>> Additionally, often time the folks in Radiology pushing the acquisition
>> and the hospital's engineering project personnel fail to include the
>> Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) or Medical Physicist in the earliest
> stages
>> of acquisition and planning, and then when the project is in the middle
> of
>> construction the engineers will complain that it's too expensive to
> issue a
>> change order for the project. The RSO or the Medical Physicist can't
> very
>> well give professional advise on projects if they aren't included
> anywhere
>> in the acquisition, planning and construction process. In other words,
> if
>> the radiation safety professionals are left in the dark about acquisition
>> and
>> construction this is an example of what happens.
>>
>>
>> Based on the article, it appears that this CT suite was constructed
>> without a shielding plan, and that a post-construction shielding survey
>> wasn't performed. I find it hard to believe that this is in accordance
>> with Tennessee state law. I'd have to dig through the American
> Association
>> of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) publications, but I am fairly certain
> this
>> isn't in accordance with AAPM standards, please see
>> http://www.aapm.org/meetings/07ss/documents/Stevensshielding.pdf
>>
>>
>> Roy Herren
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com>
>> To: RadSafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:23 AM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hospital workers subjected to excessive radiation,
>> lawsuits claim
>>
>>
>>
>> Hospital workers subjected to excessive radiation, lawsuits claim
>>
>> OAK RIDGE — Hospital technologists were exposed to excessive radiation at
>> Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge, five lawsuits filed this week
>> allege.
>>
>> A wall between the CT scan room and the control room in the hospital’s
> new
>> Emergency Department area lacked a lead-lined barrier to stop the
>> radiation, according to the Anderson County Circuit Court complaints.
>>
>> Computer tomography, or CT scans, involve computer-processed X-rays that
>> are used to diagnose ailments.
>>
>> CT scans are “exponentially more powerful” than conventional X-rays,
> said
>> Clinton attorney John Agee, who filed the lawsuits.
>>
>> Technologists in the control room behind the wall that lacked lead lining
>> were repeatedly exposed to scatter radiation, Agee said.
>>
>> Excessive radiation exposure can lead to cancer.
>>
>> Several of those technologists now have symptoms “that would be
> compatible
>> with radiation exposure,” the attorney said.
>>
>> They will now have to take regular health screens for cancer, he said.
> Some
>> symptoms of excessive radiation exposure take years to develop, Agee
> said.
>>
>> He said family members waiting in a nearby room for relatives undergoing
> CT
>> scans may also have been exposed to the scatter radiation.
>>
>> “There’s a difference between 40 exposures in a shift,” Agee said of the
>> technologists’ situations, “as opposed to one.”
>>
>> Agee said it’s “most likely that another 10 lawsuits are going to be
>> filed,” with most of them on behalf of current and former X-ray and
>> radiologic technologists.
>>
>> Two of the first five plaintiffs are women who were pregnant at the time
> of
>> their alleged exposures. At least one child born after the exposures “is
>> suffering from a severe illness,” said Agee’s wife, Clinton attorney Lea
>> Ellen RidenourAgee.
>>
>> “The whole thing is just heartbreaking,” she said.
>>
>> John Agee said that after it was discovered last month that lead lining
> was
>> missing from the wall, “not a whole lot of information has been
> voluntarily
>> given to these people, and they’re obviously concerned about their
> health.”
>>
>> “I hate it for these people,” he said. “To me it’s hard to understand
> why
>> it happened.”
>>
>> Named as defendants in the initial lawsuits, filed Monday, are Covenant
>> Health of Knoxville, which operates Methodist Medical Center, Rentenbach
>> Constructors Inc. of Knoxville, the contractor that built the hospital’s
>> new emergency department that opened in February 2006, and TEG Architects
>> LLC, the Jeffersonville, Ind., firm that designed the project.
>>
>> Hospital spokeswoman Crystal D. Jordan said Methodist Medical Center
>> strongly refutes the accusations.
>>
>> “We maintain an active and ongoing radiation quality and compliance
> program
>> with specific procedures to monitor safety.
>>
>> “Base on the results of this program, it has been verified that we have
> met
>> all safety standards for radiation exposure,” Jordan stated in an email.
>>
>> John Agee said concerns began emerging when X-rays stored in a room next
> to
>> the CT scanning Room “became cloudy from scatter radiation.”
>>
>> Lea Ellen Agee said technologists “attempted to take an X-ray through the
>> wall, and were successful.”
>>
>> An employee of General Electric “came in and took some measurements in
> some
>> adjoining rooms,” John Agee said, “and conveyed to Methodist there was a
>> problem.”
>>
>> Lea Ellen Agee said the suspect wall was torn down in December, and the
>> lack of lead lining was confirmed then.
>>
>> John Agee said a former radiological technologist at Methodist Medical
>> Center, Clinton resident Mike Phillips, told him about the situation.
>>
>> Phillips is one of the first five plaintiffs, along with two current
>> radiological technologists, Keith Gillis of Knoxville and Mary Ridenour
> of
>> Andersonville, who was pregnant at the time she was subjected to the
>> scatter radiation.
>>
>> Also filing suit were current X-ray technologists Connie Raby of Clinton
>> and Micah Noelle Lewellen of Knoxville, who also allegedly received
>> excessive radiation throughout her pregnancy.
>>
>> Phillips and Raby in their lawsuits allege they have had “thyroid
> problems,
>> headaches, trouble sleeping and other problems. “
>>
>> Gillis has had seizures and memory loss, while Lewellen has “significant
>> medical problems, according to their complaints.
>>
>> The lawsuits state the defendants failed to have qualified personnel
> check
>> on the installation of lead barriers, and that federal and state
> standards
>> about radiation exposure were violated.
>>
>> The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages, but no specific
>> amounts are listed.
>> http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2014/jan/17/hospital-workers-
>> subjected-to-excessive-lawsuits/
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Susan Gawarecki*
>>
>>
>> ph: 865-494-0102
>> cell: 865-604-3724
>> SLGawarecki at gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/
>> radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/
>> radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list