Halifax Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Mistakes May Not Be Negligence

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a doctor’s “error in judgment” was not evidence of negligence.

Roger Lawrence was admitted to the Welland Hospital as a result of severe stomach pains. The physician treating him concluded that he was suffering from gallbladder colic. The following day the surgeon performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Over the next 12 days Mr. Lawrence’s condition alternately improved and deteriorated. He began to show signs of distress and was air lifted to Mount Sinai Hospital where he eventually died of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Standard of Care

As is usually the case in medical malpractice claims there were different opinions from the plaintiff’s experts and the defendant’s experts as to whether the defendant surgeon met the standard of care required of the reasonably competent doctor.

Treatment "Reasonable"

The opinion of the doctors called on behalf of the defendant was that the doctor’s approach to Mr. Lawrence’s treatment was “reasonable” and met the expected standard of practice.

At issue was the doctor’s decision to wait and see how Mr. Lawrence’s condition improved (or deteriorated) before taking further action.

Causation Not Proven

It was not clear from the evidence presented by the plaintiff at trial that earlier investigation or alternate treatment would have changed the outcome in Mr. Lawrence’s case. In other words, the plaintiff didn't prove that the alleged mistake caused Mr. Lawrence's death.

Consequently the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant was guilty of medical malpractice. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision and stated:

“In our view, the trial judge made no such error in finding not only that the respondent’s treatment of Mr. Lawrence did not fall below the standard of care but also that causation had not been established”

Mistakes Evidence of Negligence Not Proof of Negligence

This case is a perfect example of something that is often difficult to explain to patients who have been seriously injured or family members who have lost a loved one. Just because a doctor makes a mistake does not necessarily mean the doctor has committed medical malpractice.

An error of judgment may be evidence of negligence but an error in judgment is not, by itself, negligent. A plaintiff must show that the error in judgment fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent doctor and that the error in judgment caused the patient’s injury.

Continue reading "Doctor’s “Error in Judgment” is not Negligence" »

Nurse Negligent

In a decision released last week, Justice Tausendfreund has ruled that a nurse at St. Joseph's Children’s Hospital was negligent and that the nurse’s negligence caused catastrophic brain injuries to a baby, Danny Vuong.

Danny’s mother, Ms. Giang was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital on June 12, 2991. Her pregnancy had been normal and uneventful.

Fetal Heart Monitor Results Not Normal

Two nurses were assigned to Ms. Giang to monitor the baby’s fetal heart rate. They used an electronic fetal heart monitor (EFM) to monitor the baby’s heart rate.

When the nurse checked the heart monitor it showed a range of 170 beats per minute, a reading that is outside the normal range. The nurse assumed that she had simply heard a normal acceleration of the baby’s heart rate. However, the nurse also recognized that the increased heart rate could also be a sign of tachycardia, an abnormal elevation in the heart rate which is a sign of fetal distress.

Didn't Check Again

But she didn't check the baby's heart rate again to see if it had returned to normal! 20 Minute Delay

Unfortunately, the nurse did not return to Ms. Giang to conduct another fetal heart rate monitor until 20 minutes later. By that time, the baby’s heart rate had dropped precipitously and an emergency C-section was performed.

The surgeon who performed the c-section found that the umbilical cord had been wrapped around Danny’s neck. Danny was born suffering from the results of acute hypoxia-ischemia resulting in severe brain damage.

Justice Tausendfreund ruled that:

“Had Danny been born 10 minutes earlier he would have been at great risk for some neurological injury, but he would not have sustained the depth or extent of injury he did.

“I find that had Danny been born 10 minutes earlier, it would have significantly and materially reduced both the extent and nature of the injury to Danny’s brain and would have significantly and materially reduced the degree of functional impairment.”

Nurse Failed to Meet Standard of Care

Justice Tausendfreund ruled that the nurse had failed to meet the standard of care expected of her. Had she acted in accordance with the standard of care and continued to monitor the baby’s heart rate to confirm her assumptions she would have realized that the baby was suffering a medical emergency. As a result, the Judge ruled that the nurse’s negligence was the cause of baby Danny’s catastrophic brain injuries.

Causation in Medical Malpractice Claims

This case shows how a difference of just minutes can mean the difference between life and death. The difference between having a healthy baby and a baby who will live his life severely debilitated by brain injury.

The vast majority of medical malpractice claims fail because the victim is not able to prove that the the health provider's negligence caused or materially contributed to their injury.

Continue reading "Nurse's Negligence Caused Child’s Brain Injury" »

Apologizing Reduces Mistakes

A study performed at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital has found that apologizing for mistakes may actually help reduce the incidents of mistakes.

Full Disclosure

Three years ago the hospital implemented a “full disclosure policy” regarding mistakes make during patient care. The policy of admitting mistakes resulted in a 50% drop in “adverse incidents” (otherwise known as medical errors) over the past 3 years.

Provincial health care officials in Quebec are looking to use the hospital’s policy as a model to create a province wide registry of adverse incidents.

Admitting Mistakes Reduces Lawsuits

I have already talked about how admitting medical mistakes leads to a reduction in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits.

Admitting Mistakes Reduces Mistakes?

However, this study suggests the admitting medical errors may actually serve to reduce the number of errors themselves!

I’m not sure what that might account for the reduction. Perhaps when doctors, nurses and healthcare staff don’t feel compelled to maintain the “code of silence” they are more likely to report dangerous medical situations so that the situations can be corrected which, in turn, prevents further problems.

Bernie Weinstein, a patient advocate at Jewish General Hospital summarized the issue:

…to be told “don’t worry; its ok” is not the answer…what you really want to hear is, “we know what went wrong, and we are doing something. And we apologize. It won’t happen again because we are going to do something to ensure it doesn’t”

So what do you think? If you or a family member suffered a medical error and the doctor or hospital apologized immediately would you be less likely to sue? Do you think apologizing for medical mistakes can actually help reduce mistakes?

Continue reading "Apologizing for Mistakes Reduces Mistakes!" »

Nurses Duty to Ensure Appropriate Care

A recent decision from Ontario has found that nurses have a duty to ensure patients receive appropriate care from a responsible physician when faced with a medical emergency.

The court found that the duty to ensure that the patient is seen by a appropriate physician exists even when the patient has already been seen by a resident physician.

Failed to Meet Standard of Care

In Milne v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Justice Morissette found that an experienced obstetrical nurse and an obstetrical resident both failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable nurse and physician during the birth of Anne Louise Milne’s son Jessy.

Jessy suffered catastrophic brain damage due to a premature separation of Ms. Milne's placenta from her uterus, resulting in internal bleeding. Ms. Milne was admitted to the delivery unit of the St. Joseph’s Health Centre at 1:20 PM on August 18, 1997.

Nurse Suspected Medical Emergency

The obstetric nurse who took her vital signs and applied the fetal heart rate monitor strongly suspected that Ms. Milne had suffered a placental abruption. The nurse testified at trial that she understand that a placental abruption was a medical emergency and might require a cesarean section in order to prevent brain damage due to the lack of oxygen to the fetus.

At 2:00 PM Ms. Milne was assessed by an obstetric resident who performed an ultrasound which showed that the fetus was not breathing or moving.

Doctor Suspected Medical Emergency

The resident physician also suspected a placental abruption but neither one of them discussed their concerns with the other nor did they consider an appropriate course of action.

No One Talked to Doctor in Charge

The nurse testified that she expected the resident physician to contact the attending obstetrician in charge of Ms. Milne to determine her appropriate treatment.

Approximately 35 minutes after the resident examined Ms. Milne the obstetric nurse finally asked another physician to assess Ms. Milne. The physician immediately diagnosed Ms. Milne’s condition and ordered a emergency cesarean section.

Justice Morissette found that delivering baby Jessy even 10 minutes earlier would have prevented his severe brain damage.

Lack of Communication Can Have Catastrophic Consequences

In many hospitals nurses and physicians work in what is called a “team environment”. This case emphasizes the need for communication between team members. It also emphasizes the importance of coming up with a proposed plan of treatment with every patient.

Continue reading "Nurses Have a Duty to Ensure Doctors Meet the Standard of Care" »

One of the reasons why medical malpractice claims are so complicated, and so expensive, is because they require the testimony of medical experts, usually several medical experts to testify about both legal issues such as:

1. The standard of care;
2. Whether there was a breach of the standard of care;
3. Whether the breach resulted in the patient’s injuries;
4. What is the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries?

My book, The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada, discusses the use of medical experts in medical malpractice claims and goes into detail to explain why you cannot win a medical malpractice case without solid medical experts on your side.

A recent case in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia simply proves my point.

In Vaughn v. Hayden, Justice McDougall of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

Defendants Apply to Strike Out Claim
The defendants made a motion for Summary Judgment. Basically, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that there was not genuine issue for trial.

Defendant Doctor Had Expert Reports

The defendant provided the court with expert medical opinions from 2 doctors who testified that Dr Hayden, did not breach the standard of care and that any injuries that the plaintiff Mr. Vaughn may have suffered were not caused by negligence on the part of Dr. Hayden.

Plaintiff Didn't Have Any Expert Evidence

The plaintiff filed his own affidavit opposing the motion.

Justice McDougall struck out the plaintiff’s claim and stated:

“Furthermore, it would be a rare medical malpractice case that would have any real chance of success without some kind of supporting expert evidence establishing the breach of the standard of care and the causal connection between the negligent treatment and the resulting harms suffered”

I have been representing victims of medical malpractice for 19 years. It has always been my practice to recommend that a plaintiff get a supporting medical-legal opinion from a recognized expert confirming that there are solid grounds for a medical malpractice claim before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit.

This case just proves my point. You can't win a medical malpractice claim without expert evidence and you better know if the experts support your claim before you file a lawsuit.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Claim Struck Out for Lack of Expert Evidence" »

Court Approves Multi-Million Dollar Settlement

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has approved a settlement in a medical malpractice case awarding 4.5 million dollars in compensation to a child who suffered cerebral palsy as a result of injuries suffered during his birth.

Very Complex Claim

In the decision of Saulnier v. Tynski et. al, Justice Patrick Duncan said in his decision:

“Let me say that this obviously was a very complex medical malpractice claim.”

Payments for Life
Justice Duncan approved the settlement of 4.5 million dollars. 56% of the funds are being placed in a structured settlement to provide periodic payments to Jacob Saulnier for the rest of his life.

Parents Compensated for Extraordinary Services

The court also approved payment of $125,000.00 each for the child’s parents to recognize the burden that has been placed on them for the extraordinary services the now have to provide to their child to care for him as a result of his injuries. Justice Duncan said:

“I accept that these parents have already undergone a lot of stress and that they probably will continue to do so in trying to provide for their son, and that the settlement should do what it can accomplish in terms of trying to minimize the additional stressors.”

Medical malpractice cases are among the most complicated, time consuming, and risky kinds of personal injury litigation.

There is tremendous debate within the medical and scientific community as to the causes of cerebral palsy. Establishing causation in a medical malpractice claim is often a huge, sometimes insurmountable, hurtle.

No amount of money will ever change what happened to young Jacob Saulnier. However, this is a tremendous result in what was a challenging and complicated case.

Continue reading "$4.5 Million Award for Child Who Suffered Cerebral Palsy Due to Birth Trauma" »

Continuing Treatment

Continuing treatment is a term that lawyers use to describe the length of time that you have continued to receive treatment from your doctor. In many cases, after a patient receives negligent treatment that causes an injury they continue to see their doctor or be treated in the hospital for the effects of the negligence medical care. Why is this important?

Statute of Limitations

Every province has a “Statute of Limitations” which is a time limit for filing certain kinds of claims. Generally, the time that you have to file a medical malpractice claim starts from the date the malpractice occurred.

Time Limit May Be Extended

However, the court may decide that the time to file your medical practice claim started to run, not from the date of the original malpractice, but from the last date that you received treatment from your doctor for the medical condition or complaint that was caused by the medical malpractice.

For example, if a surgeon perforates your bowel during surgery on January 1 and you suffer complications and have to undergo another surgical procedure on March 1 the court may consider that the time limit for filing a claim started to run not on January 1 but on March 1 because you were receiving continuing treatment for the medical problem caused by the negligence.

Claim May Be Barred

Once the statute of limitation runs out your right to file a medical malpractice can be barred forever. That is why it is very important for your medical malpractice lawyer to investigate the specifics timing of all of your doctor or hospital visits. This type of detailed investigation will help establish whether there was “continuing treatment” that may extend the time limit of filing your medical malpractice claim.

Continue reading "What Is “Continuing Treatment” And Why Is It Important To My Medical Malpractice Claim? " »

ACOG Issues New Practice Guidelines

In the July 2009 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued practice bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring.

The new bulletin is the most recent statement from the College on interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings and management of labour.

Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) has grown dramatically. In 1980 it was used on 45% of pregnant women to more than 85% of pregnant women in 2002. However, one of the authors of the study, Dr. George Macones, has stated that:

“Although EFM is the most common obstetric procedure today, unfortunately it hasn’t reduced perinatal mortality or the risk of cerebral palsy.”

Unfortunately, for those of us who represent children who have been injured during birth, it appears that the bulletin has been drafted to be even more protective of the practice of physicians than past clinical guidelines on the same subject.

While the data for the study may have been collected for the purpose of providing clinical guidance to obstetricians in managing labour, I have no doubt that the guidelines will be used in future medical malpractice claims to establish the standard of care for how doctors should interpret and react to different fetal tracings.

The revised guidelines have created a 3-tier classification system for EFM tracings:

Category 1 tracings are classified "normal" and do not require specific intervention.

Category 2 tracings are classified "indeterminate". They require further investigation and surveillance.

Category 3 tracings are classified "abnormal" and require immediate intervention. For example, providing oxygen to the mother, changing her position, stopping labor stimulation, treating maternal hypotension, or initiating prompt delivery if the tracings do not return to normal.

The guidelines contain a number of clinical recommendations including the following:

The false-positive rate of EFM for predicting cerebral palsy exceeds 99%.

The use of EFM is linked to higher rates of both vacuum and forceps operative vaginal delivery, as well as of cesarean delivery for abnormal FHR patterns and/or acidosis.

Recurrent variable decelerations on the FHR tracing should lead to consideration of amnioinfusion to relieve umbilical cord compression.

One of the most controversial statements in the study is that:

"Re-interpretation of the FHR tracing may not reliable; especially once the neonatal outcome is known.”

In other words, the guidelines suggest that the medical opinions of experts who have been retained to help injured plaintiffs shouldn’t be accepted because their evidence "may not be reliable".

The Guidelines fail to point out that the opposite is also true: re-interpretation of tracing may be reliable. It depends on the facts of each particular case.

Simply put, the guidelines suggest that medical experts are not entitled to “second guess” the opinion of the doctor in charge of the delivery.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim bears the burden of proof. The plaintiff must provide expert evidence to establish that the defendant doctor(s) were in fact negligent!

These guidelines appear to be a transparent attempt to limit the evidence of experts who are willing to testify on behalf of plaintiffs.

It remains to be seen what weight, if any, the courts place on the guidelines.

Continue reading "Birth Injuries and Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: New Guidelines Make it Harder to Sue?" »

Almost 100,000 Medical Mistakes Each Year in Canada

The Canadian Medical Association has determined that over 87,000 patients in Canada suffer an adverse event (medical error or mistake) each year.

The same study determined that more than 24,000 people die each year due to medical errors.

That is more than 100,000 potential medical malpractice claims in Canada every year!

Role of the CMPA

In Canada, most doctors are defended by a single organization, the Canadian Medical Protection Association (the C.M.P.A.).

Between 2002 and 2006 the C.M.P.A. reported that only 5,246 were filed against doctors in Canada. About 1,000 claims per year.

That means that out of 100,000 potential medical malpractice claims, 99% of potential medical malpractice victims never even filed a claim!

Their appears to be a perception that people are becoming more litigious, filing more lawsuits, and making frivolous claims. These statistics tell the real truth, that most potential victims of medical malpractice never receive compensation for their injuries.

Even if an injured patient or one of their family members decides to bring forward a claim, they face odds that can seem insurmountable. The C.M.P.A. has almost 3 billion dollars in assets that they can use to hire the best experts and lawyers that money can buy to defend malpractice claims.

70% of Claims Dismissed or Abandoned

According to the C.M.P.A.’s annual reports more than 70% of medical malpractice lawsuits are dismissed or abandoned before trial because the victim or their family quit, ran out of money, or died before trial.

Doctors Win 80% of Trials

Of 577 cases that went to trial over the last several years, only 121 resulted in a verdict for the victim. In other words, only 20% of medical malpractice plaintiffs who went to court actually won their trial.

Medical malpractice claims are among the most complicated, expensive and risky types of litigation. If you think you or a family member may have been a victim of medical malpractice you owe it to yourself to get the advice of a experienced medical malpractice lawyer before deciding whether or not to pursue a claim.

Continue reading "99% Of Potential Medical Malpractice Victims Never File a Claim!" »

Why Did You Write The Book?

I get asked that a lot. There's a ton of work that goes into writing a book about medical malpractice claims. Most books about the topic are written by lawyers, for lawyers, and they are pretty dry reading.

I wanted to write a book that the average person could pick up and read and come away better educated and informed about the medical malpractice claims process and what is involved in filing a medical malpractice claim.

What Makes a Good Doctor?

The British Medical Journal once surveyed people in 24 countries around the world and asked them: “What makes a good doctor?”

The answers included qualities like compassion, understanding, honesty, humanity, competence, commitment, empathy, respect, creativity and a sense of justice.

What Makes a Good Lawyer?

I believe that the qualities shared by great doctors are also traits shared by great lawyers. Especially, a sense of justice.

Since graduating from law school I have devoted my career to trying to help people who truly need help, people looking for fairness, people who need justice.

That is why I do medical malpractice litigation and that is why I wrote The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada. To provide information to people who have been seriously injured as a result of medical malpractice. To help people who have been betrayed by the person or persons that they had to trust the most, their doctor, their nurse, their health care provider.

Most Victims Never File a Claim

Every research study that has been done about medical malpractice claims has concluded that most victims of medical malpractice never contact a lawyer or file a claim.

What You Need to Know

You may not actually have the grounds for a medical malpractice claim, but you do need to have certain important information to know if you have a potential claim and what you need to do to protect your rights if you have been a victim of medical malpractice.

I wrote The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada so that people who may have suffered a loss as a result of medical malpractice can have this information.

Continue reading "The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada" »

When someone dies unexpectedly, or suffers a serious but unexpected injury, while they are in a hospital or under the care of a doctor, it is human nature to assume that the hospital or doctor must have made a mistake. Many clients come to me and say: "How could this have happened? The doctor must have screwed up!"

We all want to believe that when something really bad happens to good people, someone will be held responsible. But that is not always the case.

Burden of Proof

The plaintiff (you) has the burden (responsibility) of proving your claim.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Anyone who has watched Law & Order or similar shows on television has heard the term: “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. But that is not the burden that applies in a medical malpractice claim. That is the burden of proof that applies to criminal prosecutions.

Balance of Probabilities

In a medical malpractice compensation claim you have the burden of proof: “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, is it more likely than not that the doctor (or nurse or other health care provider) was negligent and did that negligence cause your injuries?

Scales of Justice?

The easiest way to understand this burden is to consider a pair of scales. All of the evidence for your claim is placed on one side of the scale. All of the evidence against your claim is placed on the other side of the scale. As long as the scales tip to the side for your claim, even a little bit, then you have met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

What Does OJ Have to Do With The Burden of Proof?

OJ Simpson is a living example of the difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof. As everyone in the world now knows, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman because the jury did not believe that the prosecutors had proven the criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt.

However, when the Goldman family sued O.J. Simpson civilly for causing Ron Goldman’s death, the jury decided that the family had proved on the balance of probabilities that O.J. Simpson was responsible for Ron Goldman’s death.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Claims: The Burden of Proof and O.J. Simpson" »

Most of my medical malpractice clients have suffered catastrophic injuries that prevent them from being able to return to work or, in the case of infants and children, will prevent them from ever being able to work.

Economic Losses from Medical Malpractice

There are 2 ways to calculate economic losses suffered as a result of medical malpractice. The court will have to determine whether you have suffered an actual income loss or whether you have suffered a diminished earning capacity.

Income Loss from Medical Malpractice

If your are injured as a result of medical malpractice and your injuries prevent you from being able to work for days, weeks, months, or permanently then you can make a claim for the actual income you have lost as a result of the medical malpractice.

Income loss includes both:

Past Income Loss: You are entitled to be compensated for your actual income loss up to the date of settlement or trial. Usually this loss is one that is capable of being calculated fairly accurately. For example, if you were being paid $500.00 a week and you can't work for 4 weeks as a result of your injuries, you are entitled to receive 4 weeks pay ($2,000.00) to compensate you for your past loss of income.

Future Loss of Income: If your injuries are going to prevent you from being able to work in the future, you are also entitled to be compensated for that loss. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a crystal ball. Claims for future loss of income can be difficult to calculate with precision. No one knows, for sure, what the future will hold.

When valuing a claim for future loss on income, the court will have to consider whether your injuries will prevent you from being able to work for two months, two years or forever.

Calculating claims for future income loss usually requires us to retain the services of an actuary or an economist who are experts in calculating past and future income loss claims. These experts take into account factors like cost of living increases or raises that you would be entitled to receive during your career, the normal retirement age for persons of similar employment, the pension benefits you would expect to receive on retirement, and a host of other factors.

Diminished Earning Capacity:

In some cases, the evidence may prove that you, or your family member, will never be able to work. However, we may not be able to calculate exactly what that loss will be. For example, when a 3 ½ year old child suffers a severe brain injury, who is to say whether that child would have grown up to be a plumber, a doctor, or a rock star?

In cases where the exact amount of the future income loss is not certain, the court will consider awarding, compensation for what is called “diminished earning capacity”.

Everyone’s ability to work is an asset. In other words, your physical abilities, education, training and experience are all assets that provide you with the opportunity to earn an income. If any or all of those abilities have been limited or reduced to some extent by your injuries, you may be entitled to an award for diminished earning capacity.

Again this type of claim usually requires us to hire experts to calculate exactly how reduced your ability to work is and to what extent your ability to earn income has been diminished.

Continue reading "Income Loss in Medical Malpractice Claims" »

The latest edition of my book, The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada: Why 98% of Canadian Medical Malpractice Victims Never Get a Penny in Compensation, is now on its way back from the printers.

You can get a copy of the book by contacting me through this blog. However, I am going to be posting excerpts from the book over the next few weeks to give you a taste of the information contained in the book.

Lynn Butler sent me a very kind note after reading a copy of the book. Here is what she had to say:

“I found The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims most helpful. I would definitely recommend the guide to anyone seeking information: it was very informative, factual and easy to read. I would certainly recommend the guide to anyone wondering if they have grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit.”

Jeff Baggaley contacted me about a pediatric medical malpractice claim. After reading the book he sent me a note to say:

“I have read your book on pursuing a malpractice claim in Canada. Let me say at the outset that your book is an invaluable and excellently written introduction to essential information which the possible claimant needs to know.

As you say, it saved me a lot of time for I am able to read it, and re-read it, as time permits. I very much appreciate the service your book provides.”

If you think you or a family member may have been a victim of medical malpractice you can contact me through this blog for a free copy of my book or you can call me toll free at 1-877-423-2050.