Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Illinois Radiologist Error Results in $1.7 Million Settlement - Tariq v. Naperville Radiologist, S.C., et al.

2010-09-01T19:19:51Z

Oftentimes cancerous tumors are recognized in the process of investigating another medical problem. For example, a woman presents complaining of weight loss and an exam reveals breast cancer. Because early diagnosis of cancer can drastically improve the patient's survival rate it is important that physicians capitalize on these opportunities.

In Tariq v. Naperville Radiologist, S.C., et al., 09 L 156, the plaintiff brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Edward Hospital and its radiologist for failure to diagnose cancer. The plaintiff claimed that the radiologist had failed to comment on an area of abnormality in her abdominal area on a chest CT scan. The CT scan was being taken as part of the plaintiff's screening for TB and was not told anything about the abnormal results.

Over the course of the next year the plaintiff began to experience weight loss and became fatigued. She returned for further workup, at which point a CT showed a 16 cm. abdominal tumor. In addition, the tumor had metastasized to other organs, including the spleen, stomach, pancreas, and colon.

]]> The main issue in the plaintiff's medical negligence claim was that the delay in the cancer diagnosis had affected her long-term survival prognosis. Involved in the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit were the hospital where the CT scan was taken and the radiologist who allegedly committed the radiology error by misreading the scan. As terms of the medical malpractice settlement the radiologist and his doctors group paid $1.6 million while the hospital paid the remaining $100,000.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois radiology error lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Darien, Oak Lawn, Arlington Heights, and Deer Park.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Hospitals' Double CT Scans Exceed National Average for Rate of Usage - Raises Concerns for Overexposure to Radiation

Cook County Undiagnosed Brain Injury Verdict Reached By Jury

Cook County Undiagnosed Cancer Malpractice Case Settled: Urologist Failed to Pursue Abnormal Masses on CT

University of Chicago Hospital Settles Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Overcrowding Case - Hospital to Pay $7 Million in Settlement

2010-08-26T18:33:29Z

The University of Chicago Medical Center has agreed to pay $7 million to resolve a 2006 lawsuit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan alleging that the Chicago hospital violated Illinois licensing regulations that control the number of infants each unit can support. According to the Illinois lawsuit, University of Chicago routinely practiced "double-bunking" infants in its neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), i.e. placing two or more infants in beds designated for one infant only.

The Illinois Attorney General's office was made aware of this double-bunking practice by two former University of Chicago Medical Center employees who traced the practice all the way back to 1997. Fortunately, as soon as the 2006 lawsuit was filed all doubling up of NICU patients ceased and has not resumed.

These bedding violations were against Illinois health laws and according to the attorney general placed some of the newborn infants at an increased risk for infections. However, a spokesperson from the University of Chicago Medical Center maintained that none of the NICU babies were at risk for any harm as a direct result of the over sized NICU and asserted that the hospital had only had its patients' best interests in mind. The lawsuit itself did not include any claims of Illinois medical malpractice by the Chicago hospital's NICU.

]]> Regardless of the hospital's intentions, the conditions of the settlement require the University of Chicago Medical Center to adhere to a strict enforcement of the Illinois licensing regulations and will no longer engage in double-bunking violations.

In addition, $5.1 million settlement will go towards funding health services for low income expectant mothers in several Chicago South Side neighborhood health clinics: Chicago Family Health Center, Jackson Park Hospital Foundation, Christian Community Health Center, Mercy Foundation (for use at both its hospital and clinic), Holy Cross Hospital, Mile Square Health Center, Roseland Community Hospital, and St. Bernard Hospital. The idea behind this use of the settlement funds is that proactive prenatal care can help to reduce the number of babies requiring NICU treatment after their birth.

The remaining $1.9 million will be divided between the former nurses who first made the Attorney General's office aware of the Chicago hospital's violations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinios medical malpractice claims for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Cicero, Naperville, and Downers Grove.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Birth Injury Occurred During Nurse Midwife Delivery

Chicago Jury Finds in Favor of a Severely Brain Damaged Child

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Circuit Court Decision as to Medical Malpractice Damages Awarded By Illinois Jury

Delayed Treatment of Stroke Leads to DuPage County Woman's Death - Medina v. Echiverri, M.D., et al

2010-08-24T17:56:48Z

In order to achieve the best possible outcome following a stroke, doctors and medical staff must identify the emergency situation and react quickly. Medicines aimed at breaking up blood clots that may have caused a thrombotic stroke have been found to increase survival rates and lessen the likelihood of permanent disability. However, these medicines must be administered within three hours of the stroke occurring, which makes an immediate response by emergency room physicians even more important.

In Chris Medina v. Henry C. Echiverri, M.D., et al., No. 07-L-000820, the emergency room errors led to the eventual death of a young stroke victim. The 24 year-old mother presented to Central DuPage Hospital's emergency room complaining of sudden headaches, numbness to her right side, and problems speaking. However, despite the fairly obvious signs of a stroke, there were serious emergency room errors made and the correct diagnosis was not made for over 12 hours.

The decedent's medical status was evaluated by Dr. Echiverri, a member of the hospital's stroke team. However, despite specializing in stroke victims, Dr. Echiverri failed to diagnose and treat Medina's stroke. Instead her condition was diagnosed by a neuroradiologist. But by the time the decedent's stroke was diagnosed she was already significantly neurologically impaired and slipping into a coma. She died just 17 days after presenting to the emergency room.

]]> The defense alleged that Dr. Echiverri failed to make the correct diagnosis because he was relying on an incorrectly interpreted MRI. However, according to the plaintiff's attorney this defense was not sustainable; plaintiff's attorneys argued that Dr. Echiverri should have been begun to initiate stroke medication even if he had believed her MRI to be normal because the signs and symptoms of her stroke were so obvious that there was nothing else that could be causing her symptoms.

Medina presented with two of the Mayo Clinic's five main symptoms of stroke, including headaches, difficulty speaking, and partial body numbness. And while the involvement of Dr. Echiverri and the stroke team indicates that the hospital recognized the potential for a stroke, this becomes a moot point given that they did nothing to treat the stroke for over 24 hours.

As a result of the Illinois hospital's medical negligence, the 24 year-old died. She was survived by her husband and a young son.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois wrongful death lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Wilmette, Westmont, and Oak Forest.

Similar blog posts:

Misdiagnosed Pulmonary Embolism Brings Verdict of $2.75 Million

Emergency Room Malpractice Verdict in Favor of Defendant Doctors Upheld By Illinois Appellate Court - Pavnica v. Veguilla

Medical Radiation From Radiology Scans to be More Stringently Regulated Per New FDA Requirements

Cook County Surgical Malpractice Verdict Reviewed on Issues of Sole Proximate Cause - Robinson v. Boffa

2010-08-19T17:34:29Z

The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a Cook County Circuit Court verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon in Robinson v. Boffa, No. 1-07-1128. The plaintiff had appealed the not-guilty verdict on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in allowing jury instructions that included sole proximate cause language. However, the appellate court was not persuaded to change the Illinois jury's decision based on these arguments.

Robinson is an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit wherein the decedent died about a month after having a second surgery to remove a cancerous colon mass. The second surgery was done just a mere five days after her initial surgery to remove the cancerous tumor because the surgeon incorrectly removed a non-cancerous tissue mass during the first operation.

The decedent's estate contended that her death was a result of the stress the second surgery placed on her body and that her death could have been avoided had the surgeon removed the correct tumor during the first procedure. However, the surgeon argued that his alleged medical negligence was in fact caused by a vague colonoscopy report which he relied upon in order to determine the location of the tumor, thereby including elements of radiology error. The surgeon also claimed the that preexisting medical conditions of chronic heart failure, diabetes, and renal failure contributed to the decedent's death, and that therefore he was not negligent.

]]> At the trial's conclusion the jury received specific instructions from the judge to help them decide upon their Illinois medical malpractice verdict. These jury instructions included language from the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions Civil No. 12.04 and No. 12.05. The second part of these two instructions includes language on the sole proximate cause of the alleged negligence, which should only be included if the evidence shows that someone other than the defendant, i.e. a third party, could be the sole proximate cause of the negligence.

IPI Civil 3d No. 12.04 tendered by the trial court read:

More than one person may be to blame for causing an injury. If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that some third person who is not a party to the suit may also have been to blame. However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff was the conduct of some person other than the defendant, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

The long form of IPI Civil 3d No. 12.05 tendered by the trial court stated:

If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that something else may also have been a cause of the injury. However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff was something other than the conduct of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the
defendant.

The appellate court agreed with the decedent's estate's contention that the trial court should not have admitted evidence supporting a theory that the colonoscopy report was the sole proximate cause of the decedent's death. The court agreed that even if the defendant surgeon had been misled by the colonoscopy report that he also had a duty to determine whether the tumor he was removing was in fact the cancerous tumor. Therefore the trial court did err in including some of the sole proximate cause language.

However, the appellate court further found that even though the colonoscopy report was not the sole proximate cause of the decedent's death, the jury did not necessarily need to find that her death was caused by the nearness of the second surgery. The defendants had also submitted a theory that the decedent's medical history also contributed to her death. While this argument was weak at best, it was conceivable that the jury could have relied on this evidence when making its decision.

The plaintiff has the burden of proof, i.e. the burden of proving that their theory of negligence is the only one and that its defendant is the sole cause of the final outcome. In this case the plaintiff did not prove this, so again, the jury's decision will stand. Again, higher courts are generally very reluctant to overturn a jury's verdict unless there is hard proof that the verdict was unsubstantiated. Therefore the trial court stands and the defendant surgeon is found not guilty.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Skokie, Naperville, and Oak Park.

Similar blog posts:

Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict Including Doctor’s Financial Incentive for Surgery Affirmed By Illinois Appellate Court

Chicago's Rush University Medical Center Orthopedic Surgeons Sued Under Whistle-Blower Case

Are MRI Scans To Be Relied On By Chicago and Illinois Doctors?

Misdiagnosed Pulmonary Embolism Brings Verdict of $2.75 Million

2010-08-17T14:41:07Z

A Cook County jury recently awarded $2.75 million in an Illinois wrongful death case involving the death of an Illinois male from an undiagnosed pulmonary embolism. Instead of diagnosing the man's pulmonary embolism, the Illinois emergency room staff misdiagnosed the decedent with a seizure disorder. Rhodes v. Malik, et al., No. 06 L 5467.

While misdiagnosing a patient can often be the result of medical negligence, misdiagnosed cases do not always lead to medical malpractice lawsuits. Whether or not a lawsuit is brought hinges on the degree of damages, or the final outcome. In Rhodes, the decedent's estate alleged that the misdiagnosed patient died as a result of the incorrect diagnosis. However, if a delay in diagnosis had only led to some discomfort or minor inconvenience on the part of the decedent then there would not likely have been grounds for a medical malpractice claim.

In Rhodes, the decedent's estate was critical of the emergency department's errors at Weiss Memorial Hospital, specifically its misdiagnosis of a seizure disorder. The decedent had presented to Weiss's emergency room after collapsing on a train platform. The initial doctor suspected that his collapse was due to seizures and ordered a wide range of tests to confirm this diagnosis. However, before the results came back, the initial doctor's shift was up, at which time the decedent's care was transferred to an additional emergency medicine physician.

]]> The second doctor received the negative test results, which would typically deny rather than confirm a seizures diagnosis. However, instead of amending the diagnosis, or ordering additional tests to determine the cause of the decedent's collapse, the emergency room doctor discharged the patient. The decedent died several hours after his discharge from the emergency room from his undiagnosed pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary embolisms are fairly common and can be life-threatening.

The jury found in favor of the decedent's estate against the second emergency medicine physician. However, the jury did not feel that the initial emergency room physician was guilty of medical negligence. The initial doctor had taken steps to determine the underlying cause of the decedent's collapse, while the same could not be said of the second doctor.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois wrongful death lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Downers Grove, Naperville, Deer Park, and Oak Lawn.

Similar blog posts:

Emergency Room Malpractice Verdict in Favor of Defendant Doctors Upheld By Illinois Appellate Court - Pavnica v. Veguilla

Cook County Emergency Room Malpractice Verdict Returned in Favor of Woman's Surviving Family

Medical Negligence Settlement by Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Robert Kreisman for Death of Patient

Illinois Nursing Home Negligence Skin Infection Lawsuit Settled

2010-08-10T19:03:00Z

Nursing home residents are especially at risk for developing skin infections. Therefore, nursing homes should have a lot of practice at developing skin care plans for residents in order to prevent skin breakdown and the development of skin ulcers. However, recent Illinois nursing home negligence case involved allegations that the nursing home failed to implement a care plan that would have prevented the decedent's skin from deteriorating. Moffett v. Mercy Health Care Rehab. Ctr., No. 06 L 11430.

Another issue in the Illinois nursing home negligence case was whether the nursing home had taken adequate steps to prevent the decedent from falling while in the nursing home's care. Upon her admission to the Mercy Health Care Rehab Ctr., the decedent, Alberta Jones, was at risk for falling due to a recent stroke. During her time at Mercy Rehab, Jones did in fact fall and required a brace to support her right femur.

The brace caused her skin to breakdown when the device rubbed up against her leg. Over a period of weeks, nursing home employees and nurses chose not to monitor this patient who then developed osteomyelitis, a bone infection. Skin ulcers that have spread uncontrollably can cause osteomyelitis if the skin breaks down so far that the bone is exposed to air. If a patient develops osteomyelitis from skin ulcers it is normally a red flag that the nursing home did not implement a proper skin care plan and is an indicator of nursing home negligence.

]]> In this case the osteomyelitis was in fact the cause of the nursing home resident's death. She died just six months after her initial fall, leaving behind an adult daughter. The nursing home settled with the plaintiff's estate for $690,000.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois nursing home negligence cases for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Chicago, including Barrington, Wilmette, Downers Grove, and Orland Park.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Nursing Home Abuse Addressed in Reform Bill to Illinois Nursing Home Act

Nursing Home Claim for Punitive Damages Upon Resident's Death Denied by Illinois Courts - Vincent v. Alden-Park-Strathmoor, Inc.

Kane County, Illinois Nursing Home Resident Settles After a Below the Knee Leg Amputation

Raising Brain Tumor Awareness: Former Clients Turn Family Tragedy Into Something Positive with 1st Annual Mary E. Smith Walk

2010-08-02T16:39:19Z

As a Chicago medical malpractice attorney I have seen all sides of human nature - the good, the bad, and the ugly. However, on a rare occasion I am inspired by clients' reactions to a personal tragedy. The Mary E. Smith family are just such clients. They responded to their mother's unnecessary death due to medical negligence by setting up a foundation to raise brain tumor awareness and honor their mother's memory.

In addition to providing the public with health information regarding brain tumors, the Mary E. Smith Foundation awards several annual scholarships. The Mary E. Smith Foundation is now adding to their community outreach goals with its 1st Annual Mary E. Smith Tumor Awareness Walk. The walk details are as follows:

When: Saturday, August 14, 2010. Registration begins at 7:30 a.m., with the walk starting at 9:00 a.m.

Where: The Community Walk Path, 4200 W. 183rd St., Country Club Hills, IL 60478. (Next to the Farmer’s Market at the Country Club Hills Theater)

Cost: $10 for 1-mile walk and free T-shirt (children under 12 free)

For more information, visit www.maryesmithfoundation.org or call 708-342-0800. ]]> Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Lisle, Inverness, Roscoe Village, and Blue Island.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Mary E. Smith Foundation - Providing the Public With Information on Brain Tumors

Cook County Undiagnosed Brain Injury Verdict Reached By Jury

Medical Negligence Settlement by Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Robert Kreisman for Death of Patient

Illinois Nursing Home Resists Moving Psychiatric Patients

2010-07-27T20:10:43Z

A recent article by The Chicago Tribune highlighted some controversy surrounding an Illinois court settlement concerning psychiatric patients in Illinois. The settlement involves moving psychiatric patients from their current residences in Illinois nursing homes and into supported living communities. However, reports of Illinois nursing homes misleading their residents about the state's plan has led to accusations that the nursing homes are trying to frighten their psychiatric patients into staying put.

The plan affects roughly two dozen nursing homes that are specifically designated as Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) and the 4,500 psychiatric patients who reside there. The plan proposes to offer a screening to any psychiatric patients who wish to leave; those patients who pass the screening are eligible for relocation to subsidized living communities. These communities would have staff available to provide therapy, life-skill training, job training, and substance abuse programs.

]]> State officials advised that these screenings and evaluations were only for those interested in moving and will not be mandatory. However, some nursing homes, such as Abbott House in Highland Park, Illinois, have been found to be distributing pamphlets to its residents and their families warning them about the dangers of the settlement. These "information sheets" warn that the details of the settlement were not specified by the court and imply that residents who move might not be fed or receive their necessary medical treatments.

The nursing homes assert that the lack of details concerning how the state will pay for and implement this plan is a cause for concern and that these information sheets were addressing those concerns. However, the American Civil Liberties Union does not agree with the nursing homes' explanation and has filed court papers alleging that the nursing homes are employing scare tactics in order to keep the psychiatric patients from leaving their facilities.

The consent decree concerning the psychiatric patient plan is not set to be heard until September 7. And if it is approved the state will have an additional nine months to establish an implementation plan. This issue is long from being decided and admittedly there remains a lot of details to be worked out. However, these details should all be set in place by the time the plan is set to take effect.

Even if the nursing home pamphlets were addressing valid concerns regarding the lack of current information about the implementation of the proposed plan, their distribution was premature. A judge is set to rule on whether the nursing homes can continue to distribute the information sheets to its residents and their families.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois nursing home abuse lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Elk Grove Village, Oak Park, Burr Ridge, and Cicero.

Sources:

David Jackson and Gary Marx. "Nursing Home Launch 'Desperate Attempt' to Keep Psychiatric Patients, ACLU Says." The Chicago Tribune. July 21, 2010.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Nursing Home Arbitration Clause Subject of Recent Illinois Appellate Court Decision

Illinois Nursing Home Abuse Addressed in Reform Bill to Illinois Nursing Home Act

Chicago's Rush University Medical Center Orthopedic Surgeons Sued Under Whistle-Blower Case

2010-07-20T16:36:59Z

A whistle-blower lawsuit filed against Chicago's Rush University Medical Center was recently unsealed, allowing the Chicago public a glimpse of the case facts. Goldberg, M.D. v. Rush University Medical Center, et al. was brought by orthopedic surgeon Robert Goldberg, M.D. against his employer, Rush University Medical Center, and fellow surgeons alleging that the orthopedic department routinely overbooked its operating rooms and violated Medicare billing rules.

Goldberg alleges that Rush's orthopedic center operated as a business that emphasized quantity over quality, a claim that is supported by further allegations that the during 2004 and 2005 the orthopedic center regularly overbooked its operating rooms and relied heavily on its residents to perform surgeries. The assumption is that by overbooking these rooms the surgical center's patients were at a heightened risk for surgical errors and potential medical malpractice.

According to Medicare billing rules teaching surgeons, like the six surgeons named in this lawsuit, are required to be present in the operating room during key portions of the procedures. The case was filed as a whistle-blower lawsuit because Medicare is a federal institution, and as such falls under the federal government's umbrella. A whistle-blower claim is one in which the government has been victimized, such as by falsifying federal billing records.

]]> Goldberg focuses on Medicare's reimbursement rules regarding surgical procedures. These rules require that not only must the teaching physician be present for the critical parts of a procedure, but must also be "immediately available" to finish services at any point during the procedure. However, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants did not comply with these rules and in some instances were grossly non compliant.

For example, there are several instances cited alleging that a teaching surgeon was never physically present during whole procedures. Instead, the experienced surgeon would be performing his own surgeries in nearby rooms and was only monitoring the residents' operations via a video feed. There are additional allegations that the residents and attending physicians falsified medical records in an attempt to hide these facts.

In response, defendants' attorneys are denying that the orthopedic center ever scheduled any such overlapping surgeries and are claiming that the video system was used to determine when a room was ready for a patient or occasionally for teaching residents. The defense is denying that the video system was ever used to manage concurrent surgeries and is stating that the health and safety of all its patients was never threatened or at risk for any surgical errors.

Both sides seem to be focusing on whether the surgeons could have physically performed all of the booked procedures and still be complaint with Medicare billing guidelines. While the plaintiffs are saying that there was no possible way for the experienced surgeons to be physically present during the critical portions of all the scheduled procedures, the defense is saying that it was possible and that they were present at all times required.

As is typical in Illinois medical malpractice cases, or in the present case, the burden of proving one's case involves patching the pieces of information found in the medical records. In these instances the attorneys use the information, such as documents itemizing the number of surgeries performed each day, operating room schedules, or surgical reports, in order to reconstruct what happened. The jury is then responsible for analyzing the opposing viewpoints and determining which one is closer to the truth.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Palatine, Lisle, Skokie, and Lemont.

Sources:

Melissa Harris. Rush, 6 doctors named in whistle-blower suit: Surgeon, former hospital executive say orthopedic center fraudulently billed Medicare for surgeries for which they were not present. Chicago Tribune. July 8, 2010.

Similar blog posts:

Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict Including Doctor’s Financial Incentive for Surgery Affirmed By Illinois Appellate Court

Illinois Birth Injury Case to Be Retried: Will Include Previously Barred Expert Testimony

Illinois Medical Malpractice Jury Award Limits Struck Down By Illinois Supreme Court in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

Illinois Hospitals' Double CT Scans Exceed National Average for Rate of Usage - Raises Concerns for Overexposure to Radiation

2010-07-12T14:36:04Z

A recently published government report has sparked additional concerns regarding the risk of overexposure to radiation from unnecessary radiology scans. The results of the national report on medical imaging practices shows that Illinois hospitals provide double chest CT scans almost twice as often as other hospitals nationwide. A double chest CT scan is when a study is ordered both with and without contrast, which requires it to be done twice thereby exposing the patient to twice as much radiation.

One of the main hospitals cited in the report as potentially giving "patients a double scan when a single scan is all they need" is Edward Hospital, located in Naperville, Illinois. Edward Hospital officials were reportedly surprised to learn that their CT scans exceeded the national average and have since launched an investigation into its radiology department policies and procedures.

The new government reports on Edward Hospital and other medical institutions nationwide can be found at the government-run website Hospital Compare. This informative website allows patients to search different hospitals by region and compare the quality of care provided by each. Medical information websites like Hospital Compare allow patients to be their own medical advocate and make informed decisions about their care and treatment.

]]> At this point it is difficult to determine the full extent of the legal implications of this new information on the overuse of radiology scans. Like any Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit, each case will hinge on the individual patient's outcome. While two patients might be exposed to the same amount of radiation in repeated scans, if one ends up developing cancer while the other does not then they have two very different radiology malpractice lawsuits.

In addition, factors in terms of medical necessity will likely also come into play in terms of whether the scans were required to treat a life-threatening illness. If this is the case then a jury would likely be more lenient towards a doctor who ordered a scan in order to save a patient's life than it would towards a physician who repeatedly ordered unnecessary scans. The next five to ten years will be key in determining the legal implications of the new information and policies regarding repeated radiology scans.

Chicago's Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois radiology malpractice lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Barrington, Oak Park, Blue Island, and Naperville.

Sources:
Judith Graham. "New government report raises questions about CT scans at Illinois hospitals: Scans at hospital outpatient departments under a spotlight." The Chicago Tribune. July 11, 2010.

Similar blog posts:

Radiation Therapy Treatment for Cancer Patients at All-Time High

Medical Radiation From Radiology Scans to be More Stringently Regulated Per New FDA Requirements

Are MRI Scans To Be Relied On By Chicago and Illinois Doctors?

Emergency Room Malpractice Verdict in Favor of Defendant Doctors Upheld By Illinois Appellate Court - Pavnica v. Veguilla

2010-06-28T15:39:57Z

An Illinois medical malpractice verdict in favor of the defendant emergency room physician was upheld by an Illinois Appellate Court. The Illinois medical malpractice complaint in Pavnica v. Veguilla, et al., No. 3-09-0065, alleged that the emergency room doctor's error had contributed to the amputation of plaintiff's toes after he developed gangrene.

As a diabetic, the plaintiff was already at a heightened risk for developing foot and toe infections. However, the plaintiff had also recently been placed on immunosuppressive medications following a pancreas and kidney transplant, placing him at an even greater risk for developing infections. Because of his increased risk for developing a foot or toe infection, the plaintiff sought medical assistance when he stubbed his toe on a piece of furniture.

While the plaintiff would normally follow up with his regular physician regarding any potential infection issues, his doctor was out of town. So the plaintiff opted to seek treatment at the emergency room. At that time the plaintiff was seen by the defendant doctor who diagnosed a breakdown of the skin in the area of the injury and prescribed oral antibiotics.

]]> However, the oral antibiotics did not seem to have an effect on the infection and just eight days later the plaintiff returned to the emergency room for further treatment. At that time additional tests were run, but no further medical action was taken. The plaintiff then followed up with his regular physician upon his return. The family physician immediately diagnosed an anaerobic infection and had the plaintiff admitted to the hospital. It was later discovered that the infection had become gangrenous and required an amputation of plaintiff's toes and a portion of his forefoot.

The plaintiff alleged that his amputation would not have occurred if the emergency room physicians had placed him on anaerobic antibiotics after either of his two separate emergency room visit. However, the jury did not agree and entered a not guilty verdict in favor of the defendant.

In response, plaintiff filed an appeal to the jury's decision, arguing that the jury had been swayed by testimony by both the defendant physician and one of his experts where they discussed their military service. The plaintiff further contended that the evidence in the emergency room negligence case was so overwhelmingly in his favor that the appellate court would have to overturn the jury verdict.

In Illinois, one of the conditions under which a higher court to overturn a lower court's decision is if there is overwhelming and clear evidence to point to a specific conclusion. While the plaintiff attempted to argue that this concept should be applied in his case the appellate court did not agree. Instead it state quite clearly that "the jury simply resolved disputed issues in defendants' favor", which was reasonable based on the evidence.

As to the issue regarding testimony of military service, the appellate court felt that this testimony did not prejudice the jury. Therefore the judge's ruling on the military service testimony was no more than "harmless error" and therefore not grounds to overturn the jury verdict. Therefore, the court found that the circuit court had ruled appropriately and that the verdict would stand.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois emergency room error lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Wilmette, Cicero, and Naperville.

Similar blog posts:

Cook County Emergency Room Malpractice Verdict Returned in Favor of Woman's Surviving Family

Cook County Medical Malpractice Jury Verdict Affirmed On Appeal As To Apparent Authority of Emergency Room Physician

Medical Negligence Settlement by Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Robert Kreisman for Death of Patient

Medical Malpractice Verdict Non-Economic Damages Awarded by Illinois Federal District Court

2010-06-22T14:36:19Z

After reviewing a Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit for non-economic losses, a United States District Court judge for the Northern District of Illinois awarded the plaintiff $6.7 million in non-economic damages. Maldonado v. Sinai Medical Group, No. 06 C 4149 (April 2, 2010).

The Chicago medical malpractice case was brought by a Chicago man who developed paralysis from the waist down after being discharged from Chicago's Mt. Sinai Hospital with an ongoing spinal infection. While the Chicago hospital had diagnosed the infection and began treating it with IV antibiotics, it discharged the patient before the infection was gone.

Two weeks after his discharge, the Chicago native was unable to control his bladder or walk and was rushed to Rush University Medical Center. The ongoing spinal infection had continued to eat away at the man's vertebrae, which resulted in the removal of portions of his spine and ribs. The plaintiff underwent six surgeries during three months of hospitalization and was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against the employees of Chicago's Mt. Sinai Hospital. However, because the hospital's employees were agents of the U.S. Public Health Service the Cook County medical malpractice case fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act. According to rules of the Act, the federal government was substituted for the hospital and its workers in the medical malpractice claim. The federal government admitted liability on behalf of the hospital. Therefore the only remaining issue for the judge to rule on was non-economic damages.

]]> Non-economic damages include such considerations as loss of life, pain and suffering, and disability. Plaintiff had requested $12.5 million in non-economic damages, which broke down into $1 million for a 3-year reduction in his life expectancy, $4 million for pain and suffering; and $7.5 million for his permanent disability.

Plaintiff had supported its claims for non-economic damages with testimony by a medical expert. This expert determined that the plaintiff's paraplegia reduced his life expectancy by three years, a claim that was not disputed by the defendant. The pain and suffering claim was related to the numerous surgeries, lengthy hospitalization, and plaintiff's continued pain as a result of the defendant's negligence. The permanent disability claim related to the effects the plaintiff's paraplegia will continue to have on his ability to care for himself, to care for his family, and to partake in his previous activities.

When considering awards for non-economic damages, the court laid out two criteria to consider when justifying its decision. First, the court must consider the non-economic damages awarded in similar cases and use those as a guide when making its own decision. However, in addition to looking at the amounts in those cases, the court must also consider whether its final award meets an appropriate ratio of economic damages to non-economic damages.

The defense submitted five similar Illinois cases submitted for the courts review, with the non-economic damages ranging from $0.5 million and $8 million. The court felt that Maldonado fell within the high end of this scale based on not only the severity of the injury, but also the drastic change to this previously vibrant and active individual's lifestyle. The court awarded a non-economic loss of $6.7 million to the plaintiff. The breakdown was as follows: $450,000 for a three-year reduction in life expectancy (calculated at $150,000 per year), $2 million for pain and suffering, and $4.25 million for his ongoing disability.

The court also ensured that the non-economic damages met an appropriate ratio in terms of economic damages. Both parties agreed that the economic damages for plaintiff's past and future medical care was $1,630,182.00. Therefore the final award of $6.7 million for non-economic damages represented about 4.2 times the total for the plaintiff's economic damages. This ratio was consistent with similar Illinois medical malpractice cases. In its decision the court acknowledged that placing a numerical value on one's non-economic losses and thereby "qualifying the harm he has suffered . . . in financial terms is awkward, but a financial remedy is the only one available under law."

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Chicago medical malpractice lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Cicero, Buffalo Grove, and Bolingbrook.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Circuit Court Decision as to Medical Malpractice Damages Awarded By Illinois Jury

Illinois Medical Malpractice Case on Constitutionality of Damage Caps for Doctors and Hospitals Argued before Illinois Supreme Court

Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict Including Doctor’s Financial Incentive for Surgery Affirmed By Illinois Appellate Court

Illinois Medical Malpractice Claim Barred Under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act - Hemminger v. Nehring

2010-06-16T17:31:47Z

An Illinois medical malpractice claim involving a failure to diagnose cancer was barred by the Illinois Appellate Court under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Defendant CGH Medical Center Auxiliary, d/b/a CGH Medical Center, was a municipal entity, and according to the Act, government entities, such as a public health clinic, are immune from certain types of negligence committed by the entity and/or its employees.

The Appellate Court reviewed Hemminger v. Nehring, et al., No. 3-08-0751, to determine whether the Tort Immunity Act immunized the defendants against allegations of medical negligence contained within plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the defendant's employee was negligent when she failed to correctly interpret the decedent's Pap smear, which showed that the decedent had cervical cancer. As a result of the defendant's negligence, the decedent's cancer went undiagnosed for six months. By the time her cervical cancer was diagnosed it was classified as Stage IIIb and eventually led to her death.

In response, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which if granted would result in the case's dismissal. In its motions, the defendants argued that they were immune from any liability or negligence under the Tort Immunity Act. They also argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the one year statue of limitations set out for municipal entities. The plaintiff's complaint was instead filed within two years of the medical negligence, which would have met the statute of limitations for a non-government entity.

]]> The trial court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the Illinois medical malpractice claims against them. Plaintiff then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing that the alleged negligence against the defendants were not in fact covered by the Tort Immunity Act, and as such should not be barred.

However, in its opinion, the Illinois Appellate Court pointed to §6-105 and §6-106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/). In the Court's opinion, the Pap smear qualified as "screen test that is clearly part of the diagnostic process [and as such is] precisely the conduct that both §6-105 and 6-106 immunize.”

Section 6-105 specifically states:

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for injury caused by the failure to make a physical or mental examination, or to make an adequate physical or mental examination of any person for the purpose of determining whether such person has a disease or physical or mental condition that would constitute a hazard to the health or safety of himself or others.

Section 6-106 states that:

(a) Neither a local public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for injury resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental or physical illness or addiction or from failing to prescribe for mental or physical illness or addiction.
(b) Neither a local public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for administering with due care the treatment prescribed for mental or physical illness or addiction.
(c) Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee who has undertaken to prescribe for mental or physical illness or addiction from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligence or by his wrongful act in so prescribing or exonerates a local public entity whose employee, while acting in the scope of his employment, so causes such an injury.
(d) Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in administering any treatment prescribed for mental or physical illness or addiction or exonerates a local public entity whose employee, while acting in the scope of his employment, so causes such an injury.

The Appellate Court held that the defendants were acting in the scope of their employment when reviewing plaintiff's Pap smear and could not be held liable for any failure to diagnose the decedent's cancer. Therefore, the medical negligence claims brought against the defendants were dropped. And because the appellate court already affirmed the case's dismissal regarding the issue on immunity, it was necessary to consider statute of limitations issue.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois failure to diagnose cancer claims for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Elk Grove Village, Berwyn, Blue Island, and Chicago.

Similar blog posts:

Cook County Undiagnosed Cancer Malpractice Case Settled: Urologist Failed to Pursue Abnormal Masses on CT

Cook County Cancer Misdiagnosis Case Leads to Wrongful Death: Illinois Case Settles During Trial

Illinois Wrongful Death In Undiagnosed Lung Cancer Case Settled by Family

Illinois Nursing Home Abuse Addressed in Reform Bill to Illinois Nursing Home Act

2010-06-08T14:36:06Z

The Illinois Nursing Home Care Act was recently reformed in order to address the safety of Illinois nursing homes. The reform comes on the heels of a series of articles by the Chicago Tribune documenting regular acts of nursing home abuse, including rape, murder, and assault, against geriatric residents by younger psychiatric residents and convicted felons.

The Illinois nursing home reform will begin by tightening psychological screening and required criminal background checks for new nursing home residents in order to determine which potentially dangerous residents should be placed in secure therapeutic wards that are separated from the rest of the nursing home facility. In order to address potentially dangerous residents already housed in Illinois nursing homes and limit occurrences of nursing home abuse, the reform measures will transfer thousands of mentally disturbed patients into smaller units structured to provide better supervision and therapy for those patients.

In addition, those nursing homes that admit mentally ill patients will be required to obtain an additional certification that demonstrates the facility and its staff are equipped to effectively monitor and treat these residents. A current problem with Illinois nursing homes is that they are understaffed and lack adequate training to deal with non-geriatric patients. These new standards will effect to combat these potential causes of Illinois nursing home abuse.

]]> In addition, new nursing home standards will be written that will set staffing requirements. These standards are expected to include provisions requiring psychiatric professionals be available on a 24-hour basis and that all staff is trained in managing aggression and preventing crises. These new standards could affect the way Illinois nursing home abuse lawsuits are filed and litigated considering that these standards dictate the level of care that Illinois nursing homes are required to provide under law.

In Illinois, both medical malpractice cases and nursing home malpractice lawsuits require that the treaters failed to provide treatment required according to a reasonable standard of care. The standard of care is defined as the level of care an average, reasonable medical professional would provide in similar circumstances. When the standard of care is violated then medical malpractice has occurred. The new staffing requirements and standard of safety could increase the level nursing homes are held to under the standard of care requirement.

Another key provision in the reform bill will increase Illinois residents' ability to identify potentially unsafe nursing homes. Currently the Illinois Nursing Home Act lacks a comprehensive database that tracks violent incidents, but the new reform bill includes provisions to establish such a database. This provision will make it easier for Illinois residents to find a quality nursing home for their loved ones.

While the Illinois nursing home reform will require a great deal of manpower and effort to implement, the hope is that the reform decreases the wide-spread violence and low-quality care within Illinois nursing homes and improve the quality of life for its residents.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois nursing home abuse lawsuits for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Wilmette, Oak Park, Bolingbrook, and Blue Island.

Similar blog posts:

Illinois Nursing Homes Housing The Mentally Ill And Felons Threaten The Elderly

Illinois Nursing Home Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reviewed by Illinois Supreme Court

Health Care Reform 101: Breakdown of Main Concepts of the New Health Care Reform Bill

Breast Cancer One-Dose Radiation Treatment Option Revealed at Chicago Oncology Meeting

2010-06-02T21:58:20Z

Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer for American women, coming in just second behind lung cancer. According to www.breastcancer.org, one in every eight women in the U.S. develops some form of breast cancer. Like any form of cancer, a delay in diagnosis or a misdiagnosis of cancer can have a negative effect on a patient's outcome.

Once breast cancer is diagnosed, the typical treatment for breast cancer involves surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. However, a new study unveiled at a Chicago meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) could change the standard for breast cancer treatment. TARGIT-A study is an international study of breast cancer clinical trials involving over 2,000 breast cancer patients. The participants were women 45 years-old and up who had been diagnosed with invasive ductal breast cancer and were undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

Traditionally patients who elect for breast-conserving surgery undergo whole breast external radiation therapy for up to 6 1/2 weeks following surgery. However, the TARGIT-A clinical trials studied the effects of targeted radiation administered during the surgery. The radiation is administered in a single dose and targets only the area of the breast with cancer instead of the whole breast. Half of the studies participants underwent the traditional post-op radiation while the other half received the targeted radiation therapy during surgery. The TARGIT-A study found that the targeted therapy group did somewhat better overall than the traditional radiation group.

]]> In addition to the better outcome found with the targeted therapy there are other advantages to the new method. The targeted therapy is more convenient considering the patients were already undergoing surgery and can be done in a single day instead of the weeks required for traditional radiation therapy.

While the rates of complications and side effects are about the same with both groups, there are some patients who might not be candidates for the targeted therapy. While most patients would benefit from the targeted therapy, the ideal patient would be women with small, well-defined tumors confined to one portion of the breast. Typically, a tumor's pathology is determined from samples taken during surgery, so would not be available until after the targeted therapy was already administered. If the patient's pathology indicates they are not the ideal candidate for targeted therapy then they could potentially need additional treatment. Of the 2,000 participants in TARGIT-A, only 14% later needed traditional radiation.

The early indicators would suggest that targeted radiation is as effective, if not more so, than traditional radiation for breast cancer patients. Considering the high prevalence of breast cancer in the U.S., this study's findings will have wide-reaching affects.

Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits regarding the misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose cancer for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Barrington, Lisle, and Cicero.

Similar blog posts:

Celebrating Ten Years of GIST Treatment: A Look at Developments in Molecular Targeted Therapy

Cook County Cancer Misdiagnosis Case Leads to Wrongful Death: Illinois Case Settles During Trial

Cook County Undiagnosed Cancer Malpractice Case Settled: Urologist Failed to Pursue Abnormal Masses on CT