Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Cancer misdiagnosis lawsuits make up a fair share of medical malpractice lawsuits. However, most of those misdiagnosis lawsuits deal with a delay in diagnosis that results in a fatal outcome for the plaintiff. Whereas in Pamela Chouinard v. Dr. Janis Atkinson, North Shore Pathology Consultants S.C., 08 L 9295, the misdiagnosis claim centered on a false positive cancer diagnosis which led to an unnecessary surgery.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was brought by Pamela Chouinard following the removal of her thyroid gland. While Chouinard had initially been told the surgery was necessary because she had thyroid cancer, a biopsy taken after the surgery showed her thyroid to be benign and cancer free. Chouinard then sued Dr. Atkinson for misdiagnosing her alleged cancer and causing her to undergo thyroid surgery.

The case begins in July 2006 when 62 year-old Chouinard is found to have an enlarged thyroid gland. In order to determine the cause, she underwent a fine needle aspiration of her thyroid. The results showed multiple nodules on Chouinard's thyroid, including a cold nodule, which is a common sign of thyroid cancer. Based on the thyroid aspiration results, the reviewing pathologist, Dr. Atkinson, entered a positive finding of malignant cancer of the papillary thyroid.

Continue reading "Jury Finds for Doctor in Claim of Cancer Misdiagnosis - Chouinard v. Atkinson" »

A Chicago jury examined the question of what duty of care does a surgeon owe his patients following a surgery in the medical malpractice lawsuit of Marvin Rieker v. Libby Kristal, M.D., 08 L 90 (LaSalle County). For example, is the surgeon required to keep an eye on his patient's care only when he/she is in the hospital, or is he required to be the follow up person for any questions related to the surgery even after the patient has gone home?

The case in question involved a cataract eye surgery that ophthalmologist Dr. Libby Kristal performed on Marvin Rieker. Almost from the start, the 79 year-old Rieker began to experience problems. Following the cataract surgery, Rieker began to complain of pain and redness in his eye. Dr. Kristal attributed Rieker's complaints to the regular side effects of cataract surgery and told Rieker that his eye would take some time to heal.

However, the following day Rieker was still complaining of severe pain and redness that had not subsided. And while Dr. Kristal was out of town, she referred Rieker to an optometrist for evaluation. That optometrist recommended that Rieker be referred to a retinal surgeon within a few days and reported his findings to Dr. Kristal. Dr. Kristal authorized an increase in Rieker's medications and assured Rieker that she would call him the next morning to follow up.

However, Dr. Kristal did not actually call Rieker until mid-afternoon and did not even see him until several hours after that. By then it was too late for Rieker; he had permanently lost his vision in the operated eye. In addition, the extent of damage required that he later have his entire eye removed and replaced with a prosthetic eye. Rieker filed a medical malpractice focusing on Dr. Kristal's alleged surgical error.

Continue reading "Cataract Surgery Gone Bad Results in Loss of Eye, $684,000 Verdict for Patient - Rieker v. Kristal" »

In Illinois, the statute of limitations governing civil cases, e.g. medical malpractice, product liability, and personal injury cases, is typically two years. However, the Illinois Appellate Court recently revisited exactly when that two-year statute begins in its analysis of the "discovery rule" as it relates to Mitsias v. I-Flow, 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 101126 (Sept. 23, 2011).

The discovery rule refers to the general rule that the statute begins when a plaintiff knew or should have know about the cause for his injury. The injury in question in Mitsias deals with both a medical malpractice claim and a later product liability lawsuit involving the plaintiff's shoulder surgery. In 2001, Mitsias underwent a shoulder surgery during which a "pain pump" was implanted. However, Mitsias later developed glenohumeral chondrolysis, or destruction of cartilage in her shoulder and joint.

In 2003, Mitsias filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the surgeon who implanted the pain pump. However, during the course of the medical malpractice proceedings, Mitsias discovered that the source of her shoulder injury might not be a simple case of medical malpractice, but also have a product liability component. Consequently, Mitsias filed a second complaint against the manufacturers of the pain pump alleging that its defects caused her shoulder injury.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Discovery Rule - Mitsias v. I-Flow" »

Despite testimony that a quicker response by a Cook County hospital's staff could have increased a patient's chance of survival by ten percent, a Chicago jury finds in favor of the defendant doctors and hospital. The Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit of Estate of Edward W. Dornhecker, deceased v. Dr. Robert E. Applebaum, SSM Regional Health Services d/b/a St. Francis Hospital & Health Center, 07 L 13665, was brought by the decedent's family after he died of heart surgery complications.

In 2005, Edward Dornhecker underwent coronary artery bypass graph surgery at St. Francis Hospital, now called MetroSouth Medical Center, in Blue Island, Illinois. The surgery was performed by Dr. Robert Applebaum and all reports indicated that the surgery had gone well. However, the next evening, Dornhecker began to experience problems breathing. His oxygenation progressively worsened to the point that he needed to be intubated transferred to the ICU.

Upon his transfer to the ICU at 4:00 a.m., one of the nurses noted a foul-smelling, brown liquid coming from the decedent's chest. The liquid was coming from the area from where a chest drainage tube had been removed the prior morning. The nurse called the on-call cardiologist and pulmonologist to report a "foul-smelling fecal matter" oozing from Dornhecker's chest. However, it was not until Dr. Applebaum arrived at the hospital hours later that anything was done.

Continue reading "Jury Finds for Doctor in Colon Perforation in Bypass Surgery Death - Estate of Dornhecker v. Dr. Applebaum" »

In medical malpractice lawsuits, documentation is key in proving both the plaintiff's and defendant's cases. A jury is much more likely to believe what is documented in the chart than testimony that is generally provided several years after the alleged medical malpractice took place. However, when something is not documented in the chart, then it is up to both parties to convince the jury that their version of the events is true.

In the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit of Dolores Murray v. Diane Price-Gordon, R.N., 06 L 9083, the plaintiff was unable to convince the jury that the defendant nurse had acted negligently. Instead, the jury sided with the defendant and her version of the events despite the lack of support provided by the medical chart.

In Murray, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant nurse's failure to monitor the plaintiff's vital signs led to her permanent upper extremity paralysis. However, the nurse maintained that she had properly monitored and observed the plaintiff and that her actions were not responsible for the plaintiff's paralysis. While the plaintiff relied more on the lack of documentation in the medical chart, the defendant relied more heavily on medical experts' testimony to prove her case.

Continue reading "Jury Finds for Nurse in Patient's Claim of Inadequate Monitoring, Leading to Central Spinal Cord Syndrome - Murray v. Price-Gordon" »

The patient-physician relationship is built on trust - the patient trusts that his doctor is acting within the standard of care and the physician trusts that the patient is following his orders. In the Illinois medical malpractice case of Mary Catherine Donovan v. Dr. John Huh, et al., 02 L 16318, both parties argued that the other violated this mutual trust. The plaintiff argued that the defendant doctor acted negligently, while the doctor argued that the plaintiff failed to follow his medical advice.

Donovan arose after the plaintiff, 19 year-old Mary Catherine Donovan, developed lithium toxicity. The defendant psychiatrist, Dr. John Huh, had prescribed Donovan lithium for her bipolar disorder. This in itself was not unusual. Lithium is often prescribed to treat patients with bipolar disorder due to its ability to reduce the frequency and severity of bipolar depression.

However, lithium carries with it some fairly serious side effects, including muscle weakness, sudden hair loss, poor concentration, drowsiness, vomiting, and diarrhea. In order to prevent these serious side effects, physicians regularly monitor the levels of lithium in a patient's blood stream, adjusting the dosage as necessary. However, in the case of Donovan, Dr. Huh failed to obtain regular blood draws, thereby missing the warning signs that Donovan was developing lithium toxicity.

Continue reading "Jury Awards $125,000 for Toxic Dose of Lithium - Donovan v. Dr. Huh" »

In order to prove medical malpractice occurred, the plaintiff's attorney needs to show not only the plaintiff experienced a poor medical outcome, but that it was directly caused by medical negligence. In the Kane County medical malpractice lawsuit of Melissa Nyquist v. Dr. Taras Masnyk and DuPage Neurosurgery, S.C., 06 L 421, the plaintiff's attorney was unable to convince the jury that the plaintiff's medical complications were caused by the defendants' negligence.

The case facts centered on a spinal surgery the 34 year-old plaintiff had undergone at Central DuPage Hospital. Melissa Nyquist required a lumbar back fusion for a herniated disc at the L4-5 level. As part of the surgery, Dr. Taras Masnyk inserted four metal screws into the plaintiff's spine. The screws were needed to stabilize the spine and fix the fused vertebrae in place.

However, following the spinal fusion, Nyquist began to experience foot drop in her right foot. A CT scan was taken to try and identify the underlying neurological problem that might be causing the new symptom. The radiology results showed that the surgical screw placed at the right L4-5 area had breached the medial wall and was actually extending into the spinal canal. And while the offending screw was removed the next day, Nyquist continued to experience right foot drop, along with lower back pain and sciatica, i.e. leg pain.

Continue reading "Jury Verdict for Doctor for Screw Allegedly Misplaced During Lumbar Fusion - Nyquist v. DuPage Neurosurgery, S.C." »

A Cook County judge denied a defendant's motion for a change of venue in an Illinois wrongful death case despite the fact that several defendants and witnesses did not live in Cook County. And even though the trial judge did deny the venue change, he expressed his discomfort with the lack of clear guidelines when deciding venue. Despite this apparent confusion, the appellate court affirmed his decision in Susan Isom v. Riverside Medical Center, et al., No. 1-11-0426.

The case at issue in Isom dealt with a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Susan Isom on behalf of her late son, Tyrone Brooks. According to Isom's Cook County lawsuit, Brooks's death was due to the failure of the defendant doctors and clinics to diagnose Brooks's sickle cell anemia. The alleged medical malpractice or the validity of the estate's wrongful death claims were not the issue of the appellate court's appeal; the court was simply examining whether Cook County was the correct venue for the claim.

The appellate court noted that the determination regarding a case's venue is at the discretion of the trial court, which must consider both public and private interest factors when deciding the issue of venue. The court noted that the relevant private factors include the venue's convenience to the parties, the ease of access to sources of evidence in that venue, and any other practical problems. Public factors would then include the interest in deciding controversies locally, the burden of imposing expenses on forums with little connections to the controversy, and docket congestion.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Affirms Denial to Transfer Medical Malpractice Case From Cook County to Kankakee County - Isom v. Riverside Medical Center" »

There is an old saying that hindsight is always twenty-twenty, i.e., we can always see something coming after the fact. When it comes to medical cases, it is often easy to see the signs and symptoms of a disease after it has run its course. However, diagnosing a disease in its early stages is not always easy; medicine is not a perfect science and doctors can't always diagnose the problem. Therefore, in order to prove that a doctor negligently failed to diagnose a disease, a patient needs to prove that the doctor should have been able to diagnose the problem, but chose not to.

In the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit of Zachary Monahan v. Joseph Giordano, D.O., Edward Health Services d/b/a Edward Medical Group, Case No. 07 L 563 (Will County), the plaintiff alleged that his doctor chose not to diagnose his heart disease. However, the WIll County jury disagreed and found the doctor not guilty.

Zachary Monahan had presented to Dr. Giordano, his primary care physician, for several office visits between April and May 2001. During the course of those visits, Monahan continued to complain of a persistent fever, night sweats, and muscle aches. While Dr. Giordano conducted several tests during that time, it was not until Monahan's final office visit on May 12, 2001 that Dr. Giordano chose to order a blood culture.

The blood culture results showed that Monahan had a blood-born infection. Due to the serious nature of these results Monahan was immediately notified and admitted to Edward Hospital to begin intravenous antibiotics. The cause of his infection was then diagnosed as bacterial endocarditis, an infection of the lining within the heart's chambers.

Continue reading "Jury Verdict for Doctor, Plaintiff Fails to Prove Misdiagnosed Heart Infection - Monahan v. Dr. Joseph Giordano" »

A DuPage County medical malpractice verdict was returned in favor of the surviving family members of five day-old Isaac Diaz. Baby Isaac died after physicians delayed in performing surgery that could have prevented his death from a bowel obstruction. The $1.5 million verdict was entered in Estate of Diaz v. Central DuPage Hospital, et al, 06 L 448 (DuPage County).

Just five days after his birth, Isaac Diaz began vomiting yellow bile and had blood streaked through his stool. After the symptoms failed to resolve on their own, his mother took Isaac to Central DuPage Hospital's emergency room. Within twenty-five minutes of his arrival, Isaac was seen by the Dr. Panfil, an emergency room doctor. Dr. Panfil took the preventive measures of placing Isaac on antibiotics and ordered an IV be placed. Then, in an attempt to figure out the source of Isaac's vomiting and blood-streaked stool, Dr. Panfil ordered a range of labs, x-rays, and consulted with Dr. Pearce-Falls, the hospital's pediatrician.

By the time Dr. Pearce-Falls consulted with Dr. Panfil, the x-rays results were already available. Because the x-rays were negative, Dr. Pearce-Falls elected to order an upper GI series, which would show the infant's stomach region in more detail, possibly highlighting a problem unseen on the x-rays. Because of the severe nature of baby Isaac's symptoms, the upper GI series was ordered STAT, meaning it was meant to be done urgently.

Continue reading "Jury Awards $1.5 million for Tragic Illinois Newborn Death - Diaz v. Central DuPage Hospital " »

In many medical malpractice lawsuits, plaintiffs are critical of physicians for failing to make proper referrals or diagnose a condition in a timely fashion. However, if the patient does not keep appointments or take some responsibility in their own care, then it is difficult to find fault with the physician.

In the Illinois medical malpractice case of Melissa Brooks, Loren Brooks v. Surendra Gulati, M.D., 08 L 838, the plaintiff was critical of her physician, Dr. Gulati, for failing to diagnose a vascular tumor in her spine. Brooks first presented to Dr. Gulati in January 2002, at which point she relayed that she had been having back pain, tingling, and numbness for the past several months.

In response to these complaints, Dr. Gulati referred Ms. Brooks for an MRI of her lumbar and thoracic spine. He then conveyed the radiology results to her over the phone - the report suggest a possible arterial venous malformation, or a possible benign spinal tumor. In order to follow up on these findings, Dr. Gulati claimed he ordered an additional MRI of Ms. Brooks's brain and scheduled a follow up appointment.

However, the 27 year-old Brooks did not follow through with the additional brain MRI, nor did she show up for her scheduled visit with Dr. Gulati. This missed visit was at the center of Brooks - the plaintiff contended that Dr. Gulati should have contacted her after the missed appointment, whereas Dr. Gulati contended that he had acted within the standard of care and was not responsible for making sure Ms. Brooks kept her appointments.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Verdict for Doctor in Spinal Tumor Case, Patient Missed Appointment; Brooks v. Dr. Gulati" »

In medical malpractice lawsuits, there is sometimes a thin line between what constitutes negligence and what does not. Take for example the Cook County lawsuit of Jennifer Irwin v. Alan B. Loren, M.D. and Daniel R. Conway, M.D., Advanced Surgical Associates, S.C., 08 L 2760. The defendant doctors committed a surgical error while removing the plaintiff's gallbladder; however, the jury found the doctors were not guilty of medical negligence.

The surgery at issue in Irwin took place at Northwest Community Hospital in March 2006. The 43 year-old plaintiff was scheduled to have her gallbladder removed in a laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure performed by Dr. Alan Loren. Performing a surgery laparoscopically means that the surgeon relies on a camera to see inside the body's internal structures. Doing so allows the surgeon to make a much smaller incision and drastically decrease recovery time. However, this also means that the surgeon is not directly looking at the relevant organs and needs to correctly interpret what is seen on the camera.

Unfortunately, in Ms. Irwin's case, Dr. Loren did not correctly interpret the camera's images, at least not at first. Dr. Loren initially misidentified Irwin's common bile duct as the cystic duct. As a result of this misidentification, Dr. Loren incorrectly clamped the common bile duct with surgical clips and cut it. The common bile duct is responsible for carrying bile from the liver and gallbladder into the upper part of the small intestine and is an important component of the digestion process.

Continue reading "Cook County Surgeons Cut Common BIle Duct During Surgery, But Jury Finds for Defendants - Irwin v. Alan Loren, M.D." »

The First District Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed a not guilty jury verdict in the medical malpractice lawsuit of Raven Taylor v. The County of Cook, et al., No. 1-09-3085. While the plaintiff appealed the verdict on several counts, perhaps the most significant of the appellate court's rulings was in regards to the content of an expert's testimony. While Taylor's counsel argued that a medical expert could not testify regarding a medical treatment if he did not use it in his own practice, the appellate court found otherwise. It held that a medical expert could offer opinions about a medical treatment even if he used a different treatment in his own practice.

Taylor arose out of medical treatment Raven Taylor received at Cook County Hospital after experiencing migraines, joint stiffness and pain, and loss of her peripheral vision. While Taylor also received treatment for these various symptoms at Oak Forest Hospital, it was the treatment plan developed at Cook County Hospital that was the subject of the medical malpractice lawsuit. The Cook County Hospital staff suspected that Taylor's symptoms were being caused by polymyositis, an inflammatory muscular disease that can eventually lead to muscular problems. While polymyositis generally worsens muscle function slowly, in some cases it can progress rapidly and even lead to permanent disabilities.

Taylor unfortunately had the quick acting form of polymyositis and was in fact left with permanent disabilities. Her attorney and medical experts contended that her poor outcome was due to the fact that the physicians at Cook County Hospital were not aggressive enough in diagnosing and treating Taylor's severe case of polymyositis. However, the defendants' medical experts testified that while the doctors could have employed alternate treatment plans, that their actions were still within the acceptable standard of care. It was this testimony that was the subject of the appellate court's case review.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Allows Expert Testimony Regarding Different Treatment Plans - Taylor v. County of Cook" »

Medical malpractice lawsuits are composed of two main elements: negligence and damages. Therefore, simply showing that a medical provider's treatment is negligent is not enough - a plaintiff must also show that the negligence led to a significant amount of damages. In the Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit of Cindy Zaleski v. Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center, Kovach Eye Institute, Ltd. and Dr. Kevin Kovach, 08 L 7387, the issue was whether or not the plaintiff's damages were extensive as she claimed.

The medical negligence case dealt with an eye surgery Cindy Zaleski had when she was 19 years-old. Zaleski underwent a phakic intraocular lens implantation surgery to correct the nearsightedness in her left eye. This particular surgery involves implanting a plastic or silicone contact lens in the eye and is meant to eliminate the need for eyeglasses or disposable contacts.

Phakic lens surgery is a fairly new procedure, therefore the long-term risks are not known. However, the short-term risks include: possible vision loss, retinal detachment, infection, and the development of increased intraocular pressure. This last risk is what happened in Zaleski's case. After undergoing the eye surgery at Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center, she developed increased pressure in her left eye. Her medical malpractice complaint alleged that the defendant ophthalmologist, Dr. Kevin Kovach, failed to diagnose and treat this pressure in a timely fashion.

Continue reading "Debate Over Extent of Eye Damage Following Implant Lens Surgery Leads to $1 Million Verdict in Zaleski v Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center " »

Just as there is a difference between state laws and federal laws, so is there a difference between medical clinics who receive federal funding and those who don't. If a medical facility receives federal funding, its staff are considered federal employees and as such are subject to federal laws. This means that if a doctor at a federally-funded clinic commits medical malpractice then the corresponding medical malpractice claim will be handled by a federal court, not a state court.

The Seventh District of the Illinois Appellate Court recently reviewed whether a medical malpractice claim brought against federal employees was filed during the statute of limitations. If a claim is not brought during the appropriate statute of limitations, it is then barred from litigation, i.e., it cannot be filed or proceed to trial. However, the appellate court found that Arroyo v. United States, 10-2311 (7th Cir. 2011), had been brought during the appropriate time frame and therefore the $29.1 million verdict was upheld.

Arroyo was a birth injury lawsuit involving claims that the neonatal staff failed to recognize and treat baby Christian Arroyo's infection in a timely manner. Christian had contracted a bacterial infection from exposure to his mother's blood during his May 2003 birth. Generally, pregnant women undergo a variety of blood work tests during the month before their due date. However, because Arroyo was premature, his mother had not yet undergone these tests and therefore doctors were not aware that would have tested positive for Group B Streptococcus (GBS).

Because exposure to GBS can lead to permanent injuries in babies, doctors take several precautions when a mother has not undergone these prenatal tests. Most importantly, the medical staff must be on the lookout for any signs or symptoms of neonatal sepsis, i.e., an infection in the baby's bloodstream. If there is even a suspicion of neonatal sepsis, the standard of care for treating such infections is to administer antibiotics to begin fighting the suspected infection. If the sepsis is not treated immediately, it can lead to severe brain damage.

This is what happened in Arroyo's case. Despite signs and symptoms that Arroyo had contracted an infection, his doctors failed to administer antibiotics. As a result, Arroyo suffered from severe and permanent brain injuries, which include spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, communication deficits, the inability to swallow, incontinence, and permanent pain. It is likely that if Arroyo had received antibiotics in a timely manner that his injuries would have been drastically reduced.

However, the Arroyo family was not immediately aware that Christian Arroyo's brain damage could have been avoided. It was not until the mother gave birth to her second son in July 2004 that she became aware of the importance of neonatal antibiotics and began to understand that Christian's permanent brain injuries could have been avoided if not for the doctors' negligence. The family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against those doctors a year and a half after becoming aware of the true cause of Christian's injuries.

Continue reading "Statute of Limitation Clarified by Court of Appeals - $29.1 Million Upheld in Arroyo v. United States" »

It is common knowledge that the earlier cancer is diagnosed, the greater the chance of survival. However, we continually see medical malpractice lawsuits where a treating physician failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of cancer in a timely manner. The Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit of Carmela Sahagun v. Allan Aven, M.D., et al., Case No. 08 L 5346, is yet another example of a failing to diagnose cancer in its early stages.

Forty-six year-old Carmela Sahagun presented to Dr. Aven, her primary care physician, complaining of a lump in her left breast as well as a hardness near her breast bone. In order to pinpoint the problem, Dr. Aven referred Sahagun for a CT scan of her chest. The diagnostic test returned signs of a 1.9 cm mass in her left lung; the radiologist further indicated in his report that he suspected the mass might be malignant.

Upon receiving the CT scan results, Dr. Aven appropriated consulted with a Dr. Loren, a surgeon, who recommended a breast biopsy to rule out breast cancer. In addition, Dr. Loren indicated that if the breast biopsy was negative for malignancy, then he would recommend a lung biopsy to rule out lung cancer. Dr. Loren then performed the breast biopsy on Ms. Sahagun, the results of which were negative. However, rather than preforming a lung biopsy, Dr. Loren dismissed Ms. Sahagun from his care and never saw her again.

Ms. Sahagun returned to Dr. Aven for further care and treatment. Over the course of the following year, Ms. Sahagun presented to Dr. Aven's office on several occasions, complaining of a cough and chest pain at each visit. However, despite these complaints and despite Dr. Loren's recommendation, almost a whole year passed before Dr. Aven finally ordered a lung biopsy. By this time, the lung biopsy revealed that Ms. Sahagun had Stage IV lung cancer.

Continue reading "Doctors’ Failure to Timely Diagnose Lung Cancer Leads to $850,000 Settlement - Sahagun v. Aven" »

Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits rely on the assumption that a doctor, nurse, or facility violated the appropriate standard of care; therefore, all medical malpractice lawsuits require parties to establish the jury with a concept of what was in fact the acceptable medical standard of care. The jury is then instructed as to how to analyze the medical malpractice case when making decisions regarding the standard of care. Therefore, if a jury were given incorrect instructions on how to evaluate the medical standard of care, then it might affect the jury's reasoning and eventual verdict.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit of Jane Studt et al. v. Sherman Health Systems, No. 108182 was brought before the Illinois Supreme Court in order to determine whether the Illinois jury was given the incorrect version of Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 105.01. In an unexpected twist, the Supreme Court held that the jury did receive the wrong jury instruction version, but still upheld the jury's original verdict.

Continue reading "$867K Medical Malpractice Verdict Upheld Despite Wrong Version of Jury Instruction - Studt v. Sherman Health Systems" »

Oftentimes surgery is seen as a last resort in medical treatment and is only turned to if no other option exists. This is because surgery itself is not only risky, but can also lead to a wide range of additional complications. And if forced to perform a surgery, doctors often opt for the least invasive surgery possible in an attempt to minimize the risk of complications. However, the McHenry County surgical malpractice lawsuit of Douglas Andrews v. Marshall E. Pederson, M.D., et al., 05 LA 180, claimed that the defendant surgeon instead performed a more invasive surgery than was necessary.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was brought by the 59 year-old plaintiff against both his surgeon and his medical group, Dr. Marshall Pedersen and Fox Valley Neurosurgery, Ltd., respectively. The former Illinois State Police trooper claimed that Dr. Pedersen had performed an unnecessary spinal surgery that resulted in additional back problems.

The plaintiff, Douglas Andrews, had originally presented to Dr. Pedersen with a herniated disc that was radiating pain down his leg. Dr. Pedersen recommended that Andrews undergo an extensive spinal fusion surgery, which he then performed on Andrews. However, this type of surgery is often done as a last resort for persistent back pain. A spinal fusion involves permanently fusing together vertebrae, which not only limits a patient's mobility, but can also lead to additional back pain because of the increased pressure put on the other areas of the spine.

Continue reading "Unnecessary Back Fusion Surgery Results in $1 Million Verdict - Andrews v. Pedersen" »

A Cook County hospital infection decision by the Illinois Appellate Court clarifies what types of medical records are discoverable. The court ruled in Joseph Zangara and Wayne Dziamara v. Advocate Christ Medical Center, Paul Gordon, et al., Nos. 1-09-1911 and 1-09-1914, that the defendant hospital was required to produce records documenting the number of MRSA infections at the hospital for a three month period.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit involved two consolidated MRSA lawsuits filed against Advocate Christ Medical Center. Joseph Zangara and Zigmund Dziamara were both hospitalized at Christ Medical Center during the same time period in 2005. Both Zangara and Dziamara acquired MRSA, or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureas, during their admissions; however, Zangara survived the infection, while Dziamara did not. Both Zangara and the estate representing Dziamara filed civil lawsuits against Christ Medical Center that accused the Oak Lawn hospital of negligent management regarding its infection control procedures.

Continue reading "Cook County Judge's Ruling on Privilege of MRSA Data Reversed By Illinois Appellate Court - Zangara et al. v. Christ Medical Center" »

A Cook County wrongful death lawsuit involving the death of a 45 year-old woman was settled by the decedent's estate for $1.35 million. The Illinois lawsuit dealt with claims of medical negligence on behalf of the defendant surgeon and the hospital where he as employed. Jerry Markbreit for the Estate of Betsy Markbreit v. Jose Velasco, M.D., et al., 07 L 8703.

The Illinois surgical malpractice began in 2004, when Ms. Markbreit was admitted to Rush North Shore Medical Center to have a benign growth on her thyroid gland. Prior testing had indicated that the benign growth was limited to the right side of Ms. Markbriet's thyroid gland, a finding that was confirmed on the surgical report. Yet the surgeon, Dr. Jose Velasco, elected to perform a total thyroidectomy on the decedent.

The Cook County medical malpractice claim was critical of the surgeon's decision to perform a total thyroidectomy. Ms. Markbreit had only been scheduled for a partial thyroidectomy and given the fact that her benign growth was isolated to one side of her thyroid gland there was no medical reason to perform a total thyroidectomy. This lack of medical necessity was significant because the plaintiff's wrongful death lawsuit traced all of Ms. Markbreit's subsequent medical problems and eventual death back to the unnecessary total thyroidectomy.

Continue reading "Cook County Surgical Error and Subsequent Overmedication Leads to Illinois Woman's Death - $1.35 Million Settlement Reached in Markbreit v. Velasco" »

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled as to the statute of limitations regarding the Illinois lawsuit of Kristen Kaufmann v. Roger A. Schroeder, M.D., Jersey Community Hospital, a municipal corporation, et al., No. 109738. While the plaintiff argued that she had filed her claim well within the two year statute, the Illinois Supreme Court held that she had failed to meet the actual one year statute of limitations. The deciding factor of whether or not it was a one or two year statute dealt with whether or not Kaufmann's claim was considered an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

The facts surrounding Kaufmann involved allegations that the plaintiff woke up after being sedated to find her physician licking her breasts. The complaint also contended that not only had her OB-GYN, Dr. Roger Schroeder, committed sexual assault against Kaufmann, but that he had unnecessarily sedated her in order to do so.

Kaufmann had presented to Jersey Community Hospital under Dr. Schroeder's care for treatment of an urinary tract infection and was told that she needed to be sedated for the procedure; she later discovered that this was not true. As a result of Dr. Schroeder's actions, Kaufmann filed a complaint not only against the doctor, but also against Jersey Community Hospital, the hospital employing him.

Continue reading "What Constitutes Medical Malpractice? Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Definition in Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital" »

Second chances are rare in medicine. Oftentimes doctors and nurses have one chance to get something right, which means that medical providers need to monitor patients' reactions to different treatment modalities. When they see something that is not right, medical providers need to pick up on the warning signs and correct the problem because chances are they will only get one chance to do so.

However, in the case of Kerry Rupright, doctors missed their chance to prevent Kerry's permanent brain injury from happening. They missed the signs that should have alerted them that she was not reacting well to her various medications, instead opting to continue her treatment plan. The medical malpractice lawsuit of Estate of Kerry Rupright v. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, et al., 05 L 9451, was filed in an effort to hold these doctors accountable for their lack of vigilance in monitoring Kerry's condition.

Kerry presented to Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago for treatment of her transverse myelitis, which is inflammation across one section of the spinal cord. Transverse myelitis is extremely painful, so Kerry was prescribed pain medications as part of her treatment plan. Specifically, Kerry was given a pain relief patch that contained Duragesic and Fentanyl, which can cause respiratory distress when taken with other medications.

Continue reading "Chicago Woman Dies After Doctors Ignore Warning Signs of Respiratory Distress - $3.75 Million Settlement Reached in Rupright v. Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago" »

Any time a patient undergoes a surgical procedure, doctors warn us of the various risks and complications that could result from the surgery. Yet what duty do physicians have to be prepared to handle the potential complications of a surgical procedure? Are they excused from medical negligence if a patient dies as a result of a known complication of surgery? Or do they have a duty to do everything in their power to try and beat the odds and save the patient?

Take for instance the facts surrounding the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Abraham Pinarkyil v. Resurrection Medical Center, et al., No. 07010009. The case involves the death of a 45 year-old man who died after undergoing surgery to remove a benign tumor in his heart. Even though the man's tumor was benign, the surgery was necessary because even benign tumors can be life threatening by impairing heart function and blood flow.

The heart tumor was removed at Resurrection Medical Center and immediately following the surgery there were signs of problems. Instead of having improved cardiac function following the removal of his benign tumor, Mr. Pinarkyil began to experience cardiac abnormalities. These abnormal heart symptoms should have alerted the medical staff that he was possibly going into shock.

Continue reading "A Chicago Man's Death from Surgical Complications Leads to $3.8 Million Settlement - Pinarkyil v. Resurrection Medical Center" »

Typically, when a patient is placed on an oxygen ventilator it is because they are unable to get adequate oxygen on their own. Therefore, when patients are placed on a ventilator, it is important for hospital staff to appropriately monitor the ventilated patient. In the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit of Iris Thomas v. Advocate Trinity Hospital, 07 L 8318, the hospital staff failed to maintain adequate ventilation in the decedent, a medical error that led to his death.

The case facts in Thomas involved two year-old Justin Pettway. While at home, the infant Pettway suffered a seizure, after which he was rushed by his family to Trinity Hospital's emergency room. The emergency room staff seemed to respond quickly to the medical emergency, placing Pettway on anti-seizure medication and intubating him. He was even placed on multiple monitors to assess his pulse and heart rate.

In addition, the hospital began taking measures to try and assess what had caused Pettway's seizure. The infant was transported to the radiology department for a CT scan of his brain. However, it was during this process that the medical error occurred. At some point after returning to the emergency department from the radiology department, Pettway was found to be unresponsive. The monitors showed no heart rate and the resuscitation efforts were started too late to save the little boy. He died of cardiac arrest.

Continue reading "Chicago Emergency Room Error Leads to Child's Death - Cook County Verdict of $3.66 Million Thomas v. Advocate Trinity Hospital" »

A Cook County circuit court returned a $3.76 million verdict in the case of Estate of Michael Hamilton v. Excell Emergency Care, LLC, et al., No. 07 L 6654. The Cook County medical malpractice alleged that the decedent, Michael Hamilton, would still be alive if not for the preventable emergency room errors committed at St. James Hospital.

Hamilton presented to the emergency room at St. James Hospital in Chicago Heights complaining of abdominal pain. Hamilton had been at work in a local paint factory when he began feeling dizzy, sweaty, nauseous, and having severe chest pains. Co-workers reported that he was pounding his chest with his fist and laying down in extreme pain. They called an ambulance and he was rushed to the emergency room.

However, by the time that Hamilton presented to the emergency room his severe pains had diminished substantially. Jose Almeida, M.D., the emergency room physician treating Hamilton, failed to document the details of Hamilton's symptoms and pain at work. Therefore, rather than investigating the cause of Hamilton's severe pain, he was simply diagnosed with abdominal pain and sent home with no further instructions.

Continue reading "Emergency Room Error Leads to Undiagnosed Aortic Dissection - Cook County Jury Awards $3.7 Million in Estate of Michael Hamilton v. Excell Emergency Care, LLC" »

When dealing with emergency situations, oftentimes minutes can make a difference in the patient's outcome. So in the case of Margaret Kaiser-Sperl, a five day delay in diagnosing her impending stroke led to her death. A Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit was brought by her husband against the hospital that failed to timely diagnosis her medical emergency; Richard R. Sperl, Jr., as independent administrator of the Estate of Margaret Consuelo Kaiser-Sperl, deceased v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., et al., No. 09 L 012104.

Ms. Kaiser-Sperl was a 45 year-old nurse and mother of two who presented to the emergency room at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital with complaints of recent balancing problems and hearing loss. Alan Kumar, M.D., the emergency room doctor, incorrectly diagnosed her symptoms as migraine headaches and sent her home. However, a look back at those emergency room records revealed that Ms. Kaiser-Sperl was actually having a transient ischemic attack, which is a precursor to a stroke.

Within five days of her emergency room discharge, Ms. Kaiser-Sperl returned to the emergency room. Her symptoms were similar to her prior visit, but this time she also had dizziness, facial droop, and weakness in her left arm. While this time the emergency room physicians recognized the seriousness of her condition and admitted her, it did not help to prevent her from suffering from a massive stroke. Within a week of the second ER admission, Ms. Kaiser-Sperl was dead as a result of the earlier emergency room error.

Continue reading "Cook County Emergency Room Error Leads to Nurse's Death - $3 Million Settlement in Sperl v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp. " »

Chicago plaintiff Fahineh Jalalipour received a $1.27 million jury verdict in her Cook County surgical negligence lawsuit, Fahineh Jalalipour v. Farhad Saed, M.D., 07 L 14120. The medical negligence centered around a routine bladder surgery that the 50 year-old elected to undergo in an attempt to correct her urinary incontinence. However, as sometimes happens when medical malpractice is involved, the cure was worse than the original ailment - Ms. Jalalipour was left with painful urination and bleeding, which was only corrected after the plaintiff underwent additional surgeries.

The medical malpractice involved a routine bladder suspension surgery that was meant to correct Ms. Jalalipour's urinary incontinence by adjusting the location of the bladder in her abdomen and relieving pressure from the pelvic floor. The surgical procedure was performed by Dr. Farhad Saed at Thorek Memorial Hospital, who reported no complications following the surgery. However, in the days following the surgery, Ms. Jalalipour immediately reported finding blood in her urine and experiencing severe pain.

While Dr. Saed dismissed Ms. Jalalipour's problems as a simple infection, the pain and bleeding did not respond to antibiotics. Eventually, Ms. Jalalipour was forced to consult two additional urologists, both of whom investigated internal causes for her pain. Ms. Jalalipour underwent two different cystoscopies, a diagnostic procedure that investigates the insides of one's lower urinary tract, which would include the bladder. On her second cystoscopy, which took place over a year after her routine bladder surgery was performed, the urologist discovered the presence of three sutures sewn inside of her bladder.

Continue reading "Cook County Surgical Error During Routine Bladder Surgery Results in $1.27 Million Verdict - Jalalipour v. Dr. Saed" »

A large settlement was reached in a Cook County surgical error lawsuit involving a corrective spinal surgery. The medical malpractice arose as a result of improper monitoring during the patient's post-operative care and poor communication between the nursing and medical staffs. A settlement of $18.75 million was reached in Francisco Contreras and Sandra Contreras v. Thorek Memorial Hospital, et al., No. 07 L 7771.

The injured party, Francisco Contreras, required a spinal surgery as a result of a work injury he'd sustained about a year before. While working at a Chicago Walgreens store, the 55 year-old injured his neck while removing a printer from a shelf. In an attempt to cure the persistent neck pain that continued to radiated down Contreras left arm, his doctors recommended he undergo cervical disc surgery.

Mr. Contreras presented to Thorek Memorial Hospital for that cervical disc surgery and hopefully cure the pain he'd been experiencing since his work injury. By all accounts the surgery itself went very well and the operative notes indicated that Contreras was able to move both his arms and legs. However, these positive signs did not continue - just forty-five minutes later the medical records indicated that Contreras's motor functions were deteriorating.

Continue reading "Cook County Spinal Surgery Results in Permanent Quadriplegia - $18.75 Million Settlement Reached in Contreras v. Thorek Memorial Hospital" »

The death of a high-power, Chicago executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center could lead to the Chicago hospital losing its medicare payments. James Tyree, CEO of The Chicago Sun-Times and Mesirow Financial, died from an air embolism that developed after his catheter was removed incorrectly. The medical negligence occurred while Mr. Tyree was being treated for pneumonia at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

The air embolism occurred after air entered the catheter as it was being removed. The air bubble then entered Mr. Tyree's blood stream. This is problematic because when an air bubble becomes lodged in a vein or artery it can eventually block the flow of blood through that vein or artery. If your blood flow is blocked you are at risk of not getting enough blood to your heart or brain, which is a deadly situation.

This fatal medical error was not only preventable, but involved a skill that was so basic its being done incorrectly could be seen as gross negligence. After considering the facts of Mr. Tyree's death, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stated that the “deficiencies [which led to Mr. Tyree's death] were so serious that they constitute an immediate threat to patient health and safety.”

Continue reading "Fatal Medical Error by University of Chicago Medical Center Leads to Threats of Medicare and Medicaid Termination" »

A $14.9 million settlement was reached in an Illinois medical malpractice case that left the plaintiff with permanent brain damage. The lawsuit of Jennifer Lee v. Palos Community Hospital, et al., 09 L 7824, was brought against the hospital where the plaintiff was treated, as well as the individual doctors who treated the plaintiff.

In 2009, plaintiff, Jennifer Lee, presented to Palos Community Hospital with severe dehydration from vomiting and diarrhea. The typical treatment for dehydration is to pump the patient with IV fluids and monitor their electrolyte levels. When Ms. Lee presented to the hospital, her initial blood work showed an extremely high level of sodium. While normal sodium levels range from 135 mmol/L to 145 mmol/L, Ms. Lee's sodium level was at 165 mmol/L.

Typically, dehydration results in low sodium levels, not high sodium levels. Blood sodium levels can indicate whether there is an imbalance between the levels of sodium and water in your body. While Ms. Lee's initial sodium levels were critically high, it fluctuated between critically high and critically low during the course of her admission. In fact, it was this change from critically high, to critically low, then back to critically high that caused the plaintiff's brain damage and was the subject of her medical malpractice lawsuit.

Continue reading "Illinois Hospital's Failure to Monitor Patient Results in Permanent Brain Damage - $14.9 Million Settlement in Lee v. Palos Community Hospital" »

A Cook County medical malpractice claim against Northshore University Health Systems for $1.2 million. The lawsuit, Deborah Bowden and Bryce Bowden v. NorthShore University Health Systems, et al., No. 09 L 8801, involved allegations that several physicians in the Evanston health clinic failed to recognize that the plaintiff was exhibiting symptoms of an impending stroke. As a result of this failure to diagnose Ms. Bowden's stroke in a timely manner, the plaintiff ended up suffering a stroke which left her with permanent muscle and speech limitations.

The circumstances leading to the Illinois failure to diagnose lawsuit arose out of two office visits occurring over a period of five days in August 2007. The 53 year-old Bowden presented to NorthShore University Health System complaining of numbness and tingling in her hands and feet. She was sent home and the medical records indicated that the physicians she saw missed all the indications that she was at risk for a stroke.

Continue reading "Cook County Settlement of $1.2 Million Reached in Misdiagnosed Stroke Lawsuit - Bowden v. NorthShore University Health System" »

A Cook County medical malpractice settlement for $5 million was approved by Cook County Circuit Court Judge William B. Maddux, marking the close of the Illinois lawsuit of The Estate of Shamiran David v. Rush Northshore Medical Center, et al., No. 07 L 8444. The Chicago medical negligence lawsuit was brought by the family of a woman who suffered a brain injury in the days following her heart surgery at Rush Northshore Medical Center.

While Mrs. David's aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting performed at Rush Northshore Medical Center went well, it was the complications following the surgery that led to Mrs. David's brain injury and subsequent death. The case of Mrs. David can serve as a reminder to both patients and doctors that a successful surgery alone does not guarantee a positive outcome for a patient.

Mrs. David was discharged from the hospital following her surgery and sent home. However, the 59 year-old Cook County resident began to develop complications from her cardiac surgery within a few days of her discharge. She presented to her primary care physician with complaints of difficulty breathing and chest pains.

Continue reading "Cook County Brain Injury Following Cardiac Arrest Leads to $5 Million Settlement – Estate of David v. Rush Northshore Hospital" »

The Illinois Appellate Court has found that a medical expert in a medical malpractice case may be impeached with the use of the physician’s §2-622 (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure) report as a prior inconsistent statement. This issue before the court was one of first impression in the state and was decided upon in Iaccino v. Anderson, No. 1-07-0207.

In the Iaccino birth injury lawsuit, the plaintiff's attorneys alleged that the defendant doctors and hospital were responsible for the brain damage that the minor plaintiff, Jonathan Iaccino, suffered as a result of oxygen deprivation during his birth. The plaintiff's attorneys alleged that the defendants' medical negligent occurred as a result of their failure to monitor Jonathan's fetal heart rate and their lack of response to the hyperstimulation of the uterus during his labor and delivery.

Gary Blake, M.D. provided a Illinois Code of Civil Procedure §2-622 affidavit as one of the plaintiff's medical experts in Iaccino. When Dr. Blake signed the §2-622 report he stated that the decelerations recorded on a fetal-monitor strip were “variable decelerations.” However, at the trial, Dr. Blake testified that these strips showed “late decelerations” or “variable decelerations with a late component.”

Continue reading "Impeachment of Medical Expert for Prior Inconsistent Statement in Section 2-622 Report Allowed By Illinois Appellate Court - Iaccino v. Anderson" »

The family of a woman who died during childbirth has settled an Illinois wrongful death case for $14 million. The medical malpractice case resulted not only in the mother's death, but also involved a child born with brain damage at Chicago's Advocate Trinity Hospital. The settlement was reached in Sidonia Lawson, etc. v. Advocate Health Hospitals Corp., Cannon Vernon, MD, Jamiere Y. Smith, MD, et al., No. 09 L 12090.

In 2007, the 32 year-old decedent, Sabrina Lawson, went to Advocate Trinity Hospital with labor contractions. While there, the staff induced her with medications to try and speed along her delivery. However, while receiving the labor medications, Lawson's baby began to show signs of fetal distress.

In such instances, the medical standard of care requires an emergency cesarean section; however, there was a delay of almost seven hours. By the time the baby was born, he had suffered from brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen and blood flow to his brain.

Continue reading "Chicago Advocate Hospital Settles for $14 Million in Childbirth Death of Mother - Lawson v. Advocate Health Hospitals Corp., et al." »

A 28 year-old woman’s family who brought a lawsuit against a cardiologist and Northwestern Memorial Hospital has settled theIllinois medical malpractice and wrongful death claim for $4 million. Settlement was reached in this case with the assistance of a mediator and approved by a Cook County Circuit Court judge in Estate of Kassi Dallman v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Jeffrey Goldberger, MD, et al., No. 09 L 9506.

Kassi Dallman entered Chicago's Northwestern Memorial Hospital to undergo a cardiac ablation that would allow her to stop taking anti-arrhythmia medications. Cardiac ablation is a procedure that is used to correct heart rhythm problems by using long flexible tubes, catheters, inserted through a vein in the body usually at the groin and threaded to the heart. The catheter is then used to correct the structural problems in the heart that causes the arrhythmia. The cardiac ablation procedure was done without incident.

Continue reading "Cook County Medical Malpractice Death Lawsuit Settled With Cardiologist and Hospital for $4 Million - Estate of Dallman v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital" »

Prior to the 1980s, the risk of transmitting HIV through transplanted organs was fairly high, at a time when even blood transfusions put patients at risk for contracting the deadly virus. However, in 1985, HIV antibody testing became available, which enabled doctors and medical staff to test to see whether organs were infected with HIV. Therefore in today's medical climate it is unlikely that an organ transplant recipient would receive organs infected with HIV.

However, in 2007, four Chicago patients were found to have transmitted HIV by way of their transplanted organs. While the transplant surgeries were done at three different Chicago Hospitals, each of the four patients received organs from the same organ donor. At the time of the transplant surgery the donor was not known to be infected with HIV. His organs passed the standard tests for HIV antibodies; however, those tests could not have detected HIV if the donor acquired the infection within a few weeks of his death.

Critics of the way these 2007 transplant surgeries were handled argue that a nucleic acid test could have detected the HIV infection earlier. However, the nucleic acid test was not approved by the FDA until 2009 and even today is not effective 100 percent of the time; too many false positives make the nucleic acid test unreliable as an universal screening tool.

Continue reading "Chicago Hospitals Alter Organ Transplant Rules After 2007 HIV Infections" »

An Illinois jury entered an Illinois medical malpractice verdict of $5.1 million against an Illinois surgeon and surgical center who failed to diagnose a perforated bowel sustained during pelvic surgery. The plaintiff in Gwendolyn Tate v. Dr. Harrith M. Hasson and The Surgery Center at 900 North Michigan Avenue LLC, 10 L-2437. developed a severe case of sepsis and was left a quadriplegic.

Ms. Tate had been treating with the defendant, Dr. Hasson, for chronic pelvic pain and uterine fibroids, which are non-cancerous growths in the uterus. Dr. Hasson, a practicing obstetrician, endocrinologist, and surgeon, recommended that the plaintiff undergo a surgery to treat her pain and symptoms.

In 2002, Ms. Tate underwent the recommended surgery at Surgery Center at 900 N. Michigan Avenue, LLC.. During the procedure, Dr. Hasson accidently perforated the plaintiff's bowel. While the perforated bowel might not have been medical malpractice on its own, the failure to recognize that the organ had been perforated was an example of surgical negligence. Patients should be monitored for signs of bleeding and infection following any type of surgery; a failure to do so is below the standard of care.

Continue reading "Chicago Surgical Error Leads to Overwhelming Sepsis and Quadriplegia - $5.1 Million Verdict Entered in Tate v. The Surgical Center at 900 North Michigan Avenue, LLC" »

An Illinois jury found in favor of the defendant doctor in the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit of The Estate of Eileen Olson, deceased v. Dr. Joseph F. Pensabene, Rockford Cardiology Associates, Ltd., 06 L-73. The medical malpractice case revolved around allegations against the defendant cardiologist of committing surgical errors and negligence which led to the wrongful death of the 68 year-old woman.

In 2004, Ms. Olson was admitted to St. Anthony Hospital under the care of her cardiologist, Dr. Pensabene, for the removal of a blood clot that was blocking the circulation in her left arm. The decedent had pre-existing conditions of asthma, diabetes, and hypertension. Dr. Pensabene performed an angiogram, which is a type of x-ray that uses both dye and fluroscopy to record a patient's blood flow through their arteries and veins.

When performing Ms. Olson's angiogram, Dr. Pensabene used a SmartNeedle catheter with an ultrasonic tip. There was no problem with the catheter entering the decedent's body via her femoral artery and passing through her groin. It was when the catheter entered the areas of the left brachial and radial arteries that Dr. Pensabene identified the large blood clot.

Continue reading "Illinois Surgical Malpractice Lawsuit Returns Verdict In Favor of Defendant Cardiologist - Estate of Olson v. Dr. Joseph Pensabene" »

A Chicago medical malpractice lawsuit involving allegations of a botched surgery returned a verdict of $2,350,000 in Smola v. Jeffrey M. Sheedy, D.O., 05 L-4862 (IL Cook County). The plaintiff accused the defendant Dr. Sheedy of committing surgical errors, including severing his ulnar nerve during a tendon reattachment surgery, which resulted in Smola's permanent complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

While at work as a maintenance mechanic for UPS, plaintiff James Smola tore his left distal biceps tendon. Smola was referred to Dr. Sheedy, an orthopedic surgeon, who recommended a tendon reattachment procedure that was performed at St. James Hospital - Olympia Fields and was the subject of the present Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

At the Chicago jury trial, the plaintiff alleged that Dr. Sheedy had violated the medical standard of care when he severed the plaintiff's ulnar artery during the tendon reattachment procedure, which led to his subsequent median nerve damage and CRPS. Furthermore, plaintiff's attorneys alleged that the surgical errors were in part due to Dr. Sheedy's negligence in choosing not to properly protect the plaintiff’s vital arteries during the biceps tendon repair.

Continue reading "Chicago Surgical Error Involving Cut Nerve Receives $2.35 Million Verdict - Smola v. Jeffrey M. Sheedy, D.O." »

A jury has awarded $1.5 million to the family of an infant who died at Central DuPage Hospital in April 2005. The Illinois medical malpractice verdict was reached after a trial in DuPage County, Illinois regarding the death of Isaac Diaz, who was five days old when he was taken to the emergency department at Central DuPage Hospital in Diaz, etc. v. Central DuPage Hospital, et al., No. 06 L 448.

The child had seen his pediatrician earlier that afternoon, but started vomiting later in the day. There was also blood found in his diaper. The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents alleged that the Central DuPage Hospital staff chose not to diagnose the infant’s twisted bowel. It was alleged and argued at the medical malpractice trial that the hospital and its staff took too long to act on the child’s signs and symptoms of a twisted bowel.

Waiting more than four hours to act, the family submitted evidence that the hospital and its staff began applying intravenous fluids, antibiotics and was then transferred to a unit with a pediatric surgeon, but it was too late. The hospital nurse also then called Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago where the boy was transferred. Isaac died the next day.

Continue reading "Illinois Infant's Death Leads to $1.5 Million Verdict Against Hospital - Diaz, etc. v. Central DuPage Hospital, et al." »

A Cook County jury found in favor of the estate of a 52 year-old Illinois woman who died of sepsis and multi-organ failure during her admission to Good Shepherd Hospital in Barrington, Illinois. The estate claimed that Illinois medical negligence occurred when the hospital failed to recognize and respond to the decedent's early signs and symptoms of sepsis, which led to her ultimate demise. The jury awarded $500,000 against the hospital in Estate of Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., et al., 08 L 7880, an Illinois medical malpractice case that highlights the disastrous effects that can occur when there is a communication breakdown in a hospital setting.

The decedent presented to the emergency room at Good Shepherd Hospital, a hospital in Chicago's northwest suburbs that is affiliated with Advocate Health Care. At the time she was complaining of vomiting and generalized weakness. An emergency room physician noted that she had low levels of potassium and administered potassium and general fluids. In addition, her fingers and toes were blue during the initial examination. While the decedent did improve after receiving the fluids, she was still not ready to be discharged.

A complete blood count (CBC) was also ordered while the patient was in the ER, which revealed elevated band levels and low platelet counts. These abnormal lab results can indicate an infection; however, these results were not noted in the admitting physician's hospital notes. The attending physician, Dr. Small, had treated the plaintiff for many years and was familiar with her medical history, including the placement of a cardiac pacemaker, cardiomyopathy, renal failure, eczema, and a lumbar fusion that required her to take narcotic medications for pain.

Continue reading "Illinois Woman Dies of Sepsis From Undiagnosed Infection - Estate of Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., et al." »

A Kankakee County, Illinois jury returned a $1.5 million medical malpractice jury verdict in favor of the family of a 20 year old woman who died of multi-organ failure connected to undiagnosed chicken pox. Michelle Koenig, who had a history of being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, had been put on intravenous steroids and then prednisone, which generally suppressed her immune system. Estate of Koenig v. St. Mary's Hospital, et al.,No. 07 L 18, focused on the emergency room's negligence.

Koenig had chicken pox as a child, but the virus reactivated due to her suppressed immune system. She showed the chicken pox with a rash that her parents and friends commented, looked like chicken pox.

Koenig came to the emergency department at Provena St. Mary's Hospital in Kankakee on February 19, 2006. The emergency room doctor, Timothy Moran did not diagnose the chicken pox even though it showed on her body and her liver enzymes were at levels above normal. She died within 30 hours of that visit.

At the trial, attorneys for Koenig argued that the emergency room negligence was a result of Dr. Moran's choice not to rule out chicken pox as a potential ailment. Furthermore, Dr. Moran did not recognize that the elevated liver enzymes were an indication that the virus had invaded her liver.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Returns Verdict For Family of Woman Who Died of Chicken Pox - Estate of Koenig v. St. Mary's Hospital, et al." »

A Chicago federal judge entered a Chicago medical malpractice verdict in the amount of $8,8330,182 against the United States following a bench trial. In July 2004, Ernesto Maldonado was a patient at Chicago's Mount Sinai Hospital. He was admitted because of pneumonia. A few days after the admission, a CT scan was done of Maldonado's chest and back. The scans revealed destruction of a vertebral body in the mid-thoracic spine (T-7). Maldonado v. United States of America, et al., 06 C 4149 (January 2010).

The radiology report stated that the vertebra was destroyed. But neither Maldonado's treating doctor, interventional radiologist, nor infectious disease physician ever followed up with treatment. The patient was never referred to an orthopedic surgeon or for a neurosurgery consultation. Five days later Mr. Maldonado was discharged and antibiotics were discontinued.

The plaintiff, Mr. Maldonado then attempted to see his attending physician at his office. But this doctor refused to see him. By August 14, 2004 the plaintiff had lost sensation in his low legs and he became urine incontinent.

Continue reading "Spinal Infection Leads To Paraplegia - $8 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict in Maldonado v. United States of America, et al." »

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.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Verdict Non-Economic Damages Awarded by Illinois Federal District Court" »

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.

Continue reading "Illinois Medical Malpractice Claim Barred Under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act - Hemminger v. Nehring" »

A recent appeal in an Illinois wrongful death case begs the question of what constitutes an appropriate monetary award following a wrongful death or Illinois medical negligence. When Illinois medical negligence has occurred and changed the course of someone's life forever, what is the price we put on that negligence? This is something Chicago medical malpractice attorneys struggle with and even when you get a sizable verdict, it is no replacement for the damage that has been done. Dobyns v. Chung, M.D. and Sparta Community Hospital, No. 5-07-0568.

The Illinois wrongful death case was brought by the decedent's husband against a Randolph County hospital following the death of his wife. The plaintiff alleged that during the course of treating his wife for back pain syndrome that the defendant doctor had prescribed an inappropriately high amount of medications, which led to her wrongful death.

The defendant doctor testified at the Illinois trial that he had in fact prescribed her numerous medications during the two and a half years he treated her. The decedent had previously been diagnosed with a bulging disc in her back and had a history of pain in her back, leg and abdomen since 1992. However, despite the numerous narcotic medications the doctor prescribed, she continued to suffer pain in her back, abdomen, hip and knees. The doctor's testimony stated that during the several years he treated the decedent that he never saw any sign of over-medication.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Circuit Court Decision as to Medical Malpractice Damages Awarded By Illinois Jury" »