Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

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." »

Some people assume that whenever there is a negative medical outcome that it is the result of medical negligence. However, in some cases there can be a poor outcome without the presence of medical malpractice. Take for instance the Lake County medical malpractice lawsuit of Estate of Patricia Nickl v. Dr. Barry S. Rosen, 08 L 1015, where the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor.

The case of Nickl arose after the 64 year-old decedent, Patricia Nickl, died within days of undergoing surgery performed by the defendant, Dr. Rosen. Nickl had a longstanding history of abdominal and gallbladder problems and had already undergone four major abdominal surgeries. These prior surgeries were a significant piece of Nickl's medical history because it increased the number of adhesions in her abdomen. Adhesions are bands of scar tissue that tend to form around surgical sites. Because the adhesions bond together areas that weren't previously joined, they tend to complicate surgeries and increase the risk for perforations, or holes.

However, despite the large number of adhesions in Nickl's abdominal cavity, she was still eligible for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, i.e., the surgical removal of her gallbladder. The surgery itself was successful, but Nickl suffered from some post-operative complications. She remained hospitalized for several days longer than anticipated because of persistent pain and a lack of bowel movement.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Finds in Favor of Doctor in Gallbladder Surgery that Led to Fatal Bowel Perforation - Nickl v. Barry S. Rosen, M.D." »

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." »

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 " »

An Illinois obstetrician appealed a $500,500 medical malpractice verdict against him in Lisa Babikian v. Richard Mruz, No. 1-10-2579. Dr. Mruz argued that the plaintiff's attorney had prejudiced the Cook County jury against him. The appellate court disagreed and dismissed the defendant's mistrial claims. However, the appellate court did grant the defense attorney's request for a set-off, reducing the jury verdict by the amount of a prior settlement involving the same case.

The Babikian medical malpractice lawsuit arose out of preventable surgical errors Dr. Mruz committed while performing a diagnostic laparoscopy on Ms. Babikian. The purpose of the procedure was to determine whether or not Ms. Babikian suffered from endometriosis, a condition involving the cells lining the uterus. During the relatively simple surgical procedure, Dr. Mruz managed to pierce Ms. Babikian's transverse colon.

This surgical mistake required Ms. Babikian to undergo corrective surgery, extensive hospitalization, and the placement and eventual reversal of a colostomy. In addition, the plaintiff developed abdominal pain, intestinal problems, and hernias as a result of the surgical negligence. The plaintiff and her now ex-husband brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Mruz and the medical center where the surgery was performed.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Upholds Right to Reference Lack of Board Certification, But Reduces Final Verdict Amount in Babikian v. Mruz" »

A $1 million jury verdict award was entered against a Cook County surgeon and his surgical center for their negligence during an eye surgery. The surgical error left the 24 year-old plaintiff, Cindy Zaleski, with a permanent eye injury. Cindy Zaleski v. Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center, et al., No. 08 L 7387.

In 2006, Ms. Zaleski presented to the Kovach Eye Institute in order to undergo a procedure to correct her nearsightedness. Dr. Kevin Kovach recommended Zaleski undergo a phakic intraocular lens implant procedure, which involved implanting a corrective lens behind the eye's cornea. This type of procedure is typically performed on patients whose nearsightedness too severe to undergo a standard LASIK procedure.

Zaleski required the eye surgery for both her right and left eyes. And while the right eye procedure was uneventful, she was left with permanently distorted and blurred vision in her left eye. The Cook County medical malpractice alleged that her vision loss was a direct result of Dr. Kovach's surgical negligence.

Continue reading "Botched Chicago Eye Surgery Leaves Woman with Reduced Vision - $1 Million Verdict in Zaleski v. Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center" »

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 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" »

When undergoing a major surgery, as patients we tend to focus on the risks associated with the surgery itself: will the doctor cut something he shouldn't, will I have a bad reaction to anesthesia, or will my body reject the new heart. However, in some instances the period following the surgery can be just as risky as the surgery itself.

Take for example The Estate of Shamiran David v. Rush North Shore Medical Center, et al., 07 L 8444, an Illinois wrongful death lawsuit involving the death of fifty-nine year-old Shamiran David. Mrs. David presented to Rush North Shore Medical Center in July 2005 for an aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass surgery. While the complex surgery went well, Mrs. David's post-operative care was mismanaged, leading to her death less than six months later.

Following her heart surgery, Mrs. David was placed on Coumadin therapy, which is the common procedure following a mechanical aortic valve replacement. Coumadin is a drug that works to decrease your blood's clotting ability in order to prevent blood clots from forming. However, it is important for patients taking Coumadin to be on the right dosage. If too much Coumadin is given, a patient is at increased risk for bleeding; however, if too little is given, then the patient is at risk for getting blood clots.

Continue reading "Mismanaged Coumadin Therapy Leads to Woman's Death - $5 Million Settlement Reached in David v. Rush North Shore Medical Center" »

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" »

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" »

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 affirmed a trial court decision to treat a defendant doctor’s response to a plaintiff’s request to admit facts as evidentiary evidence rather than a judicial admission. The legal ruling arose out of an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit involving complications following a surgeon's attempt to reverse a tubal ligation surgery, Migdalia Serrano v. Carlos A. Rotman, M.D., No. 1-09-2028.

In her surgical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff, Migdalia Serrano, alleged that the defendant doctor, Carlos Rotman, M.D., negligently chose not to administer Factor IX, a coagulation factor, before and after her tubal ligation surgery. The plaintiff's lawsuit alleged that the failure to administer the coagulation factor resulted in an infected hematoma. The Cook County jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon, which the plaintiff then appealed.

At the center of the plaintiff's appeal was that Dr. Rotman had been aware that Serrano was a hemophilia carrier, which would have made her more susceptible to developing a hematoma. Serrano alleged that Rotman chose not to administer Factor IX despite knowing about her heightened risk for infection. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that as a result of the surgical malpractice, she suffered from additional medical complications that would not have occurred had she been given the Factor IX prior to her surgery.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Distinguishes Judicial Admission from Evidentiary Admission - Serrano v. Rotman" »

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 Chicago medical malpractice verdict was reversed after an Illinois appellate court found that the testimony of the defendant's cardiology expert had violated an agreed order. Luis San Roman, et al. v. Children's Heart Center, Ltd., d/b/a Rush's Children's Heart Center, et al., No. 1-09-1217, will be remanded to the trial court for a retrial that will exclude the defendant's cardiology expert's testimony.

The case involves allegations of surgical errors during a procedure performed on plaintiff Luis San Roman when he was a baby. Luis was born with cyanosis and was referred to as a "blue baby" because he was born with transposition of the aorta, a congenital heart condition that deprives the body of oxygen. In addition to his congenital heart disease, Luis also had a condition of narrowing of the pulmonary artery.

In order to correct his congenital heart defects, a heart procedure was performed shortly after his birth. Chicago pediatric cardiologist Carlos Ruiz, recommended that Luis undergo a heart catheterization process which would insert a stent into Luis's left ventricle. This procedure was an alternative to open-heart surgery and was eventually performed at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Expert Physician Found to Have Conflict of Interest: New Trial Ordered in San Roman v. Children's Heart Center" »

Federal preemption of medical device liability lawsuits has been a volatile issue in recent years, with the courts typically preempting product liability lawsuits citing violations of individual state safety standards. However, in Bausch v. Stryker Corporation, et al., No. 09-3434, the issue was whether a product defect claim citing federal safety standard violations was also preempted by that product having federal approval. While a Chicago federal district court had dismissed Ms. Bausch's claim, that decision was recently overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That Court of Appeals decision permitted Mr. Bausch to pursue his claim in federal court.

The case facts of the Bausch medical device lawsuit involve a hip replacement 56 year-old Margaret Bausch underwent, during which she received a Trident brand ceramic-on-ceramic hip replacement system manufactured by Stryker Corporation. The prosthetic hip device ended up failing and required an additional surgery to have it removed.

The specific type of prosthetic hip Ms. Bausch received was approved for sale in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but was later recalled due to a failure to comply with federal standards. In her Chicago medical device lawsuit, Bausch's attorneys cited Stryker's failure to comply with federal standards during the manufacturing process of its prosthetic hip devices.

Continue reading "Chicago Prosthetic Hip Replacement Case Not Preempted According to Court of Appeals - Bausch v. Stryker Corp." »

An Illinois jury found for the plaintiff in a recent Illinois surgical malpractice lawsuit. The medical malpractice case involved claims that the defendant ophthalmologist performed an unnecessary and improper surgical procedure on the plaintiff, leaving her blind and with the loss of one of her eyes. After a one week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1.75 million in Larson v. Miller Eye Center.

At the time of the Illinois surgical malpractice, 75 year-old Shirley Larson had been a patient of ophthalmologist Dr. Miller for more than 13 years. The majority of her treatment under Dr. Miller was for glaucoma, a condition in which increased intraocular pressure promotes vision loss by causing damage to the optic nerve.

In 2003, Dr. Miller recommended that Larson undergo a new surgical procedure to treat her glaucoma. The procedure was known as endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP), which was touted as an advancement due to it allowing the surgeon to target the tissue to be treated by direct visualization with less potential damage to surrounding tissue. The ECP would include an incision in the eye, with a laser being used to reduce the amount of fluid produced by the eye.

Continue reading "Botched Surgery Leaves Illinois Woman Blind - Jury Awards $1.75 Million in Larson v. Miller Eye Center" »

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.

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

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.

Continue reading "Chicago's Rush University Medical Center Orthopedic Surgeons Sued Under Whistle-Blower Case" »

As patients we trust that our doctors are operating in our best interests rather than their own. Furthermore we expect to be treated not as dollar signs, but as people.

Unfortunately a recent Cook County medical malpractice case that came before an Illinois Appellate Court demonstrates that this is not always the reality. In Martinez v. Elias, et al., No. 1-08-0265, the plaintiff claimed that an orthopedic surgeon performed unnecessary surgery on his back and was motivated to do so for financial gain.

The trial jury agreed with the plaintiff and found against the defendant surgeon. The defendant doctor appealed the case on the claim that the trial court had erred in allowing the admission of evidence of the surgeon’s financial motive for the surgery. However, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the Cook County medical malpractice verdict.

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