Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

An elderly man required an above the knee amputation with a flesh-eating bacteria after his heel ulcer became infected . He brought an Illinois nursing negligence lawsuit against the home health service that was supposed to be monitoring his pressure ulcer. The Cook County jury awarded the plaintiff $793,644 for his suffering and disability as a result of the healthcare service's negligence in Rudolph v. Northwestern Memorial Home Healthcare.

The medical negligence can be traced to the plaintiff's right hip replacement in December 2000. During his recovery at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the 79 year-old William Rudolph developed a blister on his right heel that quickly progressed to a Stage III pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers typically develop in bedridden or wheelchair-bound patients whose limbs stay in one position for extended periods, which limits the blood supply to that area. They are typically identified by stages of severity, with Stage I being the least severe and Stage IV being the most severe.

After Rudolph's release from his inpatient rehab stay, Northwestern Memorial Home Healthcare was assigned to treat the plaintiff's pressure ulcer. The healthcare service would make in-home nursing visits to Rudolph in order to maintain the integrity of the area around the wound, clean and treat the pressure ulcer, and prevent the ulcer from progressing to a Stage IV ulcer. In order to do so, the nursing service visited Rudolph three times per week during December 2000 and January 2001, during which time the heel wound remained a Stage III ulcer.

Continue reading "Nursing Negligence Results in $793,000 Jury Verdict in Above the Knee Amputation- Rudolph v. Northwestern Memorial Home Healthcare" »

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" »

The use of medications to induce labor has become increasingly common over the last 50 years. Pitocin is one of the most well-known medications given to mothers to try and speed labor along. However, this drug does not come without its risks, which can include uterine rupture, more intense contractions, and fetal stress.

The Cook County birth injury lawsuit of Louis Montes, a minor, et al. v. West Suburban Hospital Medical Center, Inc., 05 L 14157, involves the use of Pitocin during a 2005 delivery. The baby's mother was given Pitocin in order to promote labor. However, she was given too much of the drug, which led to a hyperstimulated uterus and to fetal distress.

A review of the fetal heart tracings taken during this period clearly demonstrate that the baby was in distress. However, the West Suburban Medical Center nurses failed to alert the obstetrician of the baby's fetal distress. Because he was not aware of the problem, the doctor did not order a timely c-section to avoid injury to the baby.

Continue reading "Brain Damaged Child Receives $7.75 Million Settlement - Louis Montes, a minor, et al. v. West Suburban Hospital Medical Center, Inc." »

A Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit was critical of a Naperville hospital for its failure to appropriately monitor the vital signs of an expectant mother. As a result of the poor monitoring by the Cook County hospital, the mother not only lost her baby, but had to undergo future surgery herself. Sabine C. Miller v. Edward Hospital, et al., 05 L 1192.

In November 2004, 30 year-old Sabine Miller was brought by ambulance to Edward Hospital. She was 14 weeks pregnant and had developed severe abdominal pain and vomiting. Upon her arrival, the Naperville hospital immediately began evaluating Miller to determine whether her baby was the cause of her severe pain.

The Emergency Department was able to rule out any problems with the fetus and Miller's pregnancy. However, in order to determine what was the cause of Miller's abdominal pain, the staff elected to admit her for further testing and observation. Up to this point, there were no violations in the standard of care administered by the Edward Hospital staff. It was not until Miller was admitted to the hospital's postpartum unit that the medical negligence occurred.

Continue reading "Hospital Fails to Adequately Monitor Pregnant Mother - $11.5 Million Awarded for Death of Unborn Child and Organ Loss of Mother in Miller v. Edward Hospital" »

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" »

Over the years, medical advances have led to countless innovative inventions that have saved many lives. However, not every medical innovation lives up to its expectations. The recall of DuPuy's metal-on-metal hip joint is a perfect example of a medical device that failed to delivery as promised.

The first artificial hip joint was developed in the 1960s and was made of a metal ball placed in a plastic cup, which were meant to replicate the thigh bone and hip socket, respectively. Then, metal-on-metal hip implant devices were developed in response to studies showing that metal and plastic hip devices were leading to bone loss in some patients.

The medical community believed the medical device changes made to metal-on-metal hip implants would revolutionize the future of artificial hips. Not only would the newer design lead to less bone loss in patients, but by replacing plastic with metal, the belief was that the new medical device would last longer than the original metal and plastic version. Medical professionals viewed metal-on-metal hip devices as the final solution to hip implant patients' problems.

Continue reading "Medical Advances Not Always What They're Cracked Up to Be" »

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" »