Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

In a Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit, a patient's surviving family members filed a medical negligence lawsuit claiming that the doctor had misdiagnosed the patient's disease and elected not to properly treat it. However, a jury found in favor of the defendant doctor after determining that the doctor's actions did not directly cause the patient's death in The Estate of D.W., deceased, et al. v. Dr. Lee, Midwest Surgery, S.C., 11 L 79.

The decedent first met the defendant doctor after being admitted to Sherman Hospital with complaints of chest and abdominal pain in April 2003. Dr. Lee, a general surgeon, was brought in on consult after a CT scan did not return any clear or obvious cause for the patient's pain; the CT scan only showed the presence of free air.

After reviewing the patient's medical history, the doctors concluded that the pain was likely caused by a perforated duodenal ulcer located near the patient's small intestine. Dr. Lee performed an emergency surgery to repair the perforated ulcer. A little over three weeks later, the patient was discharged from Sherman Hospital with orders to follow up with Dr. Lee in four days.

Everything seemed to be going well, until December 2003 when the patient returned to Sherman Hospital, this time with a diagnosis of cholecystitis and cholelithiasis, i.e. a bladder infection and gallstones. Once again, Dr. Lee was called as a consultant and ended up performing the surgery to remove the patient's gallbladder. He was then discharged just four days after presenting to the hospital and was again instructed to follow up with Dr. Lee.

Continue reading "Jury Finds for Doctor in Case Alleging Improper Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Disease" »

A Cook County jury returned a $5.1 million verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against a city and its paramedics. The case had initially been dismissed on the basis that the city was immune from such claims. However, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that ruling and held that the city and its paramedics could be tried under the Illinois Emergency Medical Services Act.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit involved a 16 year-old Park Ridge teen whose parents had called 911 after he was found unconscious during the early morning hours. However, by the time the paramedics arrived, the teen was conscious and breathing. While there was later some debate as to whether or not the family denied the need for further services at that time, the end result was that the paramedics left without doing a full assessment of the teen's condition. Several hours later, his condition further deteriorated and another 911 call was made. However, this time the paramedics did not arrive in time and the teen ended up dying of a drug overdose.

As a result of the teen's death, the family filed a lawsuit against the City of Park Ridge in which it alleged that its paramedics acted willfully and wantonly by choosing to not correctly assess the extent of the teen's medical condition. The family maintained that at the time of the first 911 call that the teen should have been transported to a nearby hospital for further treatment.

The courts dismissed the claim after finding that the City of Park Ridge was immune under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. The Immunity Act bars any liability against a local public entity for failure to evaluate, diagnose or prescribe treatment for an illness or physical condition. Therefore, the City of Park Ridge could not be held responsible for any of its employee's failure to properly diagnose and treat patients.

The teen's family appealed this decision to the Illinois Appellate Court, where it was affirmed. However, when it arrived before the Illinois Supreme Court, the decision was reversed on the finding that the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act was the controlling law and not the Tort Immunity Act. The case was then remanded to the trial court for further handling.

Continue reading "$5.1 Million Cook County Verdict for Death of Teen - Paramedics at Fault" »

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" »

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 this Illinois medical malpractice case, 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.

The current case arose after the 19 year-old plaintiff developed lithium toxicity. The defendant psychiatrist, Dr. John Huh, had prescribed the plaintiff 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 this case, Dr. Huh failed to obtain regular blood draws, thereby missing the warning signs that the plaintiff was developing lithium toxicity.

Continue reading "Jury Awards $125,000 for Toxic Dose of Lithium" »

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" »

A Chicago man sustained a worse medical injury as a result of a radiologist's error. And while the resulting medical malpractice case settled, the plaintiff brought an additional institutional negligence lawsuit against the hospital. The second lawsuit, Oscar Salinas v. Advocate Health and Hospital Corp., 09 L 3233, went to trial, where the jury entered an $150,000 verdict against the defendant.

Both lawsuits arose as a result of a visit the plaintiff, Oscar Salinas, made to Dr. Jose Ramillo, a radiologist at Advocate Christ Hospital. Salinas was a 40 year-old forklift operator and had injured his knee at work. After taking an x-ray of Salinas's knee, Dr. Ramillo diagnosed Salinas's injury as water on his knee, i.e. a fluid build up around the knee joint, and discharged him.

However, a few days later Dr. Ramillo reviewed Salinas's x-rays at the request of another physician at Advocate Christ Hospital. Upon second review, Dr. Ramillo revised his original diagnosis and entered a revised report stating that Salinas had a hairline fracture. However, neither Salinas or his physical therapist were never informed of this change in diagnosis and subsequently did not modify his treatment; Salinas continued to apply weight-bearing pressure to his injured leg.

After Salinas completed his physical therapy treatment, he underwent an MRI to determine why he was still having knee pain. The MRI revealed that the previously hairline fracture had expanded to a 2 cm. fracture. So instead of being a minor, easily treatable injury, Salinas had to undergo an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery and additional physical therapy. As a result, he lost additional time from work, which amounted to $10,000 in lost wages.

Continue reading "Jury Verdict for Plaintiff Over Institutional Negligence Where Hospital Lacked Policy About Patient Notification of Revised Reports - Salinas v. Advocate" »

A Will County jury found in favor of a Wilmington, Illinois nursing home in a wrongful death lawsuit in which the decedent's family claimed the nursing home failed to provide adequate care. The not guilty verdict in Martin Donegan v. Embassy Care Center, 05 L 782 (Will County), came despite evidence that the nursing home had failed to perform a neurological exam following the resident's fall.

The Illinois nursing home malpractice suit involved 53 year-old Martin Donegan. Donegan was a resident at Embassy Care Center due to his paranoid schizophrenia diagnosis. In July 2005, the nursing staff found Donegan out of his bed and in another patient's room. While in that patient's room, Donegan had fallen and hit his head.

While the typical procedure following any sort of fall is to perform a neurological assessment, which could include assessing a patient's reflexes, gait, and general behavior, the nursing staff failed to do so. Instead, Donegan was simply returned to his own bed and a phone message was left for his treating physician. The treating physician failed to return that call and no further steps were taken following Donegan's fall.

Continue reading "Jury Holds For Nursing Home After Head Trauma Causes Fatal Injury - Donegan v. Embassy Care 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" »

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" »

As patients, we put our faith in doctors to identify our medical problems and properly treat our ailments. However, in order to achieve a successful doctor-patient relationship, oftentimes doctors need compliance from their patients. Whether by accurately describing our symptoms, or by following up on all of our doctors' recommendations, as patients we need to be active participants in our own medical treatment. And in medical malpractice cases, juries are reluctant to hold doctors liable for any negligence if the doctors can prove that the patient/plaintiff did not hold up their end of the bargain.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Rogers Givens, deceased v. Clarendon Hills Family Practice LLC, et al., 09 L 113, is a perfect example of the importance of actively participating in your own medical care. The decedent, Rogers Givens, began seeing Dr. Hutto, a family practice doctor, for complaints of hypertension, asthma, and eczema. Dr. Hutto prescribed Givens medication to control his hypertension and asthma; however, subjective notes in the medical records indicated that Givens did not always take his medications. His lack of compliance with his medications presumably is why his high blood pressure was never properly controlled.

Almost a year after being placed on the blood pressure and asthma medications, Givens presented to Dr. Hutto with the new complaints of shortness of breath and tightness in his chest when moving. Dr. Hutto attributed these new symptoms to bronchitis and an acute asthma attack and began prescribing treatment for these diagnoses. Following the course of treatment, Givens reported feeling better and testing supported the diagnosis of resolving pneumonia.

However, as a precaution, Dr. Hutto had also recommended on two separate occasions that Givens obtain an echocardiogram. Givens ignored these recommendations and never scheduled these tests. By choosing not to follow his doctor's instructions, Givens not only put his medical health at risk, but compromised Dr. Hutto's ability to properly diagnose and treat his medical conditions.

Continue reading "Patients Need to Take Some Responsibility for Their Medical Care - Verdict For Defendants; Givens v. Claredon Hills Family Practice, et al." »

A Loyola University Medical Center patient suffered brain damage after undergoing two separate surgeries during the same hospital admission. The second surgery was required to fix surgical errors made during her initial surgery. The woman's surviving family sued the Chicago hospital for its surgical negligence and received a $2.5 million settlement.

The forty-five year-old decedent presented to Loyola University Medical Center to undergo a laparoscopic procedure to remove dense adhesions in her pelvic region. Everything appeared to go well during the surgery and the decedent was taken to the post-op care area and then transferred to the floor for additional post-operative care and monitoring.

However, she continued to complain of severe abdominal pain, above and beyond what one would expect following this type of surgery. Her pain continued despite the high levels of post-operative pain medications she was given. In addition, the decedent developed shortness of breath and began to have an increased heart rate. Together, these various symptoms indicated that perhaps something was wrong.

Continue reading "$2.5 Million Settlement for Patient's Death Following Perforated Intestine" »

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" »