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" »

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" »

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 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" »

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" »

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" »