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" »

Doctors and nurses have a responsibility to advocate for their patients and to exercise due diligence in making sure their patients' needs are being met. That responsibility increases when the patients cannot speak on their own behalf, e.g. when the patient is a child, in a coma, or perhaps a stroke victim. This issue of nurse and doctor responsibility was at the center of a recent Kentucky nursing home abuse lawsuit involving an elderly resident's injury at a Louisville nursing home.

The patient was an elderly resident who was in the Kentucky nursing home after a stroke left him with decreased mobility. As part of his care and treatment, doctors had instituted a policy that required the Treyton Oak Towers nursing staff to use a lift and two staff members to transfer the resident in and out of his wheelchair. Typically, care plans like this are put into place to help reduce the risk of falls and injuries.

However, in this nursing home abuse case the nursing staff chose not to follow the transferring plan. Instead, just one staff member attempted to move the resident from his wheelchair to his bed. The staff member of course dropped the resident, fracturing both of his legs. Yet rather than telling someone, the staff member simply put the resident back into his bed as if the fall had never happened. And since the resident's stroke left him unable to tell anyone else about the fall, his fractures also went undiagnosed. It was not until the resident was transferred to a hospital that his fractures were diagnosed and treated. The resident died just two months after the fall.

Continue reading "$8 Million Verdict Against Nursing Home for Resident's Broken Leg" »

As part of an effort to reform Illinois nursing homes, government agencies are attempting to increase their oversight of potential nursing home violations. When the Department of Public Health went to investigate potential nursing home policy violation at an Illinois facility, the Illinois nursing home facility accused the health agency of failing to follow the proper investigation procedures in UDI #10, LLC v. Department of Public Health, No. 1-10-3476 (February 1, 2012).

The nursing home investigation arose after a nursing home patient, herein called R1 to protect his/her identity, died as a result of a choking incident at Pekin Manor. This was the second time R1 had experienced a choking incident in the course of one day. When R1 became unresponsive his wife called a staff member for help. The staff member called the paramedics, but did not perform CPR while waiting for their arrival. R1 was transported to the hospital by the paramedics and ended up dying later that day.

The nursing home facility was operated by UDI #10, LLC (UDI) and had specific policies and procedures in place regarding a similar situation. The policy dictated that a UDI staff member was to stay with R1 and that a staff member was to accompany the paramedics to R1's room. In addition, the staff member should have performed CPR while awaiting the paramedics' arrival; the only reason CPR should not have been done was if R1 had a valid do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order in his chart. And while R1 and his wife had signed a DNR order, it was invalid because it was not signed by a doctor.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Affirms That Nursing Home Care Act Deadline is Directory Rather Than Mandatory - UDI #10, LLC v. Department of Public Health" »

In TV and movie trial dramas, we are always shown a jury hotly debating over the case facts, with one or two jurors holding out against the rest of the jury. However, in Illinois, in order for a jury verdict to stand it needs to be unanimous. This means that if even one of the jurors cannot agree with the rest of the jury, then the judge finds the jury to be deadlocked and declares a mistrial.

This occurred in the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Steven Prehn, deceased v. Dr. Sandeep Amin, University Anesthesiologists S.C., 07 L 1115. After the jury debated for over ten hours over the course of two days it was still unable to reach an unanimous decision. While nine jurors were in favor of the plaintiff, the remaining three jurors were in favor of the defendant doctor.

Prehn involved the death of a 46 year-old father of three from a pain medication overdose. Steven Prehn had visited Dr. Amin, a pain management specialists, at his Rush Pain Center facility with complaints of chronic pain. Dr. Amin prescribed Methadone, an opiate or narcotic medication typically prescribed to treat moderate to severe pain. Twenty-six hours after the office visit, Prehn was found dead at his home from a Methadone overdose.

Continue reading "$500,000 Settlement After Jury Deadlock Over Patient's Death From Pain Medication Overdose - Estate of Prehn v. Dr. Amin" »

As patients, we entrust our health and well-being to our physicians and rely on their expertise to make us well. Perhaps this trust is nowhere more obvious than in Intensive Care Units (ICU), where most patients' lives are hanging in the balance.

The wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Tyrone Holliday v. Dr. Stephanie Panush, et al., 06 L 12318, dealt with an ICU patient who died while under the care of various ICU medical staff. Tyrone Holliday was admitted to the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center's Neuro ICU unit after suffered a stroke in November 2005. The stroke had affected Mr. Holliday's breathing to the point that he needed to have a tracheostomy tube placed.

The tracheostomy tube would control Mr. Holliday's breathing; without the tube he was unable to breath on his own. According to the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit filed by Mr. Holliday's estate, he died as a result of negligent treatment and care related to his tracheostomy tube. The allegations arose after Mr. Holliday's tracheostomy tube became dislodged just 24 hours after it was placed. Mr. Holliday suffered respiratory arrest and died shortly thereafter.

Continue reading "Jury Holds for Doctor When Patient Dies After Trach Tube Dislodged - Estate of Holliday v. Dr. Panush" »

Jury instructions are invaluable in helping jurors make decisions that are in accordance with the law. It is through jury instructions that jurors are able to understand what questions they need to answer and how. Yet when a jury is given incorrect jury instructions it can bias its opinion and result in an unfair outcome.

In the medical malpractice lawsuit of Karen Graham, etc. v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2012 IL App (1st) 102609, an Illinois appellate court found that the Cook County jury was given an incorrect jury instruction. The court also found that the improper jury instruction might have influenced the jury's verdict. As a result, a new medical malpractice trial was ordered, this time with only the correct jury instructions being delivered to the jury.

The case facts in Graham involve the suicide of a 49 year-old woman who had been admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Upon admission to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Marilee Graham was heard expressing regret that she had not died. Another note in her chart stated that she was "falling apart mentally and emotionally" and was still in "severe emotional pain."

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Judge that No Contributory Negligence Jury Instruction in Suicide Case - Graham, etc. v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital" »

In order to prove medical negligence, a plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the doctors or nurses operated outside of the standard of care, i.e. the regular level of care required in a given situation. If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the doctors or nurses acted outside the normal standards, then the court will likely rule that there was no medical negligence even if faced with a negative medical outcome.

Take for example the nursing home negligence case of Attorney General of Illinois v. Westwood Manor, et al. The case was brought by the Illinois Attorney General's Office after an elderly resident at Chicago's Westwood Manor nursing home facility died from burn-related injuries. The 81 year-old resident had received second and third degree burns after being bathed by one of the nursing home's nurses. The case was complicated by the fact that there was over a two week delay in treating the burns. As a result of the burn injury, both of the nursing home resident's legs needed to be amputated and she died less than three months later from related complications.

Continue reading "Doctor, Nurse and Nursing Home Acquitted in Cook County Criminal Abuse Case" »

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" »

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." »

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" »

The right to a trial by jury is a central tenant to American law. As a result, courts tend to be reluctant to overturn a jury's verdict. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, if a jury's verdict is found to be in conflict with current laws, a court might overrule the verdict. Also, if a jury award contradicts the jury's own statements and opinions, then a judge or court might be inclined to vacate the jury verdict.

The Illinois wrongful death case of Philemont Garcia, etc. v. Seneca Nursing Home, etc., 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 103085, demonstrates what happens when an jury contradicts itself. The Cook County jury awarded the decedent's estate $1 million as compensation for Roberto Garcia's fall to his death after he climbed out of a fifth story window while staying at Seneca Nursing Home. In theory, the jury award meant that the jury had found the defendant nursing home negligent for contributing to the decedent's death. Yet in a response to a special interrogatory, the same jury had stated that the nursing home could not have foreseen the circumstances leading to the resident's death.

The case facts of the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit centered around Roberto Garcia, a resident at Seneca Nursing Home. Garcia suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, along with blindness, abnormal muscle tone, and chronic restlessness. He suffered from delusional behavior and occasional hallucinations. In addition, Garcia had difficulty walking on his own and was essentially wheelchair dependent. Yet despite his physical limitations, Garcia was found wandering away and hiding at times and had made more than one attempt to try and climb out his bedroom window.

According to trial evidence, there was no record of Garcia ever being identified as presenting a risk for self-harm, suicide, or escape. As a result, no clear plan was ever developed to prevent him from climbing out of his window. The lack of preventive measures was partly explained through testimony by Garcia's psychologist and psychiatrist, both of whom testified that they did not think that the fifth floor windows in Garcia's room even opened. They further stated that if they had known that they did, they would have been more proactive in formulating a preventive care plan to limit Garcia from escaping through the window.

At the end of the trial, the defense submitted a special interrogatory to the jurors. A special interrogatory is a question a party submits to the jurors, typically aimed at deciding a major legal component of the case. In Garcia, the defense submitted a special interrogatory that asked whether the jurors believed it was "reasonably foreseeable" that Garcia would kill himself or act self-destructively. The Cook County jury answered in the negative, but then went on to enter a $1 million jury verdict in favor of the nursing home's negligence.

Continue reading "What Happens When a Jury Contradicts Itself? $1 Million Verdict Overturned in Garcia v. Seneca Nursing Home" »

The field of medicine is generally associated with healing - we go to our doctors when we don't feel well and expect them to treat us. Yet a large part of medicine is also prevention. Women undergo yearly mammograms to try and catch breast cancer early on, while people with high blood pressure take medication to try and prevent heart attacks or strokes.

Doctors and nurses are responsible for identifying the risk of future medical problems and developing a treatment plan to avoid that risk. For example, some patients with decreased mobility and strength might be at risk for falling during a hospital admission or rehab stay. Therefore, nurses need to evaluate patients to determine whether or not their conditions puts them at an increased risk for falling. Once the degree of risk is determined, the medical staff can work together to create a prevention plan to insure the patient's safety. It is when these risks are not properly evaluated and prevented that nursing malpractice and medical negligence can occur.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Sorce v. Shorehaven Health and Rehab. Ctr., 09 CV 3083 (Waukesha County), illustrates what can happen if there are not adequate fall prevention measures in place. The 76 year-old Sorce had been admitted to the Shorehaven Health and Rehabilitation Center as part of his recovery from brain surgery. During his admission, Sorce was using a walker to get around and was generally given assistance with getting up and around.

However, one day towards the end of his stay, Sorce was sitting in his recliner chair when he realized he needed to use the restroom. As was his practice, Sorce pressed his call button to request nursing assistance to the bathroom. However, as more time passed and his call continued to go unanswered, Sorce elected to try and reach his walker and the bathroom by himself. Sorce raised himself out of his recliner, took a few steps across the room, but then fell on the floor and hit his head.

Continue reading "Surviving Family Receives $850,000 Wrongful Death Settlement After Rehab Center Fails to Prevent Elderly Resident's Fall - Sorce v. Shorehaven Health and Rehab. Ctr." »

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" »

There's an old saying that there are two sides to every story - in civil litigation, the plaintiff's attorney present one side of the story to the jury while the defendant's attorney presents the other. In order to ensure that the facts are fair and that neither party presents information to the jury that would unfairly prejudice it towards the other side, the trial judge rules on motions in limine prior to the trial.

Each side prepares its own motions in limine, which set out various evidence and testimony that it feels should be excluded from the trial. Each motion includes not only a recitation of which evidence the party seeks to exclude, but also an argument as to why that specific evidence should be excluded from the civil trial. The judge then makes the final ruling on each motion in limine. If the judge rules to exclude the evidence, then neither side may bring it up during trial. However, if the judge denies a motion in limine, then that evidence is free game.

The Illinois attorneys involved in Guski v. Raja, No. 1-10-0108 (May 10, 2011), went through this motion in limine process prior to the Illinois medical malpractice trial. The judge granted some motions, but denied others, including one of plaintiff's motions regarding the decedent's marijuana use. After the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor, the plaintiff sought a retrial based on the the trial court's erroneous motion in limine rulings and the defense's unfair closing argument.

Continue reading "Illinois Court Affirms Lack of Trial Objections Forfeits Right to Review of Evidentiary Rulings - Guski v. Raja" »