Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

State Probes Into Hospital Errors Uncommon

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:00:03 -0600

Concerns about the proper vetting of medical malpractice and negligent physicians by state medical boards continues to be a hot topic nationwide. Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers consider this increased awareness to be a good thing. With so much media attention focused on taking rights away from those hurt by medical errors, it is important to return the focus on the underlying issue that matters most: How do we make sure our hospitals and medical centers are as safe as possible?

For many the answer to that question, in part, goes back to actions taken by state oversight bodies to monitor qualifications and conduct of individual professionals and medical institutions. Patients have come to expect that the state will work to ensure that those not properly qualified to practice medicine will not be allowed to do so. Similarly, it is assumed that the state has standards that must be met by hospitals. If those standards are not met or if facilities have repeated instances of misconduct that harms patients, it is hoped that the facility will not be allowed to continue seeing patients.

But is this how it actually works?

An investigation by the Connecticut Health I-Team suggests that, at least in that state, the oversight function is severely hampered. The investigation found that instances of blatant medical negligence, like wrong-site surgeries and the development of bed sores, have actually increased in the last five years. This was the case even though there seemed to be an increase in resources attempting to tackle these problems. If reducing the instances of these problems were of paramount concern for state officials, one would assume that action to curb the seemingly growing problem would be taken. That action hasn’t been taken.

In fact, analysis of the situation found that state investigations are incredibly rare following adverse events like patient falls, clear surgical errors, and similar mistakes. Even looking at only the most clear-cut cases of misconduct, only one or two incidents in ten receives any attention from state officials. Not only that, but this data only includes self-reports of errors from hospitals. Studies into the validity of self-reports have found, expectedly, that they drastically underestimate the total errors committed by facilities.

Perhaps the most shocking finding in this particular effort was the fact that the investigation rates of these self-reported errors actually dropped considerably over the last five years. The total investigation rate fell from 27% in 2007 to less than 20% today. The fall in regards to certain areas was even starker. For example, in 2007 the investigation rates for patients who had developed pressure ulcers was at 36%. Five years later the investigation rate is now 8%. That means that even when the hospital admits errors occurred, in only the rarest of cases do state investigators do anything about it.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm are not surprised by these findings. We have long known that the civil justice system is one of the few places when many of these negligent facilities are ever held accountable for errors. This accountability is crucial, not only to provide redress for victims, but to spur changes at the facilities that might improve safety and prevent future harm.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

New Data Reveals Prevalence of Hospital Errors

Electronic Records May Have Effect on Malpractice Lawsuits

No Accountability: Doctors Who Face No Penalty For Errors

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:00:42 -0600

This week the Star Tribune followed up its report on minimal publication of doctor histories, with a new analysis on doctor sanctions. The report suggests that penalties are usually few and far between for those medical professionals who breach standards of care. It is yet another reminder for our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers that many negligent medical professionals would have no accountability at all were it not for patients and their families stepping up and demanding it themselves.

There is a mistaken assumption among some that blatant medical errors are accounted for by state medical boards or other oversight bodies. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. For example, take the case of one doctor discussed in the Star Tribune report. A medical malpractice attorney who actually defended doctors in these cases filed her own lawsuit against a physician after a botched facial cleanse. The procedure was incredibly painful and the next day her face was swollen with wounds that bled. Eventually, the woman received a $1 million medical malpractice verdict against the dermatologist for his conduct.

As part of the situation, she had also urged the state’s board of medical practice to take disciplinary action against the man for the botched facial peel. The attorney found at least five other patients who were also harmed by the man’s care. She took that information a second time to the medical board in hopes of getting action. Considering there had been repeated victims, it would have been logical for the board to want to ensure that the doctor was not repeatedly negligent and allowed to harm future patients. Surprisingly, the board did nothing. The woman has yet to be contacted and interviewed by those charged with holding these doctors to a reasonable standard and keeping unsuspecting patients safe.

The case of this physician is apparently not unique. A journalistic investigation found that the state’s medical board frequently avoids investigating doctors even after repeated claims are made against them by patients harmed by their actions. The analysis revealed at least 46 cases of doctors who were not punished in any way by the state, even though those same doctors lost their licenses in other states. The cases included physicians that had committed crimes and even had inappropriate sexual relationships with patients.

This lack of discipline is compounded by the fact that the state’s board has been criticized for not keeping the public informed about dangerous practitioners. As each Illinois medical malpractice lawyer at our firm knows, sunshine is always the best policy when it comes to quality of care. Yet, many parts of the country still do not provide the public with information about patient’s medical malpractice awards and sanctions.

Members of the state’s medical board have defended the decisions, claiming that they believe the public is adequately protected. However, patient safety experts think otherwise. Many have argued that the state is not doing nearly enough to keep patients safe. These advocates find the failure to sanction doctors who have been disciplined in other states to be very alarming. They note that in the end, it remains even more important for patients themselves to demand redress and accountability when errors are made.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Federal Malpractice Data Back Online, But With Restrictions

Federal Medical Malpractice Database Taken Down

High Costs Make it Difficult for Some Medical Malpractice Claims to Go to Trial

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:00:00 -0600

Each Illinois medical malpractice lawyer at our firm has heard the argument that high costs affect doctors who are forced to defend lawsuit when they make a medical error. This claim is usually made when trying to push for so-called “tort reform” proposals that insulate doctors from having to be held fully accountable for the errors that they caused patients. However, those same advocates will almost never admit or explain that the costs of the legal process are also bore by plaintiffs when trying to hold their wrongdoer accountable. For example, a story in Eastern Iowa News last week touched on the way that litigation costs prevent those with legitimate claims from accessing the legal system. Not only that, but the costs problem is often made worse by those mandating more arbitrary requirements and costs in tort reform efforts.

The problem most affects those who have claims that are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars but less, often $25,000 to $50,000. While large lawsuit settlements and verdicts make headlines, the vast majority of cases involve sums that are much smaller. But the smaller sums sometimes make it cost prohibitive to pursue litigation, because the cost of the litigation can eat up the entire award. As the story explained, many attorneys, including Illinois medical malpractice lawyers, “are frustrated because people are being denied access to a jury trial, their constitutional right, because they can’t afford the costs for witness fees, exhibits, discovery, depositions, and a court reporter.

The problem affects all negligence cases, but medical malpractice situations are implicated most. That is because the challenge of proving misconduct in a complex field like medicine requires costly experts and other detailed requirements. If one’s case involves sums of money that are not large enough to justify paying those costs, then the victim is essentially denied access to justice. This is particularly frustrating because, while the sums involved may not be lottery riches, they are still incredibly significant for the actual individuals who were harmed.

Considering the barriers already in the way of plaintiffs, it is quite frustrating (and imminently unreasonable) for those calling for tort-reform to put up even more requirements for victims before they can access the judge and jury. These proposals should not be entertained.

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm instead believes that, if anything, we need to look at general ways to make the court system more efficient and affordable. That is the opposite of throwing up arbitrary rules that make it harder for all injury victims to access the court system. Those involved in the court system from all sides have proposed a wide range of ideas that improve the justice system without unfairly burdening either side in the process. For example, one idea is to allow doctor’s reports to be read into evidence without their presence in court—potentially saving thousands of dollars. However, right now that is not allowed because of hearsay evidentiary rules. All options like that one should be considered in order to improve the system for all in ways that preserve fairness for all.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Public Perception of Medical Malpractice Cases Skewed By Media Trends

Illinois Doctor Database Now Online to Help Medical Consumers

New Memo Purports to Reveal Presidential Thoughts on Medical Malpractice

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:18:12 -0600

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm keeps an ear out for information about proposed state and federal legislation which might impact Illinois medical malpractice victims. Every year those who stand to financially gain from taking legal rights away from those hurt by medical errors mount efforts to get those rights curtailed. It is often difficult to get a clear idea of the likelihood of passage of any particular piece of legislation. That is because so many of the issues are involved in deals and compromises with competing interest groups. While a public official in a position of power has an opinion on an issue, it cannot be deemed conclusive that the individual will maintain that position. Various issues—even those that have no connection to one another—interplay to determine what does get passed and become law and what does not. For example, an official who does not necessarily believe that tort reform is a good idea might actually support it in order to get a favorable vote from an opponent on a tax issue.

The complexity of the legislative process makes it difficult to make any prognostications about future legislation with any certainty. However, that does not stop many people from trying.

For example, Med Page Today published a story this weekend discussing a memo that purports to reveal President Obama’s thinking on the issue of medical malpractice. While the memo may have some insight into the process, it is important not to read too much into any single document or statement about what the future might hold regarding these issues.

The memo explains that abut two and half years ago the President was of the opinion that the best approach to the issue was having physicians disclose when errors occur, issue an apology, and pursue mediation. The memo suggests that he valued this approach because he thought it would best compliment his bigger goal of getting the healthcare bill passed.

The document, prepared for the president by two close aides involved in issues related to healthcare, listed five different “medical liability reform options.” Beyond admitting the error and apologies, the other approaches include: safe-harbor provisions, pre-trial administrative screening panels, health courts, and alternative dispute resolution. Interestingly, the President never actually indicated public support for a disclosure and mediation approach to the issue. However, some are using this memo as evidence that this is the position he actually believes is strongest and might pursue in the future.

In the end, the President’s healthcare bill passed. As part of that package $25 million in grants was earmarked for programs to “test alternatives” to the tort system of medical liability cases.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm will fight night and day to oppose all efforts that unfairly, unnecessarily, and arbitrarily take away basic rights of residents to fully access their court system. We will follow along through the year as more information about federal proposals on this issue comes to light. In addition, we will provide information for all advocates on ways that they can join the effort to preserve fairness and justice for medical malpractice victims.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Doctors Try to Block Open Information About Medical Malpractice Awards in Other States

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:32:43 -0600

Blog readers are aware that the Illinois’ “Patient’s Right to Know” Act became law last year. The law, supported by virtually every patient rights advocate and Illinois medical malpractice lawyer, put an online database back online to provide patients with information about the state’s medical professionals. The logic behind the bill was clear. Nothing matters more to local residents than their health. It is only reasonable for residents to have easy access to basic information about those who they are trusting with their health. The information provided includes details about the professional’s education, experience, as well as whether or not they have been involved in an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

Getting this information back online was not an easy battle. The powerful Illinois medical lobby fought the measure virtually every step of the way, even though the point was only to provide patients with basic information if they chose to access it. The online database had previously been online a few years ago. It was put up in conjunction with a bill which enacted egregious “tort reform” measures that arbitrarily capped damages that victims of Illinois medical malpractice could receive from a jury—regardless of the harm caused. Fortunately, those caps were struck down a few years ago by the state Supreme Court. However, the database was taken down as well. It was only with the passage of this latest Patient’s Right to Know Act that the information was again made available to the public.

However, the Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm know that these sorts of gains are never safe. That is because those opposed to openness about the healthcare process are constantly working legislatively to enact changes to take these gains away. Various tort reform efforts are still being proposed and, surely, if the political winds align, efforts will be made to take down this database again as well.

Similar battles are being raged throughout the country. For example, the Star Tribune reported yesterday on a proposal to provide similar sunshine failed in nearby Minnesota. That measure to provide basic information about medical malpractice awards and state disciplinary sanctions was rejected by the state’s medical board last week. Those advocating for the measure explained how it remains logical for patients to be able to learn if their doctor has been disciplined or lost medical privileges because of the care that they have provided. As one former board member and patients rights advocate explained, “This is information that consumers need to know. The more knowledge we have about all of these doctors, the better off we are.”

Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm shares these concerns. In virtually all cases, sunshine is the best policy. It is difficult to understand how a community is best served by keeping true and accurate information hidden from the public about that which matters most. Those involved claim that the public would be “confused” if they were provided this information. It is similar to accusations that juries are unfit to make decisions about cases damages, experts, and the merits of lawsuits generally.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Important Illinois Medical Malpractice Bill Passes General Assembly

Most Negligent Doctors Avoid Any Punishment

State Supreme Court Decision Discusses “Detailed Basis” Requirement in Medical Malpractice Suit

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:00:46 -0600

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney who has discussed the dangers of tort reform measures have likely explained that attacks on the system beyond damage caps. Not only are legislatures attempting to arbitrarily limit the amount of money that victims can receive—no matter how badly they are injures—but they are also working to interfere with the work of judges with regard to what evidence is or is not allowed in and how that evidence affects the overall disposition of a case.

For example, on this blog we have previously discussed various requirement regarding medical expert witnesses having the exact same background as defendant medical professionals. As we explained, while this requirement seems innocuous enough, in practice it often unfairly leads to meritorious claims being thrown out on technicalities. Of course, having these worthy cases dismissed for no good reason is exactly what those who push these efforts hope will happen. Spearheading these laws are big insurance companies and the medical lobby who have everything to gain and nothing to lose from taking away legal rights of victims of medical malpractice.

As the expert requirement situation indicates, it is almost always a bad idea for legislatures to begin meddling into individual aspects of the judicial process. These decisions are much better when left to those actually hearing the evidence and making rulings on a case-by-case basis. The justice system is very case-specific, depending on what exactly happened in each individual case. Therefore laws which set down arbitrary decisions with no information about those individual specifics are destined to be both overinclusive and underinclusive.

Another way in which some tort-reformers try to get legitimate cases thrown out of court are by passing so-called “detailed basis” statutes. These statues, like the expert doctor background requirement, are ways to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove that their injuries were caused by the misconduct of another—before they are even allowed to continue with the discovery part of the process. All Illinois medical malpractice lawyers (and attorneys throughout the country) are not fooled and know that a detailed basis requirement is simply another arrow in the quiver given to defense attorneys to take out a medical malpractice case before the jury is allowed to decide on the merit. These requirements are vague, but mandate that medical malpractice cases not advance if the medical expert who provides information about the misconduct in the very earliest stage of the case does not have a sufficient “detailed basis” for the opinion.

Fortunately, some state judges are not allowing the requirement to be used to halt good cases unfairly. For example, Legal News online reported this week on a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut which overruled a trial court that had thrown a case out because it did not meet this vague requirement. The court explained reasonably that these medical opinion reports are obtained very early on in the process, before much information has been collected by sides. The majority noted “the opinion necessarily is obtained prior to the commencement of the action, before the plaintiff will have had the opportunity to engage in pretrial discovery under the rules of practice governing such discovery.”

See Our Related Blog Posts:

State Court Throws Out Medical Expert Testimony Limitation in “Tort Reform” Law

“Judicial Hellhole Report is a PR Stunt

National Media Discusses Hypocrisy of Senator Santorum’ s Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Stance

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:00:17 -0600

The Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm know that it is old hat to talk about hypocrisy in politics. Sadly, some believe that the culture of saying one thing and doing another is simply part of the system and that it will never change. Of course, this pessimistic view of governance might prove true. But that doesn’t mean those who care about honesty, transparency, and openness in the political process should simply give up. Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm is reminded of this every day in our work with our clients. These individuals are incredibly strong and courageous community members who deserve equal and fair access to the civil justice system. Fighting to ensure that they maintain the opportunity to seek redress and accountability will always be a battle worth pursuing.

A big component of fighting against misguided tort reform measures is exposing the politicians (and others) who say one thing about the justice system and then do another. In all political issues—including those related to medical malpractice—this hypocrisy is usually a testament to the fact that the political position the wrong one. That is clearly the case when it comes to tort reform. Many of the loudest advocates have been shown to say one thing in public—when they are trying to get the support of deep-pocketed insurance interests—and then do another when their own family is faced with the realities of medical errors or substandard care.

This week the national media picked up on one story of this hypocrisy which we discussed a few weeks ago. A story in the Washington Post explained that Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who has repeatedly argued that we need medical malpractice caps, testified in his wife’s own medical malpractice lawsuit claiming that the cap should not apply in her case.

His wife’s suit was filed against a chiropractor. She explained that the chiropractor’s mistake led her with a permanent back injury that would lead to a lifetime of pain medication and mobility problems. Mrs. Santorum had visited the chiropractor after childbirth to relieve lower back pain caused by the delivery. The family claimed that the spinal manipulation that the chiropractor performed led to a herniated disk which had to be surgically removed. In the end, the jury awarded his family damages for “pain and suffering” that he had previously argued would be “excessive”—but only if it applied to other families instead of his own.

As one local attorney familiar with the situation summarized, “Politicians complain about these kinds of claims, but when they speak out publicly, they don’t think about the real people affected by these tragic events. When they are the real person affected, suddenly they have a totally different view.”

Every Illinois medical malpractice lawyer—and every local resident—is likely tired of politicians who think the rules do not apply to them. Inequality of opportunity should never be tolerated. However, most so-called “tort reform” efforts seek only to insulate some companies from being held accountability. These special rules rigged in favor of the biggest companies should never be tolerated.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Presidential Candidate Santorum Exemplifies Hypocrisy of Tort Reform Advocates

Election Analysis: Americans Do Not Support “Tort Reform”

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Alleges Failure to Diagnose Child’s Condition Lead to Paralysis

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:00:26 -0600

This week an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer at our firm came across a story in the Madison St. Clair Record about a new Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit. According to the story, a father filed the suit on behalf of his son who suffered paralysis due to what the father believes was a medical error. More specifically, the father is alleging that the defendant doctor failed to diagnose his son with the medical condition which led to the paralysis. The delay in diagnosis apparently led to the permanent physical disability.

The son visited the doctor last year to seek treatment for an unknown medical condition. Sadly, the doctor apparently did now know what the problem was either, and his serious medical condition went undiagnosed. It was only later that it was determined that the child had cauda equine syndrome. The ailment is a medical condition that exists when the nerves in the spinal cord are unduly crushed into the bone. It is a very serious problem that requires immediate action. However, because of the failure to diagnose, the child did not receive the treatment he needed. As a result, the child is now permanently paralyzed and incontinent

Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Levin & Perconti is intimately familiar with the various forms of missed diagnosis and failure to diagnose. As we have consistently noted on this blog, especially recently, diagnosis problems are some of the most common—and ultimately harmful—medical errors that can affect patients. These mistakes represent problems of the most basic variety, because figuring out what is wrong with a patient is the first step in any doctor-patient relationship. If a medical professional gets the diagnosis wrong, then everything that comes afterwards is often for naught. In addition, correcting this error usually takes time. Other doctors are often influenced by the assessment of previous medical professionals and so the problem is rarely corrected until further complications develop and it becomes blindly clear that a former diagnosis was incorrect.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers also know that it is frequently difficult for patients to determine conclusively if they have been hurt by a missed or delayed diagnosis. Some medical errors are obvious, like surgery being performed on the wrong body part or a lethal dose of medication erroneously been administered. Yet, these problems are different, because patients are naturally inclined to trust the decision and assessments made by their medical professionals in diagnosis matters. Failure to diagnose cases are all about timing—time lost to receive treatment before it gets worse. Patients do not have the expertise to know if certain delays actually lead to decreased chance of survival. Similarly, patients do not know for sure if the previous incorrect diagnoses were reasonable to make or if medical carelessness contributed to the problem. That is why if you find yourself in this situation it is always prudent to at least talk with a legal professional to share your story and learn how the law applies. There is no harm is learning more, but there is harm in keeping your consternation silent and allowing things to progress without redress or accountability.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Kane County Man Wins Verdict Following Paralysis

Doctor Sued for Malpractice with Failed Diagnosis Leading to Blindness

Insurance Industry Accused of Maximizing Profits with Lowball Claims Payments

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:00:11 -0600

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm is used to defending our work against tort reform efforts. We continue to strongly believe that these efforts are universally misguided and are lead by a few small corporate interests that have much to gain by limiting the rights of everyday community members. It is not often than a single resident—no matter how rich or famous—can demand fairness and redress from even the largest corporate interests. In fact, it is only in the courtroom where the scales are equal and there is no benefit to being well-known or having deep-pockets. It is absolutely vital that this level playing field not be tampered with, no matter what the costs.

However, insurance companies in particular are on a continued crusade to take away the rights of so many Illinois medical malpractice victims. It is led by a drive to increase profits. As most blog leaders likely know from personal experience, many insurance companies do everything they can to avoid making payouts. This is true no matter how legitimate the claim might be. In fact, sometimes the companies are held to task for their stalling efforts and decisions which seek to unfairly hurt those who have come to count on them.

For example new allegations toward that end were recently discussed in last month’s edition of “Justice For All”—the newsletter published by the Illinois Trial Lawyer’s Association. Many people are never made aware of the fact that law requires insurance companies to act in good-faith with regard to their customers. In the past, these companies were deemed “semi-pubic trusts.” This meant that they were under certain obligations to serve their clients to a high level. This allowed claims managers to have wide latitude to serve customers in a fair way based on what they saw in person.

However, that has changed over the last twenty years. Now, these companies have switched from being service-oriented to profit-oriented. Instead of giving actual employees discretion in claims based on the reality of the situation, claims are now completely computer-driven. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers are aware of the effect this shift has had on basic fairness for consumers. Now, these companies purposefully offer the lowest possible offers to those in need. Those customers who accepted these low claims—often having no idea that they were getting low-balled—would have their claims processed quickly. Conversely, those who did some investigating and realized that their payout would be far less than needed or fair had their claims slow-walked. Those who demanded more were forced to wait.

A former Allstate agent interviewed for a Huffington Post story on the subject explained that “the strategy was to ‘make claims so expensive and so time consuming that lawyers would start refusing to help clients.’” Injury lawyers are likely not surprised by these revelations. We have often explained how the tactics used by so many insurance companies are such that they artificially drive up costs and make the process more complicated than necessary simply to improve their bottom line. More and more community members need to be made aware of this reality. The tort reform debate is simply another part of the plan to increase the power of the insurance companies while shifting the blame to others.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Kane County Man Wins Verdict Following Paralysis

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:00:35 -0600

An Illinois medical malpractice verdict was recently discussed in the latest edition of “Justice For All”—the monthly newsletter from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. The case is a tragic one, involving medical errors that left the local man a paraplegic. According to a report in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, the 55-year old victim’s paralysis was caused by a failure to diagnose a dangerous spinal infection.

Apparently the man was seen by a variety of doctors at the hospital. He had gone to the facility to get help after experiencing constant back pain. The patient had been playing golf and felt sharp pain between his shoulder blades. The pain only grew worse and then began radiating into his chest. The preliminary diagnosis upon his being admitted to the hospital was chest pain. Then, awhile later, he was diagnosed as having pneumonia. The errors only continued. A doctor ordered a CT scan for the man’s thorax and abdomen. However, for unknown reasons, the nurse actually wrote down a test for chest pain. That triggered the order for a radiology technician.

Amazingly, it wasn’t for another twenty days (and six doctors) later that the man was correctly diagnosed with having a spinal infection. However, by that time serious damage had already been done, because the infection had gone untreated for nearly three weeks. The man was soon permanently paralyzed.

After the ordeal the man met with an Illinois medical malpractice lawyer to share his story. After learning more about the situation and exactly what happened, an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was then filed to hold the negligent parties accountable and provide redress. Late last year the case finally went to trial. After hearing the evidence the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff. They found the hospital and a group of doctors involved liable for the series of errors committed during the man’s ordeal. He was awarded $4.75 million. It remains unclear if an appeal is pending.

This case demonstrates something that our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have seen time and again through the years. Once an incorrect diagnosis is made originally, it is often difficult for subsequent medical professionals to correct the error. Ensuring proper steps are taken to identify a medical problem initially is crucial. Treatments are based off an initial diagnosis, and so that treatment process often muddies the water, making it difficult to see that the diagnosis was incorrect. Usually it is only after one’s condition gets worse that doctors step back and determine if the initial diagnosis was incorrect. Unfortunately, by that time, severe, permanent damage may already have been done.

When the initial misdiagnosis is caused by doctors who do not act according to reasonable standards of care, then it is often appropriate for the victim to receive redress for the complications that resulted from the error. There are always times when a failed diagnosis is a genuine mistake that even prudent doctors would have made. However, at other times, the involved professional breaches the acceptable level of care and provides aid less than what the patient is legally entitled to expect.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Fatal Plastic Surgeon Error Raises Certification Questions

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:00:30 -0600

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm has worked on cases that tug at the heartstrings. Some of the most tragic are those involving patients that go in for elective surgery—something that is not medically necessary—and end up permanently scarred, or worse. That appears to be what happened in a case that took the life of a mother of three. The 39-year old woman went in to a clinic near her home for breast implant surgery—she would die the very next day.

According to a comprehensive story on the case in the Milford Daily News, the mother visited this particularly facility to have implants likely because it offered lower rates than other nearby providers. In addition, this particular clinic was popular among many of her friends who, like her, had emigrated to the U.S. from Brazil. At first it seemed like the procedure went well. The woman left the clinic and was sent home after the operation. However, it wasn’t long before her family knew that something was wrong. The day after the surgery her family called 911 after she fell in her house. When emergency responders arrived, they found the woman in the bathroom, unconscious, with irregular breathing and a very weak pulse. They did everything they could to save her, but she was pronounced dead shortly after she arrived at a nearby medical clinic. The family was devastated by the loss and is in the middle of preparing to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against the involved facility.

A few weeks after the death a medical examiner ruled that the woman’s death was the result of “therapeutic complications” from the breast implant surgery. A blood clot was found, and it apparently broke off and traveled to the victim’s lungs as an embolism. It remains unclear exactly how the surgery may have led to this problems. There is a risk that the implant may press up against a vein which could lead to this sort of accident. Surgeons are required to make sure that the implants are positioned to avoid this possibility. Failing to do otherwise is likely medical malpractice.

This particular tragedy is leading those in the area to make renewed warnings about the dangers of doctors performing these operations that are not board-certified. As our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers have explained in previous posts, the experience level of many plastic surgeons can vary wildly. Some states do not require much extra training, and so doctors with little familiarity with these procedures are allowed to switch practice areas and take these cases as a way to increase revenue. However, with less experience and more cost-cutting efforts, the risk of harm to the patient increases.

As always it is absolutely vital that patients learn about the experience level and training of those doing the surgery. As medical experts in the area have warned, there is a big difference between doctors who are performing plastic surgery. The best surgeons are always the ones who are actually licensed by The American Board of Plastic Surgery. As one doctor explained, “I don’t think the public knows the difference [between the different types of certification], and that’s very dangerous.”

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Occurs All Too Frequently in Cosmetic Surgery

Twist in Fraudulent Cosmetic Surgery Case

Doctor Sued for Malpractice with Failed Diagnosis Leading to Blindness

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:24:15 -0600

Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm appreciates that failure to diagnose is one of the single most common errors committed by medical professionals day in and day out. The potential harm from such mistakes runs the gamut, depending on the type of problem faced by the patient. For example, earlier this month WWLP News reported on a new medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed by a mother and father claiming that their son was blinded by a failure to diagnose.

According to the suit, the seven-year old boy was active, energetic, and had no noticeable health problem. However, a few years ago, on Halloween night, the boy’s mother noticed that her son was noticeably lethargic. Sensing something was wrong, she took him to the family pediatrician. The doctor gave a quick inspection, diagnosed him with an ear infection, and then sent them on their way. Unfortunately, the child did not get better. He went back to the doctor on several occasions with noticeably worse symptoms. However, the doctor did not properly act in the face of the worsening conditions.

After repeated visits, the doctor still did not diagnose him with anything other than an ear infection. What she missed what that he was suffered from potentially deadly bacterial meningitis—an inflammation of the brain lining. As a result of the misdiagnosis, the boy fell into a coma for months. When he finally awoke the child was blind and was unable to eat or walk. He has been able to slowly learn how to walk and feed himself. However, he will never be able to see again and will need around the clock medical care for the rest of his life.

Every Illinois medical malpractice attorney at our firm appreciates that cases resulting from failure to diagnose presents one common legal hurdle—proving causation. All negligence cases—of which Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits are included—require proof that the claimed negligent conduct actually caused the harm complained of. At times the cause is clear—like when a doctor operates on the wrong body part. However, there are other cases, like failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis, when the cause is not immediately apparent. In these cases, the medical professional does not directly make the harm occur but instead does not do what should have been done to fight the harm.

In these situations defense attorneys always argue that the harm would have occurred regardless of what the doctor did or did not do in any individual case. For example, if a doctor fails to diagnose cancer quickly, then the defense is likely to suggest that the doctor obviously didn’t give the patient cancer and that the consequences of the cancer were therefore not caused by the doctor. However, the law rightly understands that inaction can be just as harmful as inappropriate action. This is especially true in situations of progressive problems, like cancer. Even a short delay in diagnosis of the condition can result in significant deterioration in ones prognosis.

Proving these issues is often tricky in court. After all, there is no way to show exactly what “would have” happened—there is inherently some speculation. Yet, the fact that there is some speculation does not mean that one cannot use expert testimony and past situations to explain how one’s chances of avoiding harm would have been significantly higher had action been taken earlier. If your case involves these types of issues it is important to seek out legal help from those with experience in failure to diagnose cases.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Mother Shares Medical Malpractice Heartbreak of Surgical Error & Losing Daughter

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:00:43 -0600

Each individual case of Illinois medical malpractice leaves a trail of victims far beyond the one actually hurt by the medical negligence. Every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm is aware of the most recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics which show that as many as 90,000 patients die each year because of various forms of medical errors. Many more are severely injured. Those statistics alone are quite shocking. However, even they do not do justice to the true scope of the problem. To fully understand the effect that these incidents have one must remember those whom the victim leaves behind. The mother who never thought she would outlive her son; a daughter who has to grow up knowing that her father will not be able to walk her down the aisle; or a husband who provides around-the-clock care to a wife who was permanently injured by a preventable medical error. For every single error there are dozens of people affected.

North Jersey News recently published a story that touches on the ripples that affect virtually all of us in one way or another because of preventable medical mistakes. The article shares the story of one mother who lost her daughter because of medical malpractice. The mother explained that she had just recently enjoyed a wedding with her 23-year old daughter. A few days later the daughter was scheduled to go in for what was supposed to be routine gallbladder surgery.

The surgery first became an option after the mother drove her daughter to the emergency room after she was complaining of abdominal pain. However, after being sent home the woman fell ill in the bathroom as was rushed based to the emergency room. It was there that the doctor recommended gallbladder surgery. The mother explained that the doctor told her that the procedure was supposed to take only 45 minutes. When talking with the daughter about whether the operation should be performed, the doctor noted that the procedure was simple, didn’t involve many risks, and that it was logical to have it performed. On that advice, the daughter went in for the operation.

She would not make it out of the hospital alive.

As the hours ticked by with the girl’s parents waiting, they soon began to get worried. Eventually, five hours later a doctor come out and told the parents that her daughter had been injured and lost blood but that she was young and would likely be able to produce her own blood. The mother was able to see her daughter who at first seemed fine. However, her condition soon grew worse. The mother explained that as she was holding her daughter’s hand she called for a nurse when she noticed that something looked wrong. A nurse came, no pulse was found, and the mother was asked to step out of the room. The professionals were unable to revive the daughter, and she died shortly after.

According to arguments made by the medical malpractice attorney in a subsequent legal case, the lead surgeon mistakenly caused an injury to the vessels supplying blood to the woman’s liver during the procedure. Post-operative tests revealed the blood problem. Had doctors attempted to tackle the issue as soon as the results were revealed, then the woman could have been saved. However, the results of the post-operative test were not revealed to anyone in time.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Methadone Overdose

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Woman Receives $257,000 From Medical Malpractice Jury Verdict After Needle Left in Body

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:00:58 -0600

TC Palm News reported this week on the end of a medical malpractice trial in which a plaintiff-victim was ultimately awarded $257,000. The case involved a broke needle being left inside the woman during an operation. Surprisingly, each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm can attest that these sorts of glaring mistakes—including objects being left in the body or surgery being performed on the wrong part of the body—occur at hospitals and medical facilities much more frequently than most would suspect.

In this particular case the plaintiff went to the hospital to correct urinary incontinence. The procedure went fine except that a part of a suturing needle broke off during the procedure. The involved doctor apparently stitched the woman up while the needle was inside—knowing full well that it was still in there. There remains disagreement about whether the doctor informed the woman that the needle had been left inside her stomach. However, it is clear that the woman began experiencing sharp pain in her abdomen. She returned to the doctor, this time her family physician, only to find that there was a half-inch needle inside of her. Fortunately, the needle was able to be removed, which relieved the pain.

According to documents that were released during the course of the medical malpractice trial, hospital records indicate that the woman did have a needle buried in her internal tissue but that the hospital left it up to the doctor to tell the patient. The victim explains that she was never shown the hospital records. In addition, the doctors own records (distinct from hospital records) did not indicate that there was a needle left in the body. The medical malpractice lawyer leading the case explained to the jury that “there was a significant failure of checks and balances.”

Both sides also disagreed during the trial on whether the needle posed danger to the woman when it was left in her body. The doctor claims that he left it there because opening up the body to get it out might have harmed nearby organs. Conversely, the plaintiff’s attorney explained that the needle was left in a dangerous location, near vital organs, which at the very least merited a real discussion about the possible risks.

In the end the jury agreed that the doctor and medical facility did not act appropriately when they left the needle inside the body and did not properly inform the patient of the situation. As a result they returned a verdict for the woman in the amount of $257,000. This includes medical expenses, other economic losses, and some damages for the pain that she was forced to go through as a result of the traumatizing abdominal pain.

It remains surprising that these sorts of cases still occur. Perhaps most shocking about this situation is that the patient left the hospital with a half-inch needle inside of her without any idea that it was there. Of course hospitals and medical providers should always fix errors that they make. But , even more than that, it is absolutely essential that patients at least be made aware of the situation with real discussions had about potential complications.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Doctor Leaves Device Inside Patient for Years

A Hospital’s First Priority: Do No Harm

Center Sued for Medical Malpractice After Patient Falls Off Toilet

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:00:40 -0600

The Louisiana Record reported this week on a new medical malpractice lawsuit stemming from negligent care provided to a vulnerable patient at a medical facility. The incident occurred a few years ago. The plaintiff in the case was first admitted to the facility because she was suffering from a high fever and was experiencing severe gastrointestinal problems. Her condition made her very dependent on care workers, because her mobility, strength, and overall cognition were affected by her fragile condition.

The documents filed to initiate the medical malpractice lawsuit state that at one point during her stay the woman was helped to the toilet by a caregiver. However, the caregiver left the woman unattended. For quite some time the woman tried to signal for help leaving the toilet. Eventually, with no other options, the woman attempted to get off of the toilet herself. She fell while doing so and suffered significant injuries. Her neck, back, head, and right leg were all damaged in various ways in the fall.

She ultimately sought legal help and filed suit. The lawsuit claim accuses the involved medical facility of negligence for not taking proper fall precautions. The fact that certain medical patients might need help in this way and are at risk of falls is not anything new. It is common practice for these facilities to be prepared for these sorts of situations and to act accordingly to protect the safety of the patients. The medical facility should have had a coordinated, consistent, multi-disciplinary fall prevention plan. In addition staff members should have properly monitored this individual patient’s situation much more closely.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that this case highlights a legal principle that separates different types of legal actions. Medical malpractice is alleged when negligent care is provided to medical patients. However, there is a distinction depending on the specific care that is provided. Not helping a resident with mobility problems is a different kind of negligence than that implicated when a caregiver makes a mistake that is directly related to providing the expert medical care. Medical negligence exists in the latter while the former usually only implicates ordinary negligence.

The distinction between each type of negligence is crucial in a legal case, because there are different requirements about what must be proven in each case. Most notably, when actual medical negligence is at issue there is a requirement that expert testimony be presented. The logic is that community members on the jury do not have the experience to make judgments about whether or not a doctor prudently followed existing medical standards in any given situation. Experts might help explain to the jury what those standards are and whether they believe they were followed in each individual case. Jury members are capable of gauging the reliability of experts but not the underlying expert knowledge itself.

Conversely, in ordinary negligence cases, expert testimony is usually not needed. For example, car accident cases are classic ordinary negligence cases. Jury members are capable of listening to testimony about what happened and determining who failed to act appropriately. The basic rules of the road are common knowledge unlike appropriate medical actions.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Deaths Could Have Been Avoided if Doctors Washed Their Hands

Too Much Noise in Operating Rooms Increase Surgical Errors