Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

by

Bozena Smith filed a medical negligence complaint against two doctors who were residents in 2006 when she claims she was injured in postsurgical treatment.

After the fact discovery was done by each of the parties, and the trial judge entered a deadline of Sept. 13, 2010 for the plaintiff to disclose any experts and opinions. Bozena disclosed one expert she had hired to render an opinion. In the Rule 213(f)(3) disclosures, the plaintiff stated that the doctor retained as an expert would provide expert opinions that both the residents, Drs. Murphy and McFadden, deviated from the standard of care in treating Smith, which caused her injuries. 

However, on Nov. 8, 2010, when the plaintiff’s expert doctor appeared for his deposition, he testified that he was withdrawing his adverse opinions against the residents and then testified that he held no opinions that implicated the residents in any substandard medical care of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff’s expert testified as follows:

Continue reading

by

Joseph Farias, age 29, began treatment with the defendant internist, Yolanda Co, M.D., in February 2002. He came to the doctor with complaints of constipation for three years and rectal bleeding. Dr. Co performed a rectal exam and ordered a colonoscopy, which came back negative. There was no cause determined as to why Farias had rectal bleeding.

In October 2003, Farias returned to Dr. Co with new complaints of rectal bleeding. That visit was a cause of what became a medical malpractice lawsuit. This time Dr. Co did a digital rectal exam and diagnosed internal hemorrhoids. In Farias’s Cook County complaint, it was alleged that the internal hemorrhoids could not be diagnosed through digital examination unless the internal hemorrhoids were visualized outside the anus. The standard of care as contended required Dr. Co to perform an anoscopy to properly visualize the hemorrhoids. It was also asserted that should Dr. Co not have the facility to do the anoscopy,  she should have referred Farias to another physician such as a gastroenterologist. 

Dr. Co defended the case by saying that she did observe prolapsing internal hemorrhoids (protruding out of the rectum), even though her chart  stated only internal hemorrhoids. Dr. Co testified that the standard of care required a treating internist such as herself to grade and chart the severity of an internal hemorrhoid, but she admittedly didn’t do that in October 2003.

Continue reading

by

In November 2006, the defendant surgeon, Dr. Hodgett, performed a laparoscopic biopsy on a 72-year-old woman, Mary Backes.  The purpose was to diagnose a suspected lymphoma in her retroperitoneal area, which is behind the abdomen. The biopsy was done at Provena Nursing Medical Center in Aurora, Ill. 

Another defendant, Dr. Sayeed, was the patient’s primary care physician. Following the biopsy, Backes experienced blood pressure drops, low urine output and rapid respiration. 

Her family maintained in the lawsuit that Dr. Hodges and Dr. Sayeed chose not to recognize that Backes’s duodenum had been perforated during the biopsy procedure and failed to realize that her post-op symptoms were indicative of developing sepsis. It was also claimed that the doctors chose not to timely return Backes to surgery for exploration and repair of the perforation to attempt to save her life.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial judge’s ruling in a medical malpractice case because the judge ruled that the defendants had no right of reduction on the jury’s verdict.  

In this case, Charles Perkey, as administrator of the estate of Leanne Perkey (his wife), sued the doctors and hospital because of a delay in diagnosing Leanne’s pancreatic cancer in a timely manner. 

After a jury trial, the verdict, which included $310,000 for Leanne’s medical expenses, was not reduced when the trial judge refused the defendants’ motion to reduce the judgment under Section 2-1205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 

Continue reading

by

 

The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District reversed a jury’s verdict for defendants, which included OSF Healthcare System, in the Circuit Court of McLean County.  The case centered around an injury and subsequent death of a 3-year-old boy, Christian Rivera, in 2003. The jury trial was held in July 2011. 

During the trial, the family of Christian offered its expert witness, Dr. Finley Brown, to testify as a medical expert in family practice.

The defendants were allowed by the trial judge to cross-examine Dr. Brown for the issue related to his annual earnings as an expert witness for an 8-year period. Plaintiff’s counsel had argued against the broad timeframe, but the trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion to limit the timeframe. Defense used this testimony to say the jury that Dr. Brown was a “go-to guy for expert opinions.”

Continue reading

by

In a May 16, 2013 New York Times opinion page editorial, written by assistant professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, Joanna  C. Schwartz, discussed the Affordable Care Act in relation to medical malpractice lawsuits. The article was titled, “Learning from Litigation.” The thrust of the article is that new evidence contradicts the “conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety . . .”  Professor Schwartz says that the opposite appears to be occurring;  that with more openness and transparency, hospitals are responding to the risk of litigation in positive ways.

Professor Schwartz interviewed dozens of hospital risk managers who confirmed that a hospital’s approach to lawsuits has begun to change. She says that hospitals have become more open to handling medical errors up front and are apologizing to patients when mistakes do happen in some cases.

The given reason that hospitals are more open to these types of solutions is that in disclosing errors up front, hospitals and patients tend to resolve matters much earlier, reasonably and much more cost effectively. 

Continue reading

by

The defendant ophthalmologist, Seemin Khan, M.D., performed cataract surgery on the plaintiff, Frances Perkins, on March 19, 2008. It was discovered after the surgery that Perkins had a chronic detached retina. The retina is the light-sensitive tissue that lines the inner surface of the eye. The optics of the eye create an image on the retina, like the film in a camera.

The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Khan was negligent for choosing not to refer her for a B-scan ocular ultrasound or to a retinal specialist before deciding whether cataract surgery would be in her best interest. Since Perkins was not a good candidate for retinal surgery, the cataract surgery was found, or alleged to be, unnecessary.

Perkins, 59, suffered ongoing chronic pain following the cataract surgery, underwent three later retinal surgeries and still has chronic left eye pain.

Continue reading

by

A 36-year-old nurse was seen by the defendant obstetrician Larry Overcash, M.D. The physician was alleged to be negligent in performing a bilateral removal of both of Ms. Fief’s ovaries. She had consented to removal of only one ovary. However, at the Peoria Day Surgery Center, both of the Fief’s ovaries were removed by Dr. Overcash, who also perforated her colon during the surgery. The perforation of the colon led to several other hospitalizations and medical expenses in excess of $200,000.

The jury’s verdict of $1.2 million against both Dr. Overcash and Woman’s Health Institute, Ltd. was made up of the following damages:

• $1,050,000 on the negligence claim which included $300,000 for past and future pain and suffering;
• $500,000 for past and future loss of normal life;
• $250,000 for medical expenses; and
• $150,000 was for medical battery because of the wrongful surgery in removal of both ovaries plus $150,000 for pain and suffering from the removal of the unnecessary surgery removing the right ovary.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court has decided an appeal as to whether or not res judicata in a refiled medical-malpractice complaint barred its refiling. In the underlying case, Brandon and Daphne Wilson claimed that Edward Hospital in Naperville, Ill., was liable for the negligence of doctors under the theory of actual and apparent agency.

The hospital was granted a summary judgment order on the actual-agent allegations and the Wilsons voluntarily dismissed their complaint, but refiled it within one year. Edward Hospital then moved to dismiss the case based on res judicata, which essentially means that the issue has already been finally adjudicated by the court.

Under the Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 468 (2008) and Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996), res judicata bars a refiled lawsuit when:

Continue reading

by

William Herring, 59, had a history of severe coronary artery disease. Complaining of chest pain, Herring was seen by his internist, Wayne Blake, M.D. Herring said his chest pain was relieved by belching.

At the doctor’s office, an electrocardiogram was done, which showed that Herring had normal rhythms. Dr. Blake prescribed a heartburn relief medicine and also recommended that Herring undergo a chemical stress test within the next month.

Less than four hours after leaving Dr. Blake’s office, Herring suffered a severe irregular heartbeat episode and then a fatal cardiac arrest. He is survived by his wife and three children.

Continue reading