Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

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

by

The Illinois Good Samaritan Act (745 ILCS 49/25 (West 2010)) states that a medical professional who, in good faith, “provides emergency care without fee to a person” should be immune from civil damages except in the case of willful or wanton misconduct. Immunity from suit was the position taken by Dr. Michael Murphy because his patient, who claimed he was injured by Murphy’s negligence, never got billed for the doctor’s emergency room services at Provena St. Mary’s Hospital. Dr. Murphy argued that he should be immune from liability for negligence after the patient filed a lawsuit against him.

The First District Appellate Court rejected that argument under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act because it found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the doctor acted in “good faith” and found that since the doctor was compensated the act did not apply.

“Nowhere in the legislative history of the act is it ever stated that the intent of the act was to immunize emergency room physicians who are paid for their time,” Justice Stuart Palmer wrote in the court’s opinion.

Continue reading

by

Lillie Teague, 74, underwent an angiogram, which is an x-ray exam that uses a dye and camera to look at the blood flow in an artery or vein. Many angiograms are used to examine the arteries near the heart, lungs, brain and the aorta. The procedure requires the use of a thin tube called a catheter placed into a blood vessel in the femoral artery at the groin. The purpose for the angiogram is to find a bulge in a blood vessel or the narrowing or blockage in a blood vessel.

In this case, Ms. Teague began bleeding from the place where the catheter was inserted; at the entry site of the femoral artery. Bleeding at the femoral artery is a known complication for an angiogram, which was done here.

The defendant nurse was alleged to have chosen not to properly and appropriately respond to the need to control the bleeding for up to 30 minutes. This caused massive blood loss. It was alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint that because of the loss of blood, Ms. Teague consequently suffered a stroke.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago federal judge entered a Chicago medical malpractice verdict in the amount of $8,8330,182 against the United States following a bench trial. In July 2004, Ernesto Maldonado was a patient at Chicago’s Mount Sinai Hospital. He was admitted because of pneumonia. A few days after the admission, a CT scan was done of Maldonado’s chest and back. The scans revealed destruction of a vertebral body in the mid-thoracic spine (T-7). Maldonado v. United States of America, et al., 06 C 4149 (January 2010).

The radiology report stated that the vertebra was destroyed. But neither Maldonado’s treating doctor, interventional radiologist, nor infectious disease physician ever followed up with treatment. The patient was never referred to an orthopedic surgeon or for a neurosurgery consultation. Five days later Mr. Maldonado was discharged and antibiotics were discontinued.

The plaintiff, Mr. Maldonado then attempted to see his attending physician at his office. But this doctor refused to see him. By August 14, 2004 the plaintiff had lost sensation in his low legs and he became urine incontinent.

Continue reading

by

After reviewing a Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit for non-economic losses, a United States District Court judge for the Northern District of Illinois awarded the plaintiff $6.7 million in non-economic damages. Maldonado v. Sinai Medical Group, No. 06 C 4149 (April 2, 2010).
The Chicago medical malpractice case was brought by a Chicago man who developed paralysis from the waist down after being discharged from Chicago’s Mt. Sinai Hospital with an ongoing spinal infection. While the Chicago hospital had diagnosed the infection and began treating it with IV antibiotics, it discharged the patient before the infection was gone.

Two weeks after his discharge, the Chicago native was unable to control his bladder or walk and was rushed to Rush University Medical Center. The ongoing spinal infection had continued to eat away at the man’s vertebrae, which resulted in the removal of portions of his spine and ribs. The plaintiff underwent six surgeries during three months of hospitalization and was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against the employees of Chicago’s Mt. Sinai Hospital. However, because the hospital’s employees were agents of the U.S. Public Health Service the Cook County medical malpractice case fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act. According to rules of the Act, the federal government was substituted for the hospital and its workers in the medical malpractice claim. The federal government admitted liability on behalf of the hospital. Therefore the only remaining issue for the judge to rule on was non-economic damages.

Continue reading