Articles Posted in Surgical Errors

by

An Illinois jury found for the plaintiff in a recent Illinois surgical malpractice lawsuit. The medical malpractice case involved claims that the defendant ophthalmologist performed an unnecessary and improper surgical procedure on the plaintiff, leaving her blind and with the loss of one of her eyes. After a one week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1.75 million in Larson v. Miller Eye Center.
At the time of the Illinois surgical malpractice, 75 year-old Shirley Larson had been a patient of ophthalmologist Dr. Miller for more than 13 years. The majority of her treatment under Dr. Miller was for glaucoma, a condition in which increased intraocular pressure promotes vision loss by causing damage to the optic nerve.

In 2003, Dr. Miller recommended that Larson undergo a new surgical procedure to treat her glaucoma. The procedure was known as endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP), which was touted as an advancement due to it allowing the surgeon to target the tissue to be treated by direct visualization with less potential damage to surrounding tissue. The ECP would include an incision in the eye, with a laser being used to reduce the amount of fluid produced by the eye.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a Cook County Circuit Court verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon in Robinson v. Boffa, No. 1-07-1128. The plaintiff had appealed the not-guilty verdict on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in allowing jury instructions that included sole proximate cause language. However, the appellate court was not persuaded to change the Illinois jury’s decision based on these arguments.

Robinson is an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit wherein the decedent died about a month after having a second surgery to remove a cancerous colon mass. The second surgery was done just a mere five days after her initial surgery to remove the cancerous tumor because the surgeon incorrectly removed a non-cancerous tissue mass during the first operation.

The decedent’s estate contended that her death was a result of the stress the second surgery placed on her body and that her death could have been avoided had the surgeon removed the correct tumor during the first procedure. However, the surgeon argued that his alleged medical negligence was in fact caused by a vague colonoscopy report which he relied upon in order to determine the location of the tumor, thereby including elements of radiology error. The surgeon also claimed the that preexisting medical conditions of chronic heart failure, diabetes, and renal failure contributed to the decedent’s death, and that therefore he was not negligent.

Continue reading

by

A whistle-blower lawsuit filed against Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center was recently unsealed, allowing the Chicago public a glimpse of the case facts. Goldberg, M.D. v. Rush University Medical Center, et al. was brought by orthopedic surgeon Robert Goldberg, M.D. against his employer, Rush University Medical Center, and fellow surgeons alleging that the orthopedic department routinely overbooked its operating rooms and violated Medicare billing rules.

Goldberg alleges that Rush’s orthopedic center operated as a business that emphasized quantity over quality, a claim that is supported by further allegations that the during 2004 and 2005 the orthopedic center regularly overbooked its operating rooms and relied heavily on its residents to perform surgeries. The assumption is that by overbooking these rooms the surgical center’s patients were at a heightened risk for surgical errors and potential medical malpractice.

According to Medicare billing rules teaching surgeons, like the six surgeons named in this lawsuit, are required to be present in the operating room during key portions of the procedures. The case was filed as a whistle-blower lawsuit because Medicare is a federal institution, and as such falls under the federal government’s umbrella. A whistle-blower claim is one in which the government has been victimized, such as by falsifying federal billing records.

Continue reading

by

As patients we trust that our doctors are operating in our best interests rather than their own. Furthermore we expect to be treated not as dollar signs, but as people.
Unfortunately a recent Cook County medical malpractice case that came before an Illinois Appellate Court demonstrates that this is not always the reality. In Martinez v. Elias, et al., No. 1-08-0265, the plaintiff claimed that an orthopedic surgeon performed unnecessary surgery on his back and was motivated to do so for financial gain.

The trial jury agreed with the plaintiff and found against the defendant surgeon. The defendant doctor appealed the case on the claim that the trial court had erred in allowing the admission of evidence of the surgeon’s financial motive for the surgery. However, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the Cook County medical malpractice verdict.

Continue reading