Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

Despite testimony that a quicker response by a Cook County hospital’s staff could have increased a patient’s chance of survival by ten percent, a Chicago jury finds in favor of the defendant doctors and hospital. The Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit of Estate of Edward W. Dornhecker, deceased v. Dr. Robert E. Applebaum, SSM Regional Health Services d/b/a St. Francis Hospital & Health Center, 07 L 13665, was brought by the decedent’s family after he died of heart surgery complications.

In 2005, Edward Dornhecker underwent coronary artery bypass graph surgery at St. Francis Hospital, now called MetroSouth Medical Center, in Blue Island, Illinois. The surgery was performed by Dr. Robert Applebaum and all reports indicated that the surgery had gone well. However, the next evening, Dornhecker began to experience problems breathing. His oxygenation progressively worsened to the point that he needed to be intubated transferred to the ICU.
Upon his transfer to the ICU at 4:00 a.m., one of the nurses noted a foul-smelling, brown liquid coming from the decedent’s chest. The liquid was coming from the area from where a chest drainage tube had been removed the prior morning. The nurse called the on-call cardiologist and pulmonologist to report a “foul-smelling fecal matter” oozing from Dornhecker’s chest. However, it was not until Dr. Applebaum arrived at the hospital hours later that anything was done.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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