Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

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

by

Some people assume that whenever there is a negative medical outcome that it is the result of medical negligence. However, in some cases there can be a poor outcome without the presence of medical malpractice. Take for instance the Lake County medical malpractice lawsuit of Estate of Patricia Nickl v. Dr. Barry S. Rosen, 08 L 1015, where the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor.

The case of Nickl arose after the 64 year-old decedent, Patricia Nickl, died within days of undergoing surgery performed by the defendant, Dr. Rosen. Nickl had a longstanding history of abdominal and gallbladder problems and had already undergone four major abdominal surgeries. These prior surgeries were a significant piece of Nickl’s medical history because it increased the number of adhesions in her abdomen. Adhesions are bands of scar tissue that tend to form around surgical sites. Because the adhesions bond together areas that weren’t previously joined, they tend to complicate surgeries and increase the risk for perforations, or holes.

However, despite the large number of adhesions in Nickl’s abdominal cavity, she was still eligible for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, i.e., the surgical removal of her gallbladder. The surgery itself was successful, but Nickl suffered from some post-operative complications. She remained hospitalized for several days longer than anticipated because of persistent pain and a lack of bowel movement.

Continue reading

by

A DuPage County medical malpractice verdict was returned in favor of the surviving family members of five day-old Isaac Diaz. Baby Isaac died after physicians delayed in performing surgery that could have prevented his death from a bowel obstruction. The $1.5 million verdict was entered in Estate of Diaz v. Central DuPage Hospital, et al, 06 L 448 (DuPage County).

Just five days after his birth, Isaac Diaz began vomiting yellow bile and had blood streaked through his stool. After the symptoms failed to resolve on their own, his mother took Isaac to Central DuPage Hospital’s emergency room. Within twenty-five minutes of his arrival, Isaac was seen by the Dr. Panfil, an emergency room doctor. Dr. Panfil took the preventive measures of placing Isaac on antibiotics and ordered an IV be placed. Then, in an attempt to figure out the source of Isaac’s vomiting and blood-streaked stool, Dr. Panfil ordered a range of labs, x-rays, and consulted with Dr. Pearce-Falls, the hospital’s pediatrician.

By the time Dr. Pearce-Falls consulted with Dr. Panfil, the x-rays results were already available. Because the x-rays were negative, Dr. Pearce-Falls elected to order an upper GI series, which would show the infant’s stomach region in more detail, possibly highlighting a problem unseen on the x-rays. Because of the severe nature of baby Isaac’s symptoms, the upper GI series was ordered STAT, meaning it was meant to be done urgently.

Continue reading

by

The right to a trial by jury is a central tenant to American law. As a result, courts tend to be reluctant to overturn a jury’s verdict. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, if a jury’s verdict is found to be in conflict with current laws, a court might overrule the verdict. Also, if a jury award contradicts the jury’s own statements and opinions, then a judge or court might be inclined to vacate the jury verdict.

The Illinois wrongful death case of Philemont Garcia, etc. v. Seneca Nursing Home, etc., 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 103085, demonstrates what happens when an jury contradicts itself. The Cook County jury awarded the decedent’s estate $1 million as compensation for Roberto Garcia’s fall to his death after he climbed out of a fifth story window while staying at Seneca Nursing Home. In theory, the jury award meant that the jury had found the defendant nursing home negligent for contributing to the decedent’s death. Yet in a response to a special interrogatory, the same jury had stated that the nursing home could not have foreseen the circumstances leading to the resident’s death.

The case facts of the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit centered around Roberto Garcia, a resident at Seneca Nursing Home. Garcia suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, along with blindness, abnormal muscle tone, and chronic restlessness. He suffered from delusional behavior and occasional hallucinations. In addition, Garcia had difficulty walking on his own and was essentially wheelchair dependent. Yet despite his physical limitations, Garcia was found wandering away and hiding at times and had made more than one attempt to try and climb out his bedroom window.

According to trial evidence, there was no record of Garcia ever being identified as presenting a risk for self-harm, suicide, or escape. As a result, no clear plan was ever developed to prevent him from climbing out of his window. The lack of preventive measures was partly explained through testimony by Garcia’s psychologist and psychiatrist, both of whom testified that they did not think that the fifth floor windows in Garcia’s room even opened. They further stated that if they had known that they did, they would have been more proactive in formulating a preventive care plan to limit Garcia from escaping through the window.

At the end of the trial, the defense submitted a special interrogatory to the jurors. A special interrogatory is a question a party submits to the jurors, typically aimed at deciding a major legal component of the case. In Garcia, the defense submitted a special interrogatory that asked whether the jurors believed it was “reasonably foreseeable” that Garcia would kill himself or act self-destructively. The Cook County jury answered in the negative, but then went on to enter a $1 million jury verdict in favor of the nursing home’s negligence.

Continue reading

by

The field of medicine is generally associated with healing – we go to our doctors when we don’t feel well and expect them to treat us. Yet a large part of medicine is also prevention. Women undergo yearly mammograms to try and catch breast cancer early on, while people with high blood pressure take medication to try and prevent heart attacks or strokes.

Doctors and nurses are responsible for identifying the risk of future medical problems and developing a treatment plan to avoid that risk. For example, some patients with decreased mobility and strength might be at risk for falling during a hospital admission or rehab stay. Therefore, nurses need to evaluate patients to determine whether or not their conditions puts them at an increased risk for falling. Once the degree of risk is determined, the medical staff can work together to create a prevention plan to insure the patient’s safety. It is when these risks are not properly evaluated and prevented that nursing malpractice and medical negligence can occur.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Sorce v. Shorehaven Health and Rehab. Ctr., 09 CV 3083 (Waukesha County), illustrates what can happen if there are not adequate fall prevention measures in place. The 76 year-old Sorce had been admitted to the Shorehaven Health and Rehabilitation Center as part of his recovery from brain surgery. During his admission, Sorce was using a walker to get around and was generally given assistance with getting up and around.

However, one day towards the end of his stay, Sorce was sitting in his recliner chair when he realized he needed to use the restroom. As was his practice, Sorce pressed his call button to request nursing assistance to the bathroom. However, as more time passed and his call continued to go unanswered, Sorce elected to try and reach his walker and the bathroom by himself. Sorce raised himself out of his recliner, took a few steps across the room, but then fell on the floor and hit his head.

Continue reading

by

A Loyola University Medical Center patient suffered brain damage after undergoing two separate surgeries during the same hospital admission. The second surgery was required to fix surgical errors made during her initial surgery. The woman’s surviving family sued the Chicago hospital for its surgical negligence and received a $2.5 million settlement.

The forty-five year-old decedent presented to Loyola University Medical Center to undergo a laparoscopic procedure to remove dense adhesions in her pelvic region. Everything appeared to go well during the surgery and the decedent was taken to the post-op care area and then transferred to the floor for additional post-operative care and monitoring.

However, she continued to complain of severe abdominal pain, above and beyond what one would expect following this type of surgery. Her pain continued despite the high levels of post-operative pain medications she was given. In addition, the decedent developed shortness of breath and began to have an increased heart rate. Together, these various symptoms indicated that perhaps something was wrong.

Continue reading

by

There’s an old saying that there are two sides to every story – in civil litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney present one side of the story to the jury while the defendant’s attorney presents the other. In order to ensure that the facts are fair and that neither party presents information to the jury that would unfairly prejudice it towards the other side, the trial judge rules on motions in limine prior to the trial.

Each side prepares its own motions in limine, which set out various evidence and testimony that it feels should be excluded from the trial. Each motion includes not only a recitation of which evidence the party seeks to exclude, but also an argument as to why that specific evidence should be excluded from the civil trial. The judge then makes the final ruling on each motion in limine. If the judge rules to exclude the evidence, then neither side may bring it up during trial. However, if the judge denies a motion in limine, then that evidence is free game.

The Illinois attorneys involved in Guski v. Raja, No. 1-10-0108 (May 10, 2011), went through this motion in limine process prior to the Illinois medical malpractice trial. The judge granted some motions, but denied others, including one of plaintiff’s motions regarding the decedent’s marijuana use. After the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor, the plaintiff sought a retrial based on the the trial court’s erroneous motion in limine rulings and the defense’s unfair closing argument.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit was critical of a Naperville hospital for its failure to appropriately monitor the vital signs of an expectant mother. As a result of the poor monitoring by the Cook County hospital, the mother not only lost her baby, but had to undergo future surgery herself. Sabine C. Miller v. Edward Hospital, et al., 05 L 1192.

In November 2004, 30 year-old Sabine Miller was brought by ambulance to Edward Hospital. She was 14 weeks pregnant and had developed severe abdominal pain and vomiting. Upon her arrival, the Naperville hospital immediately began evaluating Miller to determine whether her baby was the cause of her severe pain.

The Emergency Department was able to rule out any problems with the fetus and Miller’s pregnancy. However, in order to determine what was the cause of Miller’s abdominal pain, the staff elected to admit her for further testing and observation. Up to this point, there were no violations in the standard of care administered by the Edward Hospital staff. It was not until Miller was admitted to the hospital’s postpartum unit that the medical negligence occurred.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County wrongful death lawsuit involving the death of a 45 year-old woman was settled by the decedent’s estate for $1.35 million. The Illinois lawsuit dealt with claims of medical negligence on behalf of the defendant surgeon and the hospital where he as employed. Jerry Markbreit for the Estate of Betsy Markbreit v. Jose Velasco, M.D., et al., 07 L 8703.

The Illinois surgical malpractice began in 2004, when Ms. Markbreit was admitted to Rush North Shore Medical Center to have a benign growth on her thyroid gland. Prior testing had indicated that the benign growth was limited to the right side of Ms. Markbriet’s thyroid gland, a finding that was confirmed on the surgical report. Yet the surgeon, Dr. Jose Velasco, elected to perform a total thyroidectomy on the decedent.

The Cook County medical malpractice claim was critical of the surgeon’s decision to perform a total thyroidectomy. Ms. Markbreit had only been scheduled for a partial thyroidectomy and given the fact that her benign growth was isolated to one side of her thyroid gland there was no medical reason to perform a total thyroidectomy. This lack of medical necessity was significant because the plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit traced all of Ms. Markbreit’s subsequent medical problems and eventual death back to the unnecessary total thyroidectomy.

Continue reading

by

Medicine is a healing profession; as patients we look to our physicians to cure our ailments and relieve our pain. However, in order to heal us, doctors must first diagnose the problem – a quick and speedy diagnosis is often the key to a successful recovery. Likewise, when there is an unnecessary delay in diagnosis, oftentimes the outcome is not very favorable for the patient.

Take for instance the case of 76 year-old Shirley Cyborski, who died as a result of the failure to diagnose her colon cancer for over a year. The medical lawsuit resulting out of this misdiagnosis of cancer, Estate of Shirley Cyborski v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., et al, No. 08 L 6447, was recently settled for $2.05 million.

In 2006, Shirley presented to Advocate South Suburban Hospital for a barium enema examination. This exam is typically performed when a patient experiences a change in bowel habits, has abdominal pain or rectal bleeding, or if there is a suspicion that the patient has diverticulitis or polyps. An x-ray of Shirley’s colon was taken at the time of the barium enema exam, which showed a mass in her colon. However, the colon mass was not reported and therefore her cancer went undiagnosed.

Continue reading