Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the limitations period for a patient’s medical malpractice claim began when this patient received the prostate cancer diagnosis.

Richard Bonness had a family history of prostate cancer. He underwent Prostate‑Specific Antigen (PSA) tests multiple times after his father’s death from the same disease.

In late 2010, he became the patient of physician Dr. Joel Armitage and the two allegedly discussed Bonness’s desire to be screened for prostate cancer.
Continue reading

by

Qiao Chen, 36, underwent an emergency cesarean section to deliver her twins. After the delivery, she experienced severe uterine bleeding and was transferred to the hospital’s post-anesthesia care unit.

Chen’s bleeding continued, her vital signs deteriorated, and she went into hemorrhagic shock. Hemorrhagic shock occurs when the body begins to shut down due to large amounts of blood loss. If the bleeding isn’t stopped immediately, the risk of death is great.

The emergency room staff administered packed red blood cells of fluid. The treating obstetrician, Dr. Thomas Tuan-Tong Lee, attempted to obtain additional blood products, but they were not readily available.
Continue reading

by

Mr. Doe suffered a fall at work and underwent a chest X-ray and a CT scan. He was diagnosed as having multiple rib fractures and a small pulmonary nodule in his right upper lung. Several weeks later, a PET scan revealed mild hypermetabolic activity in the right upper lobe of his lung, which prompted a CT-guided core biopsy.

The biopsy specimen was sent to pathology but was too small. Mr. Doe did not undergo a repeat biopsy.

Approximately eight years later, Mr. Doe suffered another fall and underwent a chest X-ray. This revealed 2.9-cm lung density. Mr. Doe was later diagnosed as having Stage III adenocarcinoma of the lung. Adenocarcinoma is a type of cancer that starts in the mucous glands inside of organs, including the lungs.
Continue reading

by

Ms. Doe was in her late 30s and suffered from multiple symptoms, including headaches. She consulted Dr. Roe, a neurologist, who performed a clinical examination. Dr. Roe diagnosed Ms. Doe as having multiple sclerosis (MS).

For approximately the next seven years, Ms. Doe underwent chemotherapy treatment and took numerous medications, resulting in complications that included pulmonary embolism, infertility, and a compromised immune system. Now hospitalized for a sleep study, a medical provider told Ms. Doe that she did not have MS and never had the condition.

Doe sued Dr. Roe, the neurologist, alleging that he misdiagnosed her migraine condition as MS. Among other things, Doe argued that Dr. Roe chose not to confirm the diagnosis through a brain MRI and that previous imaging studies showed no evidence of lesions on her spine or brain.
Continue reading

by

Joseph Barsuli, 49, was experiencing aches and left-sided neck pain. The doctor who examined him diagnosed a virus. He then developed numbness in his finger and arm, prompting his admission to a hospital.

At the hospital, a neurologist ordered a CT scan of the cervical spine, which was read by a radiologist, Dr. Wayne Liou, an employee of Virtual Radiological Corp. Dr. Liou interpreted the test as normal; however, the next day, another local radiologist reviewed the film and diagnosed a cervical epidural abscess.

A spinal epidural abscess is an accumulation of pus in the epidural space that can compress the spinal cord. The diagnosis of this is by MRI or by myelography followed by a CT scan. Treatment involves antibiotics and sometimes the drainage of the abscess. The symptoms of this condition are pain, fever and neurologic deficits.
Continue reading

by

A South Carolina appellate court has found that a hospital was not responsible to injured patients for choosing not to make sure that a physician had a valid medical malpractice insurance policy in place. Two former surgery patients sued the Laurens County Healthcare System alleging that the hospital was liable for deciding not to ensure that the plaintiffs’ treating surgeon, Dr. Byron Brown, maintain sufficient medical malpractice insurance coverage.

The plaintiffs obtained default judgments against Dr. Brown. They in turn asserted that such a duty was included in the hospital admissions contract, which included “services to be rendered” to the patient. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital.

In affirming the summary judgment order, the appeals panel stated that under the plain language of the admissions contract, it is not reasonable to conclude that the term “services to be rendered” refers to the act of monitoring a treating physician’s compliance with medical malpractice insurance requirements imposed by the hospital. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the hospital had negligently granted privileges to Dr. Brown.
Continue reading

by

Jeanette Olken underwent successful self-catheterization procedures fter undergoing implantation of a sling to treat urinary incontinence. When she later experienced difficulty self-catheterizing, she went to a hospital emergency room.

Olken, 55, saw an emergency department physician and nurse who unsuccessfully attempted to catheterize her.

Dr. Joseph Zajac, a urologist, attempted to dilate Olken’s urethra using a metal sounds dilator. Dr. Zajac tore Olken’s urethra and vagina, and he disrupted the newly implanted sling.
Continue reading

by

Mildred Vick, 65, underwent a Salpingo-oophorectomy performed by gynecologist Dr. Lawrence Bandy. Salpingo-oophorectomy is the surgery to remove the ovary fallopian tubes. This procedure is used to treat a variety of conditions, usually ovarian cancer.

Following this procedure, metabolic testing showed an abnormal glomerular filtration rate and creatinine level. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is a test used to check how well the kidneys are functioning. It estimates show much blood passes through the glomerular each minute. Glomerular are the tiny fibers in the kidneys that filter waste from the blood.

Creatinine is a waste product produced by muscles from the breakdown of a compound called creatine. Creatinine is removed from the body by the kidneys, which filter almost all of it from the blood and releases it in the urine. The creatinine test measures the amount of creatinine in the blood and/or urine.
Continue reading

by

William Pratt, 75, a bilateral leg amputee, went to the Wills Eye Hospital emergency room at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. He complained of eye pain and tearing. During his medical workup, Pratt’s eyes were dilated. He was then treated with an antibiotic eye ointment.

The attending physician discharged Pratt with a diagnosis of corneal abrasion. Pratt’s vision was impaired. He steered his motorized wheelchair over cement steps while leaving the hospital. He fell over, and his wheelchair fell on top of him, causing him to suffer a spinal cord injury and a subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Pratt underwent surgery but, unfortunately, he later died. He was survived by five adult children. One of the Pratt children, on behalf of the estate, sued Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Wills Eye Hospital, alleging that its staff chose not to advise Pratt of the need for assistance following his discharge.
Continue reading

by

Almost seven years into this lawsuit, after discovery had been closed and with a summary judgment deadline looming, the defendants in this case, Dr. Partha Ghosh and Wexford Health Sources Inc., raised the affirmative defense of res judicata for the first time. This was an unexpected motion to dismiss an amended complaint. When the plaintiff, Alnoraindus Burton, responded that the defense had been waived or forfeited, while the defendants argued that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999), required a district court to allow any and all new affirmative defenses whenever a plaintiff amends a complaint in any way. The district court judge in this case agreed with that decision and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In this appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The court stated that the standard for amending pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 15 continues to govern the raising of new affirmative defenses even when an amended complaint is filed.

This appeals panel stated that Massey held that a defendant is entitled to add a new affirmative defense prompted by an amended complaint that changes the scope of the case in a relevant way. Massey does not, however, require a district court to allow any and all new defenses and response to any amendment to a complaint, without regard for the substance of the amendment and its relationship to the new defenses. Rather, a district court must exercise its sound discretion under Rules 8 and 15 in deciding whether to allow the late addition of a new affirmative defense.
Continue reading