Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

A 20-year-old new mother identified as Ms. Doe collapsed at her home a week after delivering her baby prematurely. Two paramedics employed by Capital Health System Inc. arrived at her home. A student paramedic was training with the paramedics and was allowed to establish and monitor Ms. Doe’s airway before she was transported to the hospital. At the hospital, it was discovered that Ms. Doe’s endotracheal tube had been placed incorrectly.

Ms. Doe later died and was survived by her father and her infant child.

Ms. Doe’s father sued Capital Health System claiming that it chose not to act in good faith and allowed the student ENT to attempt to intubate Ms. Doe.
Continue reading

by

Albert Ragin experienced unexplained weight loss and night sweating. At the time he was in his 80s. CT scans without contrast of his chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed a left kidney cyst, but there were no other kidney abnormalities.

About a year later, in 2013, a renal artery Doppler test showed a possible aortic dissection. Ragin subsequently underwent several CT scans with contrast.

An employee of the defendant in this case, Advanced Radiology, interpreted the CT scans as showing no aortic dissection and no kidney abnormalities except for the several cysts in both kidneys.
Continue reading

by

Stephanie Hollingsworth, 26, suffered from lupus and bilateral arm and leg pain. She was admitted to a hospital’s cardiac care unit where she was diagnosed as having acute vasculitis secondary to Sjogren’s syndrome, an immune system disorder.

The rheumatologist assigned to her care was Dr. Yvonne Sherrer, who ordered a STAT dermatology consultation and a skin biopsy, which showed necrotizing vasculitis. Hollingsworth, who was taking broad-spectrum antibiotics, developed a foot drop. Neurological assessments showed abnormalities of her lower extremities.

Dr. Sherrer transferred her to another facility three days later. Staff at this hospital administered Cytoxan for her necrotizing vasculitis on or around the third day of that admission.
Continue reading

by

Under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure Section 2-1009, an Illinois plaintiff is allowed to voluntarily dismiss all or part of a claim without prejudice before a trial or a hearing begins. The statute allows this process upon payment of costs. Related to Section 2-1009 is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e), which states, “A party shall not be permitted to avoid compliance with discovery deadlines, orders or applicable rules by voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit.”

Continuing, Rule 219 says: “In establishing discovery deadlines and ruling on permissible discovery and testimony, the court shall consider discovery undertaken (or the absence of same), any misconduct, and orders entered in prior litigation involving a party. . .”

In the case of Boehle v. OSF Healthcare System, a medical-malpractice lawsuit, the claim was for a failure to diagnose and treat a cancerous growth in the spine of the patient.
The alleged medical negligence led to the death of the plaintiff’s son.
Continue reading

by

The New York State Appellate Court has ruled that an orthopedic resident was not liable to a patient injured during a knee replacement surgery.

In this case, Carol Blendowski underwent a knee replacement surgery that was performed by Dr. Michael Wiese and Dr. Marc O’Donnell, who was a third-year orthopedic resident.

During the surgery, Blendowski suffered an injury to her peroneal and tibial nerves. These nerve injuries were permanent.
Continue reading

by

A medical malpractice lawsuit arising from the death of Jeannette Turner first resulted in a jury verdict of $22.1 million in this medical malpractice, wrongful death lawsuit. Sadly, Turner died the night before the jury’s verdict. According to the report of this Illinois Appellate Court case, her death transformed her medical-malpractice lawsuit into a survival claim for Joi Jefferson, Turner’s daughter and the special representative of her estate. As a result, Jefferson was unable to recover compensation that was awarded for any injuries Turner would have suffered in the future.

“Compensatory tort damages are intended to compensate plaintiffs, not to punish defendants,” Justice Mary Anne Mason wrote in the 23-page opinion. “We would run afoul of this principle if we allowed Jeannette’s estate to collect an award for future injuries Jeannette will no longer suffer. For this reason, we limit plaintiff’s recovery to compensation for injuries Jeannette suffered prior to her death.”

Turner had sued Mercy Hospital & Medical Center in 2006 claiming that the hospital’s doctors chose not to care for her after installing a tracheostomy tube in her windpipe. A blood clot developed, causing her to go into respiratory arrest. She suffered serious brain damage after she was without oxygen for 20-25 minutes.
Continue reading

by

Leslie Pederson, 40, underwent a laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy that was done by a gynecologist affiliated with Buffalo Clinic, P.A. During this procedure, the doctor reinserted the trocar without using a camera for direct visualization.

As a result, Pederson suffered a 5-mm laceration to her right common iliac artery that required an emergency laparotomy.
As manager for a transportation company, she missed several months from her job and was later fired. She had lost income of $47,000. Pederson went back to school to train for a different job and profession.

Pederson and her husband filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Clinic claiming that it was liable for the doctor’s negligence for reinserting the trocar without a camera. A trocar is a surgical device usually made out of metal or plastic and sharpened at its end. Trocars are mostly used in laparoscopic surgery. The instrument has a sharp-pointed end with a cannula used to insert the cannula into the body cavity as a drainage device. It’s used to withdraw fluid from the surgical area.
Continue reading

by

A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed in which the physician’s insurer, Illinois State Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange (ISMIE), refused to pay its $3 million policy limit to settle the case, which was brought by Alizabeth and Alvin Hana. The suit was filed against Drs. Albert and Joyce Chams and Chams Women’s Health Care. At the jury trial, the verdict for the Hanas totaled $6.1 million.

After ISMIE paid its policy limit plus post-judgment interest at 9% and an offset was applied based on a pretrial settlement with other defendants, the doctors were left personally liable for $1.35 million.

The Chamses assigned their bad-faith claim against ISMIE to the Hanas in return for a promise to not enforce the judgment. Then the Hanas sued ISMIE for allegedly breaching its duty to settle.
Continue reading

by

Nicole Incrocci was just 15 when she was bitten by a poisonous snake on her lower left leg. Her leg continued to swell over the next month. When she developed right flank pain, coughing and vomiting, she went to a hospital emergency room where a doctor diagnosed pneumonia, prescribed an antibiotic and discharged her to home.

Nicole’s condition worsened despite the administration of multiple antibiotics. She was later hospitalized. A family physician, Dr. Monique Casey-Bolden, who was aware of the pneumonia diagnosis, Nicole’s chest pain and her history of coughing up blood, diagnosed worsening pneumonia and prescribed different antibiotics.

Nicole’s condition continued to worsen. She developed rapid heart and respiratory rates for which Dr. Casey-Bolden ordered oxygen, albuterol treatments, Tylenol, and an EKG and chest-x-ray.
Continue reading

by

In this case of medical malpractice, the trial court refused to allow the plaintiff to name a pediatric oncologist as one of her expert witnesses. The plaintiff, Kelli Boehle, used what is called a “strategic voluntary dismissal” in order to name a new additional expert. Right after refiling the case under Section 13-217 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, Boehle listed the same pediatric oncologist that the trial court had originally denied as being tardy.

The defendants relied on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e), which lists a set of authorized consequences for “refusal to comply” with discovery/pretrial rules and orders. They moved to bar Boehle from using the oncologist as an expert in the refiled case.

Although the trial judge denied the motion because Boehle had not engaged in any sanctionable conduct in the first case, the judge certified two questions for immediate review under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308. Both questions raised to call for yes/no answers focused on whether Rule 219(e) should be interpreted to “prevent Boehle from naming the oncologist as one of her experts in the revived litigation.
Continue reading