Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Jennifer, a 25-year-old student, began experiencing severe headaches and visual disturbances. Several days later she went to a hospital emergency room. She told the ER staff  she was not prone to headaches and that she was currently taking oral contraception. Jennifer was diagnosed with a complex migraine headache.

Several hours later however, she developed slurred speech, tingling and paralysis in her arm along with low blood pressure. An attending physician ordered a CT scan of Jennifer’s head, which was interpreted by a radiologist showing no evidence of acute hemorrhage. Jennifer’s condition continued to deteriorate, and she began experiencing seizures. 

Finally, she was transferred to another hospital, where a second CT scan showed bilateral intracranial hemorrhages caused by thrombosis or a stroke. The doctors ordered brain surgery, which required a long and extensive rehabilitation program. She now has right-sided weakness and speech problems and requires lifetime medications.

Continue reading

by

Bozena Smith filed a medical negligence complaint against two doctors who were residents in 2006 when she claims she was injured in postsurgical treatment.

After the fact discovery was done by each of the parties, and the trial judge entered a deadline of Sept. 13, 2010 for the plaintiff to disclose any experts and opinions. Bozena disclosed one expert she had hired to render an opinion. In the Rule 213(f)(3) disclosures, the plaintiff stated that the doctor retained as an expert would provide expert opinions that both the residents, Drs. Murphy and McFadden, deviated from the standard of care in treating Smith, which caused her injuries. 

However, on Nov. 8, 2010, when the plaintiff’s expert doctor appeared for his deposition, he testified that he was withdrawing his adverse opinions against the residents and then testified that he held no opinions that implicated the residents in any substandard medical care of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff’s expert testified as follows:

Continue reading

by

Joseph Farias, age 29, began treatment with the defendant internist, Yolanda Co, M.D., in February 2002. He came to the doctor with complaints of constipation for three years and rectal bleeding. Dr. Co performed a rectal exam and ordered a colonoscopy, which came back negative. There was no cause determined as to why Farias had rectal bleeding.

In October 2003, Farias returned to Dr. Co with new complaints of rectal bleeding. That visit was a cause of what became a medical malpractice lawsuit. This time Dr. Co did a digital rectal exam and diagnosed internal hemorrhoids. In Farias’s Cook County complaint, it was alleged that the internal hemorrhoids could not be diagnosed through digital examination unless the internal hemorrhoids were visualized outside the anus. The standard of care as contended required Dr. Co to perform an anoscopy to properly visualize the hemorrhoids. It was also asserted that should Dr. Co not have the facility to do the anoscopy,  she should have referred Farias to another physician such as a gastroenterologist. 

Dr. Co defended the case by saying that she did observe prolapsing internal hemorrhoids (protruding out of the rectum), even though her chart  stated only internal hemorrhoids. Dr. Co testified that the standard of care required a treating internist such as herself to grade and chart the severity of an internal hemorrhoid, but she admittedly didn’t do that in October 2003.

Continue reading

by

In November 2006, the defendant surgeon, Dr. Hodgett, performed a laparoscopic biopsy on a 72-year-old woman, Mary Backes.  The purpose was to diagnose a suspected lymphoma in her retroperitoneal area, which is behind the abdomen. The biopsy was done at Provena Nursing Medical Center in Aurora, Ill. 

Another defendant, Dr. Sayeed, was the patient’s primary care physician. Following the biopsy, Backes experienced blood pressure drops, low urine output and rapid respiration. 

Her family maintained in the lawsuit that Dr. Hodges and Dr. Sayeed chose not to recognize that Backes’s duodenum had been perforated during the biopsy procedure and failed to realize that her post-op symptoms were indicative of developing sepsis. It was also claimed that the doctors chose not to timely return Backes to surgery for exploration and repair of the perforation to attempt to save her life.

Continue reading

by

Neal Nuss, age 73, was transported to St. James Hospital in Blue Island, Ill., on Sept. 5, 2006 following an auto accident. Nuss was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with subdural hematoma; he was evaluated by a neurosurgeon. 

Over the next three days, doctors determined that the subdural hematoma was not big enough to operate on. Nuss was discharged from the hospital on Sept. 8, 2006. The doctors planned to monitor his condition as an outpatient. The monitoring was overseen by the defendant Dr. Cheryl Woodson, the patient’s primary care physician.Dr. Woodson instructed Nuss to return as an outpatient to undergo a CT scan at St. James Hospital for comparison. Nuss followed up as directed and saw Dr. Woodson on September 12 and underwent the CT scan on September 13. The scans were interpreted by radiologist, Dr. Green.

The doctors concluded that Nuss’s condition was stable and his next follow-up visit was planned with the neurosurgeon five days ahead.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial judge’s ruling in a medical malpractice case because the judge ruled that the defendants had no right of reduction on the jury’s verdict.  

In this case, Charles Perkey, as administrator of the estate of Leanne Perkey (his wife), sued the doctors and hospital because of a delay in diagnosing Leanne’s pancreatic cancer in a timely manner. 

After a jury trial, the verdict, which included $310,000 for Leanne’s medical expenses, was not reduced when the trial judge refused the defendants’ motion to reduce the judgment under Section 2-1205 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. 

Continue reading

by

 

Fifty-year-old Dan Hebel suffered a rope burn while on a fishing trip in August 2004. Eventually he was referred to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Craig Williams, at Illinois Bone & Joint Institute in Morton Grove.He first complained of an infectious process in his hand on August 23, 2004.One week later, Dr. Williams gave Hebel a steroid injection.The injection, however, caused the infection to worsen.

In this lawsuit, Hebel contended that the steroid injection was contraindicated by the underlying infection. Dr. Williams referred Hebel to Dr. Robert Citronberg for infectious disease management. Drs. Williams and Citronberg became co-treating physicians. Sometimes infections like this require antibiotic treatment and/or surgical involvement.

On November 9, 2004, Dr. Williams performed an incision and drainage procedure. Specimens from the surgery were sent for study and cultures. The pathology results were sent to both physicians, but the culture results were sent only to Dr. Williams and never sent to Dr. Citronberg.

Continue reading

by

 

The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District reversed a jury’s verdict for defendants, which included OSF Healthcare System, in the Circuit Court of McLean County.  The case centered around an injury and subsequent death of a 3-year-old boy, Christian Rivera, in 2003. The jury trial was held in July 2011. 

During the trial, the family of Christian offered its expert witness, Dr. Finley Brown, to testify as a medical expert in family practice.

The defendants were allowed by the trial judge to cross-examine Dr. Brown for the issue related to his annual earnings as an expert witness for an 8-year period. Plaintiff’s counsel had argued against the broad timeframe, but the trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion to limit the timeframe. Defense used this testimony to say the jury that Dr. Brown was a “go-to guy for expert opinions.”

Continue reading

by

In a May 16, 2013 New York Times opinion page editorial, written by assistant professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, Joanna  C. Schwartz, discussed the Affordable Care Act in relation to medical malpractice lawsuits. The article was titled, “Learning from Litigation.” The thrust of the article is that new evidence contradicts the “conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety . . .”  Professor Schwartz says that the opposite appears to be occurring;  that with more openness and transparency, hospitals are responding to the risk of litigation in positive ways.

Professor Schwartz interviewed dozens of hospital risk managers who confirmed that a hospital’s approach to lawsuits has begun to change. She says that hospitals have become more open to handling medical errors up front and are apologizing to patients when mistakes do happen in some cases.

The given reason that hospitals are more open to these types of solutions is that in disclosing errors up front, hospitals and patients tend to resolve matters much earlier, reasonably and much more cost effectively. 

Continue reading

by

Joyce Bonner was injured in a fall and lost four of her front teeth. She received treatment from dentist Dr. Elliott Ostro to repair the damage. Ostro recommended four implants to replace the teeth. However, Ostro did not take x-rays or make molds of Bonner’s mouth before starting his work.

More than a year later, Ostro still had not managed to complete the implant work. Bonner stopped seeing him and started with a new dentist in 2009. The new dentist gave his opinion that Ostro had not properly prepared Bonner for the implants and restoration of her teeth. Bonner later filed a lawsuit against Ostro.

At the trial, Bonner called dentist Dr. Loren Goldstein to testify as an expert witness as to the standard of care required for implant surgery. Goldstein testified that Ostro had deviated from the standard of care by failing to take x-rays or molds of Bonner’s mouth before starting surgery.

Continue reading