Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

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

by

The defendant ophthalmologist, Seemin Khan, M.D., performed cataract surgery on the plaintiff, Frances Perkins, on March 19, 2008. It was discovered after the surgery that Perkins had a chronic detached retina. The retina is the light-sensitive tissue that lines the inner surface of the eye. The optics of the eye create an image on the retina, like the film in a camera.

The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Khan was negligent for choosing not to refer her for a B-scan ocular ultrasound or to a retinal specialist before deciding whether cataract surgery would be in her best interest. Since Perkins was not a good candidate for retinal surgery, the cataract surgery was found, or alleged to be, unnecessary.

Perkins, 59, suffered ongoing chronic pain following the cataract surgery, underwent three later retinal surgeries and still has chronic left eye pain.

Continue reading

by

A new study shows that energy drinks may increase blood pressure and lead to a dangerously high heartbeat.

The study is an analysis of seven previous studies. It showed that these drinks appeared to disturb the heart’s natural rhythm. Over time, the drinks may lead to an irregular heartbeat or death and raise blood pressure, according to the study. The study results were presented by the American Heart Association on March 21 during a convention in New Orleans.

Two commonly sold energy drinks are Monster Energy Assault and Rockstar.

Continue reading

by

More than 15,000 women die of ovarian cancer each year, which makes it the fifth leading cause of death among American women. A new study shows that 60 percent of the women who develop ovarian cancer do not receive the medical care they need that could prolong their lives. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s (SGO) annual meeting on women’s cancer presented the study March 11, 2013.

This research was conducted on more than 13,000 patients from 1999 through 2006. Researchers who conducted the study said the lack of proper care for the women patients was the result of inexperience among doctors and hospital staff.

Women with ovarian cancer should be treated by surgeons who see a lot of patients each year with the disease, researchers found. They also said the women should stay in hospitals where a high volume of women with ovarian cancer are treated once the disease is diagnosed.

Continue reading