Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

In TV and movie trial dramas, we are always shown a jury hotly debating over the case facts, with one or two jurors holding out against the rest of the jury. However, in Illinois, in order for a jury verdict to stand it needs to be unanimous. This means that if even one of the jurors cannot agree with the rest of the jury, then the judge finds the jury to be deadlocked and declares a mistrial.

This occurred in the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Steven Prehn, deceased v. Dr. Sandeep Amin, University Anesthesiologists S.C., 07 L 1115. After the jury debated for over ten hours over the course of two days it was still unable to reach an unanimous decision. While nine jurors were in favor of the plaintiff, the remaining three jurors were in favor of the defendant doctor.

Prehn involved the death of a 46 year-old father of three from a pain medication overdose. Steven Prehn had visited Dr. Amin, a pain management specialists, at his Rush Pain Center facility with complaints of chronic pain. Dr. Amin prescribed Methadone, an opiate or narcotic medication typically prescribed to treat moderate to severe pain. Twenty-six hours after the office visit, Prehn was found dead at his home from a Methadone overdose.

Continue reading

by

As patients, we entrust our health and well-being to our physicians and rely on their expertise to make us well. Perhaps this trust is nowhere more obvious than in Intensive Care Units (ICU), where most patients’ lives are hanging in the balance.
The wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Tyrone Holliday v. Dr. Stephanie Panush, et al., 06 L 12318, dealt with an ICU patient who died while under the care of various ICU medical staff. Tyrone Holliday was admitted to the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center’s Neuro ICU unit after suffered a stroke in November 2005. The stroke had affected Mr. Holliday’s breathing to the point that he needed to have a tracheostomy tube placed.

The tracheostomy tube would control Mr. Holliday’s breathing; without the tube he was unable to breath on his own. According to the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit filed by Mr. Holliday’s estate, he died as a result of negligent treatment and care related to his tracheostomy tube. The allegations arose after Mr. Holliday’s tracheostomy tube became dislodged just 24 hours after it was placed. Mr. Holliday suffered respiratory arrest and died shortly thereafter.

Continue reading

by

Jury instructions are invaluable in helping jurors make decisions that are in accordance with the law. It is through jury instructions that jurors are able to understand what questions they need to answer and how. Yet when a jury is given incorrect jury instructions it can bias its opinion and result in an unfair outcome.
In the medical malpractice lawsuit of Karen Graham, etc. v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2012 IL App (1st) 102609, an Illinois appellate court found that the Cook County jury was given an incorrect jury instruction. The court also found that the improper jury instruction might have influenced the jury’s verdict. As a result, a new medical malpractice trial was ordered, this time with only the correct jury instructions being delivered to the jury.

The case facts in Graham involve the suicide of a 49 year-old woman who had been admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Upon admission to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Marilee Graham was heard expressing regret that she had not died. Another note in her chart stated that she was “falling apart mentally and emotionally” and was still in “severe emotional pain.”

Continue reading

by

For over twenty-five years, Robert Kreisman has been a member of Chicago’s Union League Club and has helped support its motto of “commitment to community and country.” As part of its commitment to examining critical social issues, the Union League Club (ULC) hosted a forum examining the role race plays in access to quality healthcare. “Race and Healthcare: Examining the Disparities” featured a panel of doctors who spoke about their observations of the role of race in Chicago’s healthcare system.

The event was moderated by Dr. Terry Mason. Dr. Mason is currently the Chief Medical Officer of the Cook County Health & Hospital System (CCHHS) and post Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health. As moderator, Dr. Mason provided a brief history of the disparity that exists in healthcare delivered to different classes of Americans.

He then introduced the two panelists, Dr. Anthony LoSasso and Dr. Carl Bell, who then spoke to the various government policies and clinical considerations that perpetuate the healthcare disparity. Dr. LoSasso serves as a faculty member of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois Chicago. Dr. Bell is an internationally recognized author, lecturer, and psychiatrist who advocates for violence prevention among mental health patients.

Continue reading

by

Cancer misdiagnosis lawsuits make up a fair share of medical malpractice lawsuits. However, most of those misdiagnosis lawsuits deal with a delay in diagnosis that results in a fatal outcome for the plaintiff. Whereas in Pamela Chouinard v. Dr. Janis Atkinson, North Shore Pathology Consultants S.C., 08 L 9295, the misdiagnosis claim centered on a false positive cancer diagnosis which led to an unnecessary surgery.

The Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was brought by Pamela Chouinard following the removal of her thyroid gland. While Chouinard had initially been told the surgery was necessary because she had thyroid cancer, a biopsy taken after the surgery showed her thyroid to be benign and cancer free. Chouinard then sued Dr. Atkinson for misdiagnosing her alleged cancer and causing her to undergo thyroid surgery.

The case begins in July 2006 when 62 year-old Chouinard is found to have an enlarged thyroid gland. In order to determine the cause, she underwent a fine needle aspiration of her thyroid. The results showed multiple nodules on Chouinard’s thyroid, including a cold nodule, which is a common sign of thyroid cancer. Based on the thyroid aspiration results, the reviewing pathologist, Dr. Atkinson, entered a positive finding of malignant cancer of the papillary thyroid.

Continue reading

by

While some doctors are working to create cures for cancer, others are working to create effective solutions to combat the destructive effects of certain types of cancer. Take for example the recent breakthroughs in tissue engineering that allowed doctors to replace the cancerous windpipe of a Baltimore man with a new, synthetic windpipe. While a similar procedure had been performed on a Swedish man, this is the first time an American has undergone such a procedure.

The surgery was possible thanks to the efforts of Dr. Paolo Macchiarini and his colleagues at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. Dr. Macchiarin is the director of the Advanced Center for Translational Regenerative Medicine and has been working in the field of tissue engineering. His goal is to effectively reproduce tissues and organs outside of the body, a field that is undergoing a surge in success thanks to advances in stem cell research.

Christopher Lyles, the 30 year-old Baltimore man who received the synthetic windpipe transplant, had been diagnosed with inoperable tracheal cancer. However, following his transplant surgery, he was quoted telling a New York Times reporter, “I’m just thankful for a second chance at life.”

Continue reading

by

As we enter the short, cold days of winter, we remember the advice our parents gave us as we’d leave the house to brave the cold: bundle up, put on a hat, and zip up your jacket. As we ourselves grow older and become parents, it is important we ensure that our own parents and grandparents receive the best possible care. And while nursing home facilities are created to help facilitate this care, the reality is that not all nursing homes are doing so.

This is why in July 2010, Illinois enacted increased regulations to its Illinois Nursing Home Safety Act (SB3226) (Public Act 96-1372). While Illinois’s Nursing Home Care Act was first signed into law in 1979, the 2010 amendments were aimed at increasing the quality of care and regulations for nursing home facilities.

The changes came after a series of articles in The Chicago Tribune highlighted the gross nursing home abuses going on in Illinois’ nursing home facilities. Because of overcrowding and understaffing problems, many Illinois nursing home residents were housed with potentially dangerous residents. Many nursing homes were accepting residents with criminal records or mental health diagnoses and housing them alongside geriatric residents without providing adequate security measures. As a result, an increased number of nursing home residents were getting abused, not by the staff, but by fellow nursing home residents.

Continue reading

by

When a civil lawsuit is settled, both parties can agree on whether or not to disclose various aspects of the lawsuit and subsequent settlement. For example, it is common for high profile cases to include a stipulation that neither party will disclose the specifics of the settlement, leaving the public to guess at the amount and terms of the settlement. However, a recent Illinois nursing home malpractice settlement included more unusual terms: neither party would disclose the names of the other party.

The Cook County nursing home lawsuit arose after an 86 year-old woman developed multiple pressure sores all over her body. Pressure sores are a common problem in many nursing homes and can develop when the nursing home resident is not turned or repositioned often enough. In this particular case, the decedent, who we will call Jane Doe, developed sepsis from the multiple pressure sores around her body and ended up dying ten months later.

Ms. Doe’s family brought a nursing home malpractice lawsuit against the unnamed nursing home facility in which they alleged that the nursing home was negligent in that it had failed to develop an appropriate skin care plan to prevent the breakdown of Ms. Doe’s skin. In addition, the complaint alleged that the nursing home had failed to reposition Ms. Doe in a timely manner and did not keep her developing wounds clean.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago jury examined the question of what duty of care does a surgeon owe his patients following a surgery in the medical malpractice lawsuit of Marvin Rieker v. Libby Kristal, M.D., 08 L 90 (LaSalle County). For example, is the surgeon required to keep an eye on his patient’s care only when he/she is in the hospital, or is he required to be the follow up person for any questions related to the surgery even after the patient has gone home?

The case in question involved a cataract eye surgery that ophthalmologist Dr. Libby Kristal performed on Marvin Rieker. Almost from the start, the 79 year-old Rieker began to experience problems. Following the cataract surgery, Rieker began to complain of pain and redness in his eye. Dr. Kristal attributed Rieker’s complaints to the regular side effects of cataract surgery and told Rieker that his eye would take some time to heal.

However, the following day Rieker was still complaining of severe pain and redness that had not subsided. And while Dr. Kristal was out of town, she referred Rieker to an optometrist for evaluation. That optometrist recommended that Rieker be referred to a retinal surgeon within a few days and reported his findings to Dr. Kristal. Dr. Kristal authorized an increase in Rieker’s medications and assured Rieker that she would call him the next morning to follow up.

However, Dr. Kristal did not actually call Rieker until mid-afternoon and did not even see him until several hours after that. By then it was too late for Rieker; he had permanently lost his vision in the operated eye. In addition, the extent of damage required that he later have his entire eye removed and replaced with a prosthetic eye. Rieker filed a medical malpractice focusing on Dr. Kristal’s alleged surgical error.

Continue reading

by

In Illinois, the statute of limitations governing civil cases, e.g. medical malpractice, product liability, and personal injury cases, is typically two years. However, the Illinois Appellate Court recently revisited exactly when that two-year statute begins in its analysis of the “discovery rule” as it relates to Mitsias v. I-Flow, 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 101126 (Sept. 23, 2011).

The discovery rule refers to the general rule that the statute begins when a plaintiff knew or should have know about the cause for his injury. The injury in question in Mitsias deals with both a medical malpractice claim and a later product liability lawsuit involving the plaintiff’s shoulder surgery. In 2001, Mitsias underwent a shoulder surgery during which a “pain pump” was implanted. However, Mitsias later developed glenohumeral chondrolysis, or destruction of cartilage in her shoulder and joint.

In 2003, Mitsias filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the surgeon who implanted the pain pump. However, during the course of the medical malpractice proceedings, Mitsias discovered that the source of her shoulder injury might not be a simple case of medical malpractice, but also have a product liability component. Consequently, Mitsias filed a second complaint against the manufacturers of the pain pump alleging that its defects caused her shoulder injury.

Continue reading