Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

There’s an old saying that there are two sides to every story – in civil litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney present one side of the story to the jury while the defendant’s attorney presents the other. In order to ensure that the facts are fair and that neither party presents information to the jury that would unfairly prejudice it towards the other side, the trial judge rules on motions in limine prior to the trial.

Each side prepares its own motions in limine, which set out various evidence and testimony that it feels should be excluded from the trial. Each motion includes not only a recitation of which evidence the party seeks to exclude, but also an argument as to why that specific evidence should be excluded from the civil trial. The judge then makes the final ruling on each motion in limine. If the judge rules to exclude the evidence, then neither side may bring it up during trial. However, if the judge denies a motion in limine, then that evidence is free game.

The Illinois attorneys involved in Guski v. Raja, No. 1-10-0108 (May 10, 2011), went through this motion in limine process prior to the Illinois medical malpractice trial. The judge granted some motions, but denied others, including one of plaintiff’s motions regarding the decedent’s marijuana use. After the jury found in favor of the defendant doctor, the plaintiff sought a retrial based on the the trial court’s erroneous motion in limine rulings and the defense’s unfair closing argument.

Continue reading

by

An elderly man required an above the knee amputation with a flesh-eating bacteria after his heel ulcer became infected . He brought an Illinois nursing negligence lawsuit against the home health service that was supposed to be monitoring his pressure ulcer. The Cook County jury awarded the plaintiff $793,644 for his suffering and disability as a result of the healthcare service’s negligence in Rudolph v. Northwestern Memorial Home Healthcare.

The medical negligence can be traced to the plaintiff’s right hip replacement in December 2000. During his recovery at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the 79 year-old William Rudolph developed a blister on his right heel that quickly progressed to a Stage III pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers typically develop in bedridden or wheelchair-bound patients whose limbs stay in one position for extended periods, which limits the blood supply to that area. They are typically identified by stages of severity, with Stage I being the least severe and Stage IV being the most severe.

After Rudolph’s release from his inpatient rehab stay, Northwestern Memorial Home Healthcare was assigned to treat the plaintiff’s pressure ulcer. The healthcare service would make in-home nursing visits to Rudolph in order to maintain the integrity of the area around the wound, clean and treat the pressure ulcer, and prevent the ulcer from progressing to a Stage IV ulcer. In order to do so, the nursing service visited Rudolph three times per week during December 2000 and January 2001, during which time the heel wound remained a Stage III ulcer.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois obstetrician appealed a $500,500 medical malpractice verdict against him in Lisa Babikian v. Richard Mruz, No. 1-10-2579. Dr. Mruz argued that the plaintiff’s attorney had prejudiced the Cook County jury against him. The appellate court disagreed and dismissed the defendant’s mistrial claims. However, the appellate court did grant the defense attorney’s request for a set-off, reducing the jury verdict by the amount of a prior settlement involving the same case.

The Babikian medical malpractice lawsuit arose out of preventable surgical errors Dr. Mruz committed while performing a diagnostic laparoscopy on Ms. Babikian. The purpose of the procedure was to determine whether or not Ms. Babikian suffered from endometriosis, a condition involving the cells lining the uterus. During the relatively simple surgical procedure, Dr. Mruz managed to pierce Ms. Babikian’s transverse colon.

This surgical mistake required Ms. Babikian to undergo corrective surgery, extensive hospitalization, and the placement and eventual reversal of a colostomy. In addition, the plaintiff developed abdominal pain, intestinal problems, and hernias as a result of the surgical negligence. The plaintiff and her now ex-husband brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Mruz and the medical center where the surgery was performed.

Continue reading

by

The use of medications to induce labor has become increasingly common over the last 50 years. Pitocin is one of the most well-known medications given to mothers to try and speed labor along. However, this drug does not come without its risks, which can include uterine rupture, more intense contractions, and fetal stress.

The Cook County birth injury lawsuit of Louis Montes, a minor, et al. v. West Suburban Hospital Medical Center, Inc., 05 L 14157, involves the use of Pitocin during a 2005 delivery. The baby’s mother was given Pitocin in order to promote labor. However, she was given too much of the drug, which led to a hyperstimulated uterus and to fetal distress.

A review of the fetal heart tracings taken during this period clearly demonstrate that the baby was in distress. However, the West Suburban Medical Center nurses failed to alert the obstetrician of the baby’s fetal distress. Because he was not aware of the problem, the doctor did not order a timely c-section to avoid injury to the baby.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit was critical of a Naperville hospital for its failure to appropriately monitor the vital signs of an expectant mother. As a result of the poor monitoring by the Cook County hospital, the mother not only lost her baby, but had to undergo future surgery herself. Sabine C. Miller v. Edward Hospital, et al., 05 L 1192.

In November 2004, 30 year-old Sabine Miller was brought by ambulance to Edward Hospital. She was 14 weeks pregnant and had developed severe abdominal pain and vomiting. Upon her arrival, the Naperville hospital immediately began evaluating Miller to determine whether her baby was the cause of her severe pain.

The Emergency Department was able to rule out any problems with the fetus and Miller’s pregnancy. However, in order to determine what was the cause of Miller’s abdominal pain, the staff elected to admit her for further testing and observation. Up to this point, there were no violations in the standard of care administered by the Edward Hospital staff. It was not until Miller was admitted to the hospital’s postpartum unit that the medical negligence occurred.

Continue reading

by

A $1 million jury verdict award was entered against a Cook County surgeon and his surgical center for their negligence during an eye surgery. The surgical error left the 24 year-old plaintiff, Cindy Zaleski, with a permanent eye injury. Cindy Zaleski v. Elmhurst Eye Surgery Center, et al., No. 08 L 7387.

In 2006, Ms. Zaleski presented to the Kovach Eye Institute in order to undergo a procedure to correct her nearsightedness. Dr. Kevin Kovach recommended Zaleski undergo a phakic intraocular lens implant procedure, which involved implanting a corrective lens behind the eye’s cornea. This type of procedure is typically performed on patients whose nearsightedness too severe to undergo a standard LASIK procedure.

Zaleski required the eye surgery for both her right and left eyes. And while the right eye procedure was uneventful, she was left with permanently distorted and blurred vision in her left eye. The Cook County medical malpractice alleged that her vision loss was a direct result of Dr. Kovach’s surgical negligence.

Continue reading

by

Over the years, medical advances have led to countless innovative inventions that have saved many lives. However, not every medical innovation lives up to its expectations. The recall of DuPuy’s metal-on-metal hip joint is a perfect example of a medical device that failed to delivery as promised.

The first artificial hip joint was developed in the 1960s and was made of a metal ball placed in a plastic cup, which were meant to replicate the thigh bone and hip socket, respectively. Then, metal-on-metal hip implant devices were developed in response to studies showing that metal and plastic hip devices were leading to bone loss in some patients.

The medical community believed the medical device changes made to metal-on-metal hip implants would revolutionize the future of artificial hips. Not only would the newer design lead to less bone loss in patients, but by replacing plastic with metal, the belief was that the new medical device would last longer than the original metal and plastic version. Medical professionals viewed metal-on-metal hip devices as the final solution to hip implant patients’ problems.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County wrongful death lawsuit involving the death of a 45 year-old woman was settled by the decedent’s estate for $1.35 million. The Illinois lawsuit dealt with claims of medical negligence on behalf of the defendant surgeon and the hospital where he as employed. Jerry Markbreit for the Estate of Betsy Markbreit v. Jose Velasco, M.D., et al., 07 L 8703.

The Illinois surgical malpractice began in 2004, when Ms. Markbreit was admitted to Rush North Shore Medical Center to have a benign growth on her thyroid gland. Prior testing had indicated that the benign growth was limited to the right side of Ms. Markbriet’s thyroid gland, a finding that was confirmed on the surgical report. Yet the surgeon, Dr. Jose Velasco, elected to perform a total thyroidectomy on the decedent.

The Cook County medical malpractice claim was critical of the surgeon’s decision to perform a total thyroidectomy. Ms. Markbreit had only been scheduled for a partial thyroidectomy and given the fact that her benign growth was isolated to one side of her thyroid gland there was no medical reason to perform a total thyroidectomy. This lack of medical necessity was significant because the plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit traced all of Ms. Markbreit’s subsequent medical problems and eventual death back to the unnecessary total thyroidectomy.

Continue reading

by

Johnson & Johnson has announced that it will be dropping one of its medical devices from production – by the end of 2011, the company will cease manufacturing its drug-coated heart stents. The company explains its decision was due its decreasing market share in the heart stent category; Johnson & Johnson is looking to funnel the newly freed funds into developing other medical products.

Johnson & Johnson’s drug-coated heart stents were manufactured in conjunction with Cordis, its subsidiary. Cordis’s Cypher stent was the first drug-coated heart stent approved by the FDA. However, by the end of this year, it will no longer be manufactured. Likewise, Cordis will halt its research and development of a new stent, the Nevo stent.

The sale of drug-coated heart stents represents a $4 billion market, which previously had been divided between Johnson & Johnson/Cordis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Laboratories. However, Cordis’s portion of that market has been decreasing. In 2006, Cordis made $2.6 billion globally from the sale of drug-coated stents, whereas last year it only made $627 million.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled as to the statute of limitations regarding the Illinois lawsuit of Kristen Kaufmann v. Roger A. Schroeder, M.D., Jersey Community Hospital, a municipal corporation, et al., No. 109738. While the plaintiff argued that she had filed her claim well within the two year statute, the Illinois Supreme Court held that she had failed to meet the actual one year statute of limitations. The deciding factor of whether or not it was a one or two year statute dealt with whether or not Kaufmann’s claim was considered an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

The facts surrounding Kaufmann involved allegations that the plaintiff woke up after being sedated to find her physician licking her breasts. The complaint also contended that not only had her OB-GYN, Dr. Roger Schroeder, committed sexual assault against Kaufmann, but that he had unnecessarily sedated her in order to do so.

Kaufmann had presented to Jersey Community Hospital under Dr. Schroeder’s care for treatment of an urinary tract infection and was told that she needed to be sedated for the procedure; she later discovered that this was not true. As a result of Dr. Schroeder’s actions, Kaufmann filed a complaint not only against the doctor, but also against Jersey Community Hospital, the hospital employing him.

Continue reading