Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

The field of medicine is generally associated with healing – we go to our doctors when we don’t feel well and expect them to treat us. Yet a large part of medicine is also prevention. Women undergo yearly mammograms to try and catch breast cancer early on, while people with high blood pressure take medication to try and prevent heart attacks or strokes.

Doctors and nurses are responsible for identifying the risk of future medical problems and developing a treatment plan to avoid that risk. For example, some patients with decreased mobility and strength might be at risk for falling during a hospital admission or rehab stay. Therefore, nurses need to evaluate patients to determine whether or not their conditions puts them at an increased risk for falling. Once the degree of risk is determined, the medical staff can work together to create a prevention plan to insure the patient’s safety. It is when these risks are not properly evaluated and prevented that nursing malpractice and medical negligence can occur.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Sorce v. Shorehaven Health and Rehab. Ctr., 09 CV 3083 (Waukesha County), illustrates what can happen if there are not adequate fall prevention measures in place. The 76 year-old Sorce had been admitted to the Shorehaven Health and Rehabilitation Center as part of his recovery from brain surgery. During his admission, Sorce was using a walker to get around and was generally given assistance with getting up and around.

However, one day towards the end of his stay, Sorce was sitting in his recliner chair when he realized he needed to use the restroom. As was his practice, Sorce pressed his call button to request nursing assistance to the bathroom. However, as more time passed and his call continued to go unanswered, Sorce elected to try and reach his walker and the bathroom by himself. Sorce raised himself out of his recliner, took a few steps across the room, but then fell on the floor and hit his head.

Continue reading

by

Privilege is a legal term that infers an exception from a particular rule or requirement. For example, attorney-client privilege refers to the fact that attorneys are not required to disclose information gained from communication with their clients. However, the concept of privilege is not limited to the law alone. Doctor-patient privilege protects information gained during the course of medical treatment from being used in court without the patient’s permission.

The purpose of these forms of privilege is to encourage people to be candid with their lawyers and doctors in order to help those professionals perform their jobs. The idea is that if a person fears legal ramifications as a result of their communications with their attorneys and physicians, that he would be less candid and potentially withhold important information. In this way privilege is meant to protect clients and patients.

However, there are times when these forms of privileged can be waived, allowing other parties access to this formerly confidential information. For example, an Illinois judge recently reviewed the circumstances under which doctor-patient privilege is waived; Flowers v. Owens, No. 09 C 2716. In examining the case facts, the judge needed to ensure that the plaintiff-patient’s rights were protected, while also considering whether maintaining the privilege put the defense at an unfair advantage.

Continue reading

by

In recent years there has been a lot of debate over the effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administrations’ medical device review system, i.e., the 501(k) process. Its critics say that the review system is not comprehensive enough and allows for the approval of unsafe medical devices. However, its advocates argue that a quick and easy approval process is necessary to ensure American patients can take advantage of the most advanced medical products available; a more involved review system would only mean more red tape for medical device companies.

In an attempt to find ways to improve its much-debated medical device review system, the FDA sought the advice of a panel of doctors and researchers from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Over the years, the IOM has made numerous recommendations for improving government programs. However, in the case of the 501(k) process, the IOM’s recommendations were perhaps more severe than the FDA had anticipated. Rather than suggesting various ways the program could be changed, the IOM instead recommended that it be abandoned all together.

In support of its recommendation, the IOM panel stated that the 501(k) approval process was “flawed” and “does not really assess safety and effectiveness.” In order to obtain approval under the 501(k) process>, a medical device manufacturer must show that its medical device is similar to a device that is already on the market. The approval process was created in the 1970s to allow the FDA to quickly grant approval to those products shown to be similar to those already on the market. However, while it was meant as a temporary method to help grandfather in devices that were already in widespread use, the 501(k) process has become the standard for medical device approval.

Continue reading

by

A Loyola University Medical Center patient suffered brain damage after undergoing two separate surgeries during the same hospital admission. The second surgery was required to fix surgical errors made during her initial surgery. The woman’s surviving family sued the Chicago hospital for its surgical negligence and received a $2.5 million settlement.

The forty-five year-old decedent presented to Loyola University Medical Center to undergo a laparoscopic procedure to remove dense adhesions in her pelvic region. Everything appeared to go well during the surgery and the decedent was taken to the post-op care area and then transferred to the floor for additional post-operative care and monitoring.

However, she continued to complain of severe abdominal pain, above and beyond what one would expect following this type of surgery. Her pain continued despite the high levels of post-operative pain medications she was given. In addition, the decedent developed shortness of breath and began to have an increased heart rate. Together, these various symptoms indicated that perhaps something was wrong.

Continue reading

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