Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

A Chicago area nursing home has settled an Illinois nursing home negligence case brought by the family of an 87 year old Illinois woman who developed bone infection after her skin broke down. She died six months later. Alberta Jones had been a resident at the Mercy Health Care Rehabilitation Center in Homewood, Illinois. Moffett v. Mercy Health Care Rehabilitation Center, 06 L 11430 Circuit Court of Cook County, 2010)
Ms. Jones was in the nursing home because she had a stroke. She was a known fall risk which required her to be assisted for her daily living. That would mean a Mercy Health Care employee would help Ms. Jones to the bathroom, to her wheel chair, to her meals and to her physical therapy sessions.

During her stay at Mercy, Ms. Jones fractured her femur when she fell unattended. During the bone’s healing process, she was fitted with a brace. Because of the tight fit, her skin began to break down when the device rubbed against her leg. Over a period of time, Ms. Jones developed osteomyelitis, or a bone infection. Her health declined and then she died, leaving an adult daughter surviving her.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois nursing home negligence settlement deals with a recurring issue in many Chicago nursing home abuse cases – the development of pressure sores, also known as bed sores or decubitus ulcers. In Clapman v. Manorcare Health Services, Inc., the plaintiff brought a claim against an Illinois nursing home after she developed a large sacral pressure ulcer. The Illinois nursing home abuse case settled for $650,000 prior to trial.

In Clapman, the plaintiff alleged that the nursing home failed to develop a plan of care to prevent the plaintiff from developing pressure ulcers. Essentially, whenever a patient is recognized as being at risk for developing pressure sores, or any other type of skin breakdown, the medical providers have a responsibility to develop a plan, referred to as a plan of care, to try and prevent the at risk issue from occurring.

While the nursing staff at Manorcare did develop a plan of care for the plaintiff, it failed to include any provisions to prevent the development of pressure sores. This lack of a prevention plan was the main issue in Clapman and was what the plaintiff attributed her eventual osteomyelitis to.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois birth injury lawsuit involving claims of medical negligence by John H. Stroger Hospital employees was settled for $6.25 million. Because Stroger Hospital is a Cook County hospital, the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was brought against Cook County itself and not the hospital. Maria Rodriguez, as mother and next friend of Angel Gutierrez, a minor v. County of Cook, No. 07 L 13386.

In a traditional medical malpractice claim defense attorneys representing the hospital or doctor are typically hired directly by either the hospital or insurance company. However, when the facility is either a state-funded institution, like Stroger Hospital, then the defense attorneys are from the state’s attorneys office. Thomas Rieck, assistant Cook County state’s attorney, represented the defendants’ claims in Rodriguez. Another important wrinkle in this setting is the fact that there is a statute, the Local Governmental and Government Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101, et seq. (Illinois Tort Immunity Act), which essentially allows the possibility of recovery against a Cook County hospital only if the hospital were found to be negligent in the treatment of a patient, but not liable if the hospital chose not to order tests or it was negligent because it misdiagnosed a patient. Michigan Avenue National Bank v. Cook County, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (2000) is the leading case interpreting the Illinois statute on immunity.

The plaintiff’s birth injury complaint alleged that the doctors at Stroger Hospital failed to respond adequately to the fetal heart rate decelerations at birth. Instead of recognizing the need for a quick delivery, the doctors attempted to correct the decelerations through the use of oxygen, amnioinfusion, and by changing the mother’s position. However, none of these measures were effective.

Continue reading

by

Several studies have recently investigated the dangers of different radiology scans and the possibility of radiation overexposure. While many of these radiology scans are important diagnostic tools, research has suggested that many physicians are unaware of the dangers of several different scans, or else are poorly informed about the inherent risks.

Radiology scans are an important tool in screening for breast cancer and allowed physicians to diagnose breast cancer much earlier, thereby increasing the cancer patient’s hope of survival. However, depending on the type of radiology exam used the degree of radiation exposure varies drastically. For example, a typical mammogram increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by 1.3 times per every 1,000 women.

A mammogram is the standard diagnostic exam to diagnose breast cancer, however, there are additional radiology exams that doctors might order if the mammogram fails to provide a clear diagnosis. Of of these exams, the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by 20 to 30 times and the positron emissions mammography (PEM) increases the risk by 23 times. Also, while radiation exposure during a traditional mammograms only increases the risk of developing breast cancer, the BSGI and PEM also increase the risk of cancer in other major organs, i.e. the bladder, gallbladder, kidneys, etc.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois Appellate Court reviewed an Illinois medical malpractice case to determine whether references to the defendant doctors’ military service had prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff and contributed to its not guilty verdict. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court held that the comments had not prejudiced the jury and were “harmless”. Pavnica v. Edwin Veguilla, et al., No. 3-09-0065.

The plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint alleged that Dr. Veguilla, an emergency room physician, had failed to prescribe anaerobic antibiotics when the plaintiff presented to the ER with an injured toe. The plaintiff’s medical history was complicated by a long history of diabetes and immunosuppressive medications he was taking after receiving a kidney and pancreas transplant. All diabetic patients realize the importance of checking your feet on a regular basis for potential cuts and injury as diabetic patients can easily develop diseases in their feet that could lead to gangrene.

Continue reading

by

When analyzing cases for possible Illinois medical malpractice, sometimes the resulting injury is a reasonable outcome of the procedure and as such does not quality as medical malpractice. However, sometimes you encounter a medical malpractice lawsuit where not only was the resulting injury not a foreseeable outcome, but it could have easily been avoided.

Lauro Ortiz’s medical malpractice lawsuit is such a case where the resulting injury would not have occurred if not for medical negligence. The kidney transplant malpractice lawsuit resulted in a $6 million settlement from Rush University Medical Center.

Ortiz presented for a kidney transplant at Rush University Medical Center. The 39 year-old had been born with only one kidney and also suffered from diabetes. At the time Ortiz was on dialysis and was hoping that the kidney transplant would free him from the regular dialysis treatments and allow him to live a more normal life.

Continue reading

by

Oftentimes cancerous tumors are recognized in the process of investigating another medical problem. For example, a woman presents complaining of weight loss and an exam reveals breast cancer. Because early diagnosis of cancer can drastically improve the patient’s survival rate it is important that physicians capitalize on these opportunities.

In Tariq v. Naperville Radiologist, S.C., et al., 09 L 156, the plaintiff brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Edward Hospital and its radiologist for failure to diagnose cancer. The plaintiff claimed that the radiologist had failed to comment on an area of abnormality in her abdominal area on a chest CT scan. The CT scan was being taken as part of the plaintiff’s screening for TB and was not told anything about the abnormal results.

Over the course of the next year the plaintiff began to experience weight loss and became fatigued. She returned for further workup, at which point a CT showed a 16 cm. abdominal tumor. In addition, the tumor had metastasized to other organs, including the spleen, stomach, pancreas, and colon.

Continue reading

by

The University of Chicago Medical Center has agreed to pay $7 million to resolve a 2006 lawsuit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan alleging that the Chicago hospital violated Illinois licensing regulations that control the number of infants each unit can support. According to the Illinois lawsuit, University of Chicago routinely practiced “double-bunking” infants in its neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), i.e. placing two or more infants in beds designated for one infant only.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office was made aware of this double-bunking practice by two former University of Chicago Medical Center employees who traced the practice all the way back to 1997. Fortunately, as soon as the 2006 lawsuit was filed all doubling up of NICU patients ceased and has not resumed.

These bedding violations were against Illinois health laws and according to the attorney general placed some of the newborn infants at an increased risk for infections. However, a spokesperson from the University of Chicago Medical Center maintained that none of the NICU babies were at risk for any harm as a direct result of the over sized NICU and asserted that the hospital had only had its patients’ best interests in mind. The lawsuit itself did not include any claims of Illinois medical malpractice by the Chicago hospital’s NICU.

Continue reading

by

In order to achieve the best possible outcome following a stroke, doctors and medical staff must identify the emergency situation and react quickly. Medicines aimed at breaking up blood clots that may have caused a thrombotic stroke have been found to increase survival rates and lessen the likelihood of permanent disability. However, these medicines must be administered within three hours of the stroke occurring, which makes an immediate response by emergency room physicians even more important.

In Chris Medina v. Henry C. Echiverri, M.D., et al., No. 07-L-000820, the emergency room errors led to the eventual death of a young stroke victim. The 24 year-old mother presented to Central DuPage Hospital’s emergency room complaining of sudden headaches, numbness to her right side, and problems speaking. However, despite the fairly obvious signs of a stroke, there were serious emergency room errors made and the correct diagnosis was not made for over 12 hours.

The decedent’s medical status was evaluated by Dr. Echiverri, a member of the hospital’s stroke team. However, despite specializing in stroke victims, Dr. Echiverri failed to diagnose and treat Medina’s stroke. Instead her condition was diagnosed by a neuroradiologist. But by the time the decedent’s stroke was diagnosed she was already significantly neurologically impaired and slipping into a coma. She died just 17 days after presenting to the emergency room.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a Cook County Circuit Court verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon in Robinson v. Boffa, No. 1-07-1128. The plaintiff had appealed the not-guilty verdict on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in allowing jury instructions that included sole proximate cause language. However, the appellate court was not persuaded to change the Illinois jury’s decision based on these arguments.

Robinson is an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit wherein the decedent died about a month after having a second surgery to remove a cancerous colon mass. The second surgery was done just a mere five days after her initial surgery to remove the cancerous tumor because the surgeon incorrectly removed a non-cancerous tissue mass during the first operation.

The decedent’s estate contended that her death was a result of the stress the second surgery placed on her body and that her death could have been avoided had the surgeon removed the correct tumor during the first procedure. However, the surgeon argued that his alleged medical negligence was in fact caused by a vague colonoscopy report which he relied upon in order to determine the location of the tumor, thereby including elements of radiology error. The surgeon also claimed the that preexisting medical conditions of chronic heart failure, diabetes, and renal failure contributed to the decedent’s death, and that therefore he was not negligent.

Continue reading