Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

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

by

A Cook County jury recently awarded $2.75 million in an Illinois wrongful death case involving the death of an Illinois male from an undiagnosed pulmonary embolism. Instead of diagnosing the man’s pulmonary embolism, the Illinois emergency room staff misdiagnosed the decedent with a seizure disorder. Rhodes v. Malik, et al., No. 06 L 5467.

While misdiagnosing a patient can often be the result of medical negligence, misdiagnosed cases do not always lead to medical malpractice lawsuits. Whether or not a lawsuit is brought hinges on the degree of damages, or the final outcome. In Rhodes, the decedent’s estate alleged that the misdiagnosed patient died as a result of the incorrect diagnosis. However, if a delay in diagnosis had only led to some discomfort or minor inconvenience on the part of the decedent then there would not likely have been grounds for a medical malpractice claim.

In Rhodes, the decedent’s estate was critical of the emergency department’s errors at Weiss Memorial Hospital, specifically its misdiagnosis of a seizure disorder. The decedent had presented to Weiss’s emergency room after collapsing on a train platform. The initial doctor suspected that his collapse was due to seizures and ordered a wide range of tests to confirm this diagnosis. However, before the results came back, the initial doctor’s shift was up, at which time the decedent’s care was transferred to an additional emergency medicine physician.

Continue reading

by

Nursing home residents are especially at risk for developing skin infections. Therefore, nursing homes should have a lot of practice at developing skin care plans for residents in order to prevent skin breakdown and the development of skin ulcers. However, recent Illinois nursing home negligence case involved allegations that the nursing home failed to implement a care plan that would have prevented the decedent’s skin from deteriorating. Moffett v. Mercy Health Care Rehab. Ctr., No. 06 L 11430.

Another issue in the Illinois nursing home negligence case was whether the nursing home had taken adequate steps to prevent the decedent from falling while in the nursing home’s care. Upon her admission to the Mercy Health Care Rehab Ctr., the decedent, Alberta Jones, was at risk for falling due to a recent stroke. During her time at Mercy Rehab, Jones did in fact fall and required a brace to support her right femur.

The brace caused her skin to breakdown when the device rubbed up against her leg. Over a period of weeks, nursing home employees and nurses chose not to monitor this patient who then developed osteomyelitis, a bone infection. Skin ulcers that have spread uncontrollably can cause osteomyelitis if the skin breaks down so far that the bone is exposed to air. If a patient develops osteomyelitis from skin ulcers it is normally a red flag that the nursing home did not implement a proper skin care plan and is an indicator of nursing home negligence.

Continue reading

by

As a Chicago medical malpractice attorney I have seen all sides of human nature – the good, the bad, and the ugly. However, on a rare occasion I am inspired by clients’ reactions to a personal tragedy. The Mary E. Smith family are just such clients. They responded to their mother’s unnecessary death due to medical negligence by setting up a foundation to raise brain tumor awareness and honor their mother’s memory.

In addition to providing the public with health information regarding brain tumors, the Mary E. Smith Foundation awards several annual scholarships. The Mary E. Smith Foundation is now adding to their community outreach goals with its 1st Annual Mary E. Smith Tumor Awareness Walk. The walk details are as follows:

When: Saturday, August 14, 2010. Registration begins at 7:30 a.m., with the walk starting at 9:00 a.m.

Where: The Community Walk Path, 4200 W. 183rd St., Country Club Hills, IL 60478. (Next to the Farmer’s Market at the Country Club Hills Theater)

Cost: $10 for 1-mile walk and free T-shirt (children under 12 free)

For more information, visit www.maryesmithfoundation.org or call 708-342-0800.

Continue reading

by

A recent article by The Chicago Tribune highlighted some controversy surrounding an Illinois court settlement concerning psychiatric patients in Illinois. The settlement involves moving psychiatric patients from their current residences in Illinois nursing homes and into supported living communities. However, reports of Illinois nursing homes misleading their residents about the state’s plan has led to accusations that the nursing homes are trying to frighten their psychiatric patients into staying put.

The plan affects roughly two dozen nursing homes that are specifically designated as Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) and the 4,500 psychiatric patients who reside there. The plan proposes to offer a screening to any psychiatric patients who wish to leave; those patients who pass the screening are eligible for relocation to subsidized living communities. These communities would have staff available to provide therapy, life-skill training, job training, and substance abuse programs.

Continue reading

by

A whistle-blower lawsuit filed against Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center was recently unsealed, allowing the Chicago public a glimpse of the case facts. Goldberg, M.D. v. Rush University Medical Center, et al. was brought by orthopedic surgeon Robert Goldberg, M.D. against his employer, Rush University Medical Center, and fellow surgeons alleging that the orthopedic department routinely overbooked its operating rooms and violated Medicare billing rules.

Goldberg alleges that Rush’s orthopedic center operated as a business that emphasized quantity over quality, a claim that is supported by further allegations that the during 2004 and 2005 the orthopedic center regularly overbooked its operating rooms and relied heavily on its residents to perform surgeries. The assumption is that by overbooking these rooms the surgical center’s patients were at a heightened risk for surgical errors and potential medical malpractice.

According to Medicare billing rules teaching surgeons, like the six surgeons named in this lawsuit, are required to be present in the operating room during key portions of the procedures. The case was filed as a whistle-blower lawsuit because Medicare is a federal institution, and as such falls under the federal government’s umbrella. A whistle-blower claim is one in which the government has been victimized, such as by falsifying federal billing records.

Continue reading

by

A recently published government report has sparked additional concerns regarding the risk of overexposure to radiation from unnecessary radiology scans. The results of the national report on medical imaging practices shows that Illinois hospitals provide double chest CT scans almost twice as often as other hospitals nationwide. A double chest CT scan is when a study is ordered both with and without contrast, which requires it to be done twice thereby exposing the patient to twice as much radiation.

One of the main hospitals cited in the report as potentially giving “patients a double scan when a single scan is all they need” is Edward Hospital, located in Naperville, Illinois. Edward Hospital officials were reportedly surprised to learn that their CT scans exceeded the national average and have since launched an investigation into its radiology department policies and procedures.

The new government reports on Edward Hospital and other medical institutions nationwide can be found at the government-run website Hospital Compare. This informative website allows patients to search different hospitals by region and compare the quality of care provided by each. Medical information websites like Hospital Compare allow patients to be their own medical advocate and make informed decisions about their care and treatment.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois medical malpractice verdict in favor of the defendant emergency room physician was upheld by an Illinois Appellate Court. The Illinois medical malpractice complaint in Pavnica v. Veguilla, et al., No. 3-09-0065, alleged that the emergency room doctor’s error had contributed to the amputation of plaintiff’s toes after he developed gangrene.

As a diabetic, the plaintiff was already at a heightened risk for developing foot and toe infections. However, the plaintiff had also recently been placed on immunosuppressive medications following a pancreas and kidney transplant, placing him at an even greater risk for developing infections. Because of his increased risk for developing a foot or toe infection, the plaintiff sought medical assistance when he stubbed his toe on a piece of furniture.

While the plaintiff would normally follow up with his regular physician regarding any potential infection issues, his doctor was out of town. So the plaintiff opted to seek treatment at the emergency room. At that time the plaintiff was seen by the defendant doctor who diagnosed a breakdown of the skin in the area of the injury and prescribed oral antibiotics.

Continue reading

by

After reviewing a Cook County medical malpractice lawsuit for non-economic losses, a United States District Court judge for the Northern District of Illinois awarded the plaintiff $6.7 million in non-economic damages. Maldonado v. Sinai Medical Group, No. 06 C 4149 (April 2, 2010).
The Chicago medical malpractice case was brought by a Chicago man who developed paralysis from the waist down after being discharged from Chicago’s Mt. Sinai Hospital with an ongoing spinal infection. While the Chicago hospital had diagnosed the infection and began treating it with IV antibiotics, it discharged the patient before the infection was gone.

Two weeks after his discharge, the Chicago native was unable to control his bladder or walk and was rushed to Rush University Medical Center. The ongoing spinal infection had continued to eat away at the man’s vertebrae, which resulted in the removal of portions of his spine and ribs. The plaintiff underwent six surgeries during three months of hospitalization and was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against the employees of Chicago’s Mt. Sinai Hospital. However, because the hospital’s employees were agents of the U.S. Public Health Service the Cook County medical malpractice case fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act. According to rules of the Act, the federal government was substituted for the hospital and its workers in the medical malpractice claim. The federal government admitted liability on behalf of the hospital. Therefore the only remaining issue for the judge to rule on was non-economic damages.

Continue reading