Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer for American women, coming in just second behind lung cancer. According to www.breastcancer.org, one in every eight women in the U.S. develops some form of breast cancer. Like any form of cancer, a delay in diagnosis or a misdiagnosis of cancer can have a negative effect on a patient’s outcome.

Once breast cancer is diagnosed, the typical treatment for breast cancer involves surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. However, a new study unveiled at a Chicago meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) could change the standard for breast cancer treatment. TARGIT-A study is an international study of breast cancer clinical trials involving over 2,000 breast cancer patients. The participants were women 45 years-old and up who had been diagnosed with invasive ductal breast cancer and were undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

Traditionally patients who elect for breast-conserving surgery undergo whole breast external radiation therapy for up to 6 1/2 weeks following surgery. However, the TARGIT-A clinical trials studied the effects of targeted radiation administered during the surgery. The radiation is administered in a single dose and targets only the area of the breast with cancer instead of the whole breast. Half of the studies participants underwent the traditional post-op radiation while the other half received the targeted radiation therapy during surgery. The TARGIT-A study found that the targeted therapy group did somewhat better overall than the traditional radiation group.

Continue reading

by

In a recent $2.62 million Cook County medical malpractice verdict, the jury found in favor of the patient who suffered a permanent brain injury after his brain infection went undiagnosed for two weeks. The delay in diagnosis resulted in the permanent brain injury after a brain infection spread to the frontal lobe of the patient’s brain. As a result of the brain injury, the Illinois patient needed numerous brain surgeries, one of which resulted in the removal of a portion of his skull.

The man’s permanent brain injury could have been avoided if not for the Illinois medical malpractice of an Illinois radiologist. After having a seizure, the Illinois plaintiff presented to the emergency room at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital. In order to rule out the cause of the seizure, a MRI of the patient’s brain was ordered. Up to this point the patient’s care was appropriate and the treating physicians were meeting the appropriate standard of care.

The standard of care for medical professionals is defined as the level of care that a reasonable person, in this case a doctor, would exercise in similar circumstances. If a doctor or hospital chose not to satisfy the standard of care in some method of treatment resulting in an injury or death to the patient, then a a case for medical malpractice could be brought.

Continue reading

by

Whether or not you have children, most people are familiar with warning labels on children’s toys. These warning labels could include anything from lead content in painted toys, choking hazards from small parts, or potential injuries from sharp objects. Yet while there are ample warnings for children’s toys, there are no warning labels itemizing the dangers to children from eating certain foods.

We typically don’t think of food as being dangerous to children, yet one horrific episode involves a 23 month-old child who died after a piece of popcorn she was eating became lodged in her lung and bronchial tubes. Her parents, like the majority of the general public, had no idea that popcorn was unsafe for their 2 year-old.

In an effort to increase awareness and prevent the recurrence of episodes like the one described, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is advocating for food warning labels. The AAP, based out of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is one of the nation’s leading pediatric groups. It is lobbying for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require warning labels on foods that are known choking hazards.

According to a 2008 study, the ten foods that pose the highest choking hazards for young children are hot dogs, peanuts, carrots, boned chicken, candy, meat, popcorn, fish with bones, sunflower seeds and apples.

Continue reading

by

Recently the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Illinois Appellate Court Fifth District regarding the enforcement of a nursing home operator’s arbitration agreement. In <a href="Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, No. 106511 (4/15/10), the Special Administrator of the Estate of Joyce Gott brought a nursing home and wrongful death claim against the nursing home operator.

Many nursing homes in Illinois and nationwide have initiated the practice of including mandatory arbitration clauses in their admission documents in an attempt to force patients and their families to arbitrate a potential Illinois nursing home abuse case rather than bringing an Illinois nursing home malpractice lawsuit. However, other states, such as the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Beverly Manor, 2009 WL 77897 (Mo. Jan 13, 2009), have ruled that these mandatory arbitration agreements are not enforceable and that nursing home residents and their families can bring a lawsuit even if an arbitration agreement was signed.

Prior to the current case of Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, Illinois courts had not yet ruled on the whether or not nursing homes were allowed to enforce these arbitration agreements. Therefore, this case has special significance for the future of Illinois nursing abuse lawsuits.

Continue reading

by

A settlement was reached in the amount of $1.25 million in the case of a 75 year old man who allegedly contracted a severe digestive disorder because his dentist unnecessarily prescribed an antibiotic known to cause the condition in some patients. The settlement is reported to be the highest in Illinois for dental malpractice cases not involving death.

It was alleged that the plaintiff, a retired owner of a men’s retail clothing store, contracted clostridium difficile after taking Clindamycin, an antibiotic prescribed by the dentist during an office visit in 2005. The dentist prescribed the antibiotic when the plaintiff was paying a visit to his office for a regular cleaning. A crown had been put in place three weeks before. The patient then informed the dentist that the crown still bothered him and the dentist determined that it needed a root canal.

The plaintiff’s attorney contended there was no reason to prescribe an antibiotic because there was no infection. The plaintiff developed bleeding, diarrhea and then went for treatment with a gastroenterologist. An ileostomy surgical procedure was performed on the plaintiff but failed. Ileostomy can be temporary or permanent. An ileostomy is a surgically created opening in the small intestine, usually at the end of the ileum. It is the exit of the small intestine to the skin surface. It then was reversed leaving the man incontinent.

Continue reading

by

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed a district court jury verdict on the grounds that the lower court did not separate the damages for a husband and wife on plaintiffs’ jury verdict forms. Based on the lack of separate jury verdict forms, a new trial was ordered in Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 07-2264.

Happel is an Illinois prescription error case filed by a husband and wife, Kent and Heidi Happel, against a Wal-Mart pharmacy that filled a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription for the plaintiff wife even though it was aware she was allergic to it. As a result of taking the medication, Heidi Happel went into anaphylactic shock. She required emergent hospitalization and ventilation as a result of the Illinois prescription error. She continues to suffer from memory loss, incontinence, seizures, nightmares, and depression.

The Illinois prescription error claim alleged that the pharmacy was aware of plaintiff’s drug allergy. The Wal-Mart pharmacist had been warned about Heidi’s allergy and actually received an electronic alert that the drug was contraindicated for her. In addition, every time Heidi filled her past prescriptions at this pharmacy she advised the pharmacist of her allergy, which was something her husband, Kent, also did when he filled the prescription at issue in this case. However, despite these warnings the pharmacist went ahead and filled the prescription, which in turn caused Heidi’s injuries.

Continue reading

by

Decisions made during labor and delivery can change your life forever. For example, your baby’s heart rate may drop during labor, which is often a sign of distress. The way your doctor and nurses respond to this sign directly impacts the final result. If they respond right away and everything goes smoothly then chances are you will leave the delivery room with a healthy baby. But if the medical team does not respond and fails to appreciate the gravity of the situation, then you might have a drastically different outcome.

Unfortunately, Illinois birth injury attorneys only hear about the second outcome, when things do not go well and some form of Illinois medical malpractice occurs during labor and delivery. And because of the nature of these cases, birth injury lawsuits are oftentimes the most heartbreaking of any type of medical malpractice.

Consider a recent Illinois birth injury case against a nurse midwife, a sponsoring obstetrician, and a Chicago-area hospital that was recently settled with the now 13 year-old boy’s family. The boy sustained a brain injury as a result of hypoxia (low noxygen levels) at birth which resulted in cerebral palsy.

Continue reading

by

In an effort to find new ways to stop tumors from growing, scientists are researching ways to develop drugs that will stop blood vessels from growing. The first step to developing these complex drugs is to identify the human genes that are essential for blood vessel growth, something that researchers at the University of Austin were able to do by using the new branch of biology known as deep homology.

The study’s results, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, revealed that these scientists were able to identify five different human genes that were essential for blood vessel growth. The hope is that by developing a drug that would halt these genes from working we would have a new tool in the fight against cancer.

And while the results of the study are remarkable, what is perhaps even more amazing is the way these scientists isolated these human genes. The researchers first identified the blood vessel growing genes by discovering that the same genes work at building cell walls in yeast. The same group of scientists is responsible for finding the genes associated with deafness by studying plants and the genes associated with breast cancer by studying nematode worms.

Continue reading

by

Epidural steroid injections are becoming an increasingly common method to relieve chronic pain. While the quick, outpatient procedure does have some possible risks, these are considered relatively rare for an invasive procedure. However, a recent Cook County medical malpractice case illustrates how medical negligence can drastically change a patient’s outcome even in a relatively minor procedure.

The Illinois wrongful death case involved an allegedly improperly placed needle during an epidural steroid injection which led to the patient’s cardiopulmonary arrest and death. At trial, the decedent’s estate argued that the anesthesiologist not only puncture the membrane lining which covers the spinal cord, but also failed to administer the lidocaine into the subdural space over the spinal cord. The combination of these two anesthesiology errors led to the disastrous outcome for this Illinois woman.

The Illinios medical malpractice was not limited to the incorrect procedure, but continued to occur. The decedent’s estate further argued that the woman might have survived if she had been properly intubated when she was being resuscitated. The estate alleged that during the resuscitation efforts that an endotracheal tube was placed in her esophagus instead of where it needed to be, in her trachea.

Continue reading

by

Even those of us who know little about cancer know that the earlier your cancer is diagnosed the better your chances. So if this is common knowledge then we would expect that it would be almost a rule in the medical community: rule out cancer whenever possible in order to insure the best outcome possible. Yet all too often we hear stories about patients whose cancer was either misdiagnosed as something else or undiagnosed all together. When the misdiagnosis of cancer leads to a far worse outcome for the cancer patient there is often a case of medical malpractice.

Consider the case of a recent Illinois wrongful death settlement that was approved by a Cook County judge. The widow received $1.59 million from her deceased husband’s treating urologist and his physician group after he failed to diagnose her husband’s bladder cancer in a timely manner. The plaintiff-decedent’s undiagnosed cancer spread over a two-year period and was the ultimate cause of his death.

The facts of the Illinois wrongful death case are as follows. Over the span of two years the man presented to his urologist for CT scans of his abdomen and pelvis. The scans showed two enlarged lymph nodes, which can be a sign that cancer has metastasized to other areas of the body. However, the urologist took no action to investigate the enlarged lymph nodes for cancer.

Continue reading