Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

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

by

An Illinois medical malpractice claim involving a failure to diagnose cancer was barred by the Illinois Appellate Court under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Defendant CGH Medical Center Auxiliary, d/b/a CGH Medical Center, was a municipal entity, and according to the Act, government entities, such as a public health clinic, are immune from certain types of negligence committed by the entity and/or its employees.

The Appellate Court reviewed Hemminger v. Nehring, et al., No. 3-08-0751, to determine whether the Tort Immunity Act immunized the defendants against allegations of medical negligence contained within plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant’s employee was negligent when she failed to correctly interpret the decedent’s Pap smear, which showed that the decedent had cervical cancer. As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the decedent’s cancer went undiagnosed for six months. By the time her cervical cancer was diagnosed it was classified as Stage IIIb and eventually led to her death.

In response, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which if granted would result in the case’s dismissal. In its motions, the defendants argued that they were immune from any liability or negligence under the Tort Immunity Act. They also argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file the complaint within the one year statue of limitations set out for municipal entities. The plaintiff’s complaint was instead filed within two years of the medical negligence, which would have met the statute of limitations for a non-government entity.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Nursing Home Care Act was recently reformed in order to address the safety of Illinois nursing homes. The reform comes on the heels of a series of articles by the Chicago Tribune documenting regular acts of nursing home abuse, including rape, murder, and assault, against geriatric residents by younger psychiatric residents and convicted felons.

The Illinois nursing home reform will begin by tightening psychological screening and required criminal background checks for new nursing home residents in order to determine which potentially dangerous residents should be placed in secure therapeutic wards that are separated from the rest of the nursing home facility. In order to address potentially dangerous residents already housed in Illinois nursing homes and limit occurrences of nursing home abuse, the reform measures will transfer thousands of mentally disturbed patients into smaller units structured to provide better supervision and therapy for those patients.

In addition, those nursing homes that admit mentally ill patients will be required to obtain an additional certification that demonstrates the facility and its staff are equipped to effectively monitor and treat these residents. A current problem with Illinois nursing homes is that they are understaffed and lack adequate training to deal with non-geriatric patients. These new standards will effect to combat these potential causes of Illinois nursing home abuse.

Continue reading

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