Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

The Washington Post reported last week on a new call by the activist group Public Citizen to investigate the deaths of two medical patients following a contaminated transfusion at the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) research hospital. The plea was made to the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and Health & Human Services after two patients were killed when the blood platelet transfusions that they received were contaminated with bacteria. The infections ultimately led the victims to suffer the failure of multiple organs—both victims were cancer patients. Mere hours after receiving the contaminated platelet transfusions both patients were reportedly gravely ill. One patient died about four weeks after the transfusion, while the other died two weeks after the first.

The advocacy group believes that the deaths were preventable. The organization stated that the blood bank which collected the donations were at fault for lapses in procedure which allowed the contaminated platelets to be given to the patients. Both victims had been part of clinical research that was being undertaken at the NIH hospital. Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys were saddened, but not shocked, to learn that the contamination was only brought to light after whistle blowing physician who remained anonymous informed that public advocacy group of the problem.

This case is a good demonstration of the basic accountability challenge which guides medical malpractice lawsuits. Many victims of malpractice never ultimately know that they have been victimized. That is because the complexities of so many medical issues are left to the physician. When the one who is suppose to be the expert fails to act as an expert should, that failure often goes unnoticed by the victim. When the professional does not come forward and admit a mistake, then the patient often unwittingly assumes that the adverse consequence was simply a risk that could arise because of the medical condition.

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers, however, know that there is a big difference between a harm caused by the natural risks of a medical condition and the harm caused by medical negligence. Sometimes the case is clearly the product of a medical error—such as in this case where contaminated blood was given to patients. This represents the clearest example of malpractice, because the patients were specifically given something that caused their health to deteriorate. However, most medical malpractice cases are not like this. In most cases, the harm the patient suffers was not connected so obviously to the doctor. Instead, often the doctor either could have prevented the harm had appropriate care been taken. In these situations the harm caused by the medical malpractice is just as severe, but it is harder for the victim to catch. The complexity of these situations makes it helpful for all those who suspect they were victimized to at least take the time to visit with a legal professional. You may learn that your situation does not give rise to a legal action, or the attorney may suggest that a lawsuit be filed. In either case, however, there is nothing to lose from learning more.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Methadone Overdose

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

This week the Madison St. Clair-Record reported on the filing of a new Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit following claims by a former patient that a surgical error caused her serious harm. The victimized patient who filed the suit claims that she visited the surgeon in November of 2009 to have a carpal tunnel procedure performed on her right hand. These procedures are particularly common for those who suffer from the syndrome which puts pressure on the nerve in the wrist which supplies feeling and movement to other parts in the hand. When left untreated, carpal tunnel can cause significant nerve damage, permanent hand weakness, and severe numbness. The carpal tunnel release surgery involves cutting into the ligament that is causing the pressure on the nerve to provide relief to the hand.

However, the woman in this case claims that carpal tunnel release operation was botched. Specifically, she states in court filings that her surgeon cut her ulner nerve during the procedure and failed to fix the damage. As a result of this mistake, the woman claims that she now has a clawing of the hand, nerve damage, and loss control of the hand. Upon finally realizing the problem, the victim filed this Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit seeking to hold the doctor and the neurological medical center involved accountable for their mistake.

It is hard to underestimate the way that these Illinois medical errors affect the lives of the victims. Even mistakes such as this one which appear only to affect a small part of the body, could have significant ramifications on the individual’s life. Use of a hand is vital for the performance of basic and household tasks. When a botched procedure causes problems with the hand, the victim’s entire life could be affected. Work might be missed, medical bills would mount, basic home care tasks would be impossible, and similar problems would accrue. When looked at in that light, it is easy to see how the victims would seek out basic accountability and redress so that they could make themselves whole and be compensated for the losses that should have been prevented.

Our Chicago personal injury attorneys work with victims throughout the state who have been similarly hurt. We have experience on all forms of medical malpractice cases, including those involving surgical mistakes. When a patient goes “under the knife” it is imperative that the medical professionals involved not make mistakes that leave a patient worse off than before they went in for the procedure to begin with. If that mistake is made, then it is necessary for the negligent professional to be held accountable for their error. If you or someone you know is in this situation, please contact an experienced legal professional to share your story and learn what can be done to help. Timing matters in these situations, so it is advisable not to delay in visiting the legal professional. Statutes of limitation require the victim to official file suit a set amount of time after the neglect occurs. Considering that it takes some time to properly prepare for the filing of a lawsuit, there is benefit to talking with legal counsel as soon as feasible.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Deaths Could Have Been Avoided if Doctors Washed Their Hands

Too Much Noise in Operating Rooms Increase Surgical Errors

Earlier this week the American Association for Justice (AAJ) released a new report that took aim at the legal practices of some of the nation’s biggest industry proponents of so-called legal “reform.” Our Chicago personal injury attorneys are acutely aware of the hypocrisy that is unfortunately present within many of the country’ largest advocacy groups, particularly those that are working to take legal rights away from everyday community members. This latest reported, entitled “U.S. Chamber’s Hypocrisy Exposed: Do As I Say, Not As I Do” explored the aggressive litigation efforts of the organization’s Institute for Legal Reform corporate board members.

One easy way to identify if a proponent of a certain position is advocating honestly is to examine their conduct instead of their rhetoric. It is one thing to claim vocally that certain legal rights need to be taken away from community members, it is another thing to stop enjoying those legal rights yourself. This new AAJ study explores the way that many corporate members of the Chamber’s legal reform arm have no problem utilizing the justice system to the max for their own gain against competitors and customers. This at the same time that they actively fight to take away access to that same civil justice system for regular members of the community.

For example, one corporation highlighted in the report, Honeywell International, regularly files suit against competitors in court for what it deems their misconduct. They have a legal right to do so. However, at the same time they are working to enact legal chances so that others cannot bring them to court for their own misdeeds—such as providing defective body armor to police officers and downplaying the danger of asbestos. As the report explained, so many of these companies support the idea of “one rule for them, one rule for us.” Them being regular community members, like Illinois medical malpractice victims, and Us being already powerful businesses. The current President of the Chamber has himself admitted that “litigation is one of our most powerful tools for making sure that federal agencies follow the law and are held accountable.”

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know that the justice system already places a wide range of obstacles in the way of genuine victims of medical errors. It is not easy or quick for these victims to receive compensation for their losses or to hold those who perpetrated the Illinois medical error accountable for their conduct. It is appalling that big interests would actively seek to curtail their rights even further. These corporate entities own use of the justice system makes clear that they understand the way that the system works to provide fairness and accountability among societal interactions. However, these interests are blinded by their dedication to making a buck and they are more than willing to take away access to the system for others so long as it increases their profit margin. This conduct should not be tolerated. All fair-minded advocates need to stand up and expose this hypocrisy for what it is.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Most of those who support medical malpractice “reform” laws (such as the arbitrary capping of certain damages) base their belief in a few assumptions about the civil justice system. Those assumptions usually include the idea that it is easy for those actually injured by misconduct to get the compensation they deserve and that a large portion of medical malpractice claims are actually frivolous attempts to gain a quick buck. Many big insurance and medical interests engage in sophisticated tactics to perpetuate those assumptions among the public. However, it is vital that those of us actually involved in this field—such as every Illinois medical malpractice lawyer—takes the time to share honest information about these misguided claims.

Both those basic assumptions are not true. Eastern Iowa News recently discussed them in an article weighing the merits of a proposed medical malpractice damage cap in the state. The story discussed the issue above the talking points and delved into actual facts. It shared information provided by the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that the vast majority of doctors do not make a single malpractice payment in their lifetime. In addition, more malpractice cases than not are dropped before a payment is ever made. Put more concretely, the best available data reveals that three out of every four claims did not lead to payment overall, and in some specialty areas, nine out of every ten claims did not lead to a payment. In other words, the statistics make clear that filing a medical malpractice lawsuit is not a “get rich quick” scheme. Considering the costs that must be paid by medical malpractice lawyers to even begin the process, the filing of a suit results in an overall loss of money for those invovled.

Insurance groups try to counter these statistics by claiming that they prove that the majority of claims are without merit. However, that argument has also been rejected repeatedly by those who study the issue. Several years ago, Harvard researchers found that 97% of all medical malpractice claimed were “meritorious” when judged on a wide range of criteria. Patients are not filing suits concocted out of thin air. In virtually all cases there are very real injuries suffered and very real issues about the level of care they received by their medical providers.

Yet, even though those who file these suits suffer real injury, there are many barriers already in place for them to actually get the compensation that they deserve. As already mentioned, most cases fail to result in payment. That is not stopping big insurance interests from continuing to push for medical malpractice caps, however, that will limit even further the ability of victims of all cases to receive justice for the often deadly consequences of the medical errors. Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys know that there are already significant obstacles that these victims must overcome before they receive any compensation, and there is absolutely no need for more barriers to be thrown in their way.

The results of medical malpractice caps are devastating for the families involved. It often costs a plaintiff’s firm anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 to pursue these cases. Many caps would barely even cover the costs of bringing the case to trial, let alone have sufficient money to cover the costs incurred by many medical malpractice victims as a result of the error, which can often reach millions.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Importance of Doctor’s Disclosing Their Mistakes

Mother Campaigns For Medical Malpractice Disclosure

Technology improvements have obviously affected how medical care is provided throughout the world. Not only have advances allowed new treatments, but they have also change the way basic business within the medical community is done. This is perhaps evidenced most clearly in the recent push to have as many medical providers as possible switch over to electronic medical records. There is a hope that moving over to an electronic system, as opposed to the traditional pen and paper system, will provide more safeguards to prevent human error from creeping in and leading to a medical error.

However, our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys know that while a shift to these records may be an important long-term way to lower the overall error levels, they are simply one piece in the puzzle—they will not solve every record-keeping problem. In fact, a new study released by a health information technology research firm and reported by Information Week revealed that the rapid push to use electronic health records may actually increase instances of medical malpractice in some areas and in the short-term. The study’s authors suggest that the one of the main problems are the potential for developers and medical personnel to rush the process in an effort to implement electronic records too quickly. They suggest that this may result in cut corners on the part of those working on the software itself and on inadequate training of those using the new system.

Contrary to the belief of some, electronic health record systems do not actually replace all older components of the record keeping process. One of the main benefits of the system is that it will automatically build in certain safeguards and warn medical professionals when one of those safeguards is triggered—such as if a patient has an allergy to a certain medication that is being prescribed. These automated safeguards have the potential to prevent errors that otherwise may have had serious consequences. However, the safeguards are not comprehensive or fool-proof. The researchers involved in this latest study explain that the agency working closely on these issues—the Office of the National Coordinator or Health Information Technology—does not require certain safeguards to be part of the system. For example, most electronic record keeping systems do not check drug orders against laboratory results or take family history and social concerns into account.

Earlier this year our Chicago malpractice lawyers reported on similar concerns about medical errors that were still made even with use of these electronic records. For one thing, human input is still required. So if an aide forgets a decimal point or makes another typographical error, then the possibility for harm to the patient still exists. It will remain important for all medical providers to continue working with the utmost care, and not fall into a safe sense of security, assuming that any problems will be caught by the electronic monitoring system. While this medical record keeping advance has many benefits, it is not without risks. All patients deserve to have those risks taken into account by their caregivers.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Congresswoman Asks For More Information About IT Related Medical Errors

Medication Error Rates the Same with Electronic Prescriptions

This weekend the Chicago Tribune reported on breaking news related to several Depakote lawsuits filed by the U.S. government and half the states in the nation against Abbott Laboratories. At the heart of the suits are claims by the public bodies that the large drug company illegally marketed Depakote, an anti-seizure drug, for unauthorized uses. Unfortunately, the unauthorized marketing of drugs remains a common problem across the country, often resulting in harm to patients. Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know that medication errors are one of the most common forms of medical mistakes, affecting million of patients every year.

In this latest case, the public bodies began investing whether or not Abbott violated civil or criminal laws by marketing the drugs for “off label” purposes, including agitation and aggression in the elderly. Laws bar drug makers from actively promoting their drugs for purposes other than the ones approve by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Doctors may prescribe the drugs for those off-label purposes. However, there are times when off label uses of the drugs are not only ineffective, but dangerous. This is one of many reasons why it is important for all patients to take an active role in their treatment. Having open, honest discussions with doctors about every medication and the purpose of each is crucial to preventing unnecessary or harmful medication use.

Depakote was one of the company’s best-selling drugs, selling more than $1.6 billion worth in 2007 alone. However, following these latest allegations of illegal marketing practices, the company is likely to settle the suit for anywhere from 1 to 2 billion dollars. Officials with Abbott admitted that $1.5 billion has been set aside this quarter for use in a potential settlement. However, the parties involved are still in active discussions about a possible settlement, so nothing is yet concrete. Any settlement that is reached by the parties will first require judicial approval before it is finalized.

Rules about proper marketing of medications are put in place for the protection of consumers. It is vital that unscrupulous activity on the part of drug companies be investigated and explored at all corners to ensure patients are not harmed. The Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at our firm know that doctors must also be aware of these unscrupulous actions and guard against their involvement. Patient safety can never be compromised.

Unfortunately, seniors are often the ones who are victimized by these practices. Depakote was approved to treat epilepsy, bipolar disorder, and to prevent migraines. Yet, many seniors received the drug for other reasons. It remains to be seen if any harm came from the increased off label use. In a similar case, experts have found that “off label” use of antipsychotic medications in certain elderly patients with dementia comes with an increased risk of death. Obviously, the stakes are high whenever these medications are used, and so every precaution must be taken to ensure that the drugs not do more harm than good. Be sure to keep a close eye on all your medication to prevent falling victim to these problems.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Improving Healthcare Requires Identifying the Most Common Medication Errors

Illinois Nursing Homes Show Widespread Abuse of Antipsychotic Drugs

Last week our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys reported on the results of a new study which investigated the effect reporting trends have on shaping the perception of the civil justice system, particularly as it related to medical malpractice cases. We explained how it is rare to find any reporting on cases where the defense wins or that involve average size jury awards. The tendency for reporting to skew toward large victories for the plaintiff unfairly paints the picture in the mind of many community members that the system is rife with abuse.

Calls for “reform” of the system by the general public are often spurred by this belief that plaintiffs are using the system to unfairly acquire large sums of money that they do not need. In reality, that is not at all the case. Instead, many patients never receive anything, and those who do usually are awarded a much more modest amount than the totals that make headlines in the papers. However, the exception often proves the rule. Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys were surprised this weekend to read a newspaper story in the Madison-St. Clair Record reporting on the end of an Illinois medical malpractice trial in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant doctor.

The case involved the heart attack death of a local woman in early January 2009. The victim’s husband filed suit against some medical professionals who provided her care for his perceived failure to take appropriate steps which could have saved her life. Specifically, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that the doctor in question did not follow appropriate medical standards in the care that he provided. The plaintiff’s attorney suggested that the woman should have been given an EKG, because of risk factors that she had which suggested she may have cardiovascular disease. The attorney summarized by noting that “if you become a doctor, you become respected by the community. What’s expected is that you care about patients, that you do an exam that lasts more than five minutes for a woman you haven’t seen in three years.” On the other side, the defense attorney suggested that the involved doctor followed applicable standards when he provided care to the woman. He argued that the victim did not exhibit cardiac symptoms and therefore an EKG was not appropriate.

After hearing all of the evidence in the case, the jury deliberated for about two hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defense. They were not sufficiently convinced that the doctor’s actions was less than a reasonable standard of care. While it is rare for news stories to report on verdicts of this nature, these verdicts do occur on many occasions. It is a natural part of the civil process that nothing is ever certain about the outcome of a particular trial. That is why the experience and track-record of an attorney is important for all victims to investigate before making a decision on who will help represent them in a potential case against medical professionals who have done them harm. We continue to urge all those considering legal action to take the time to conduct proper research before visiting with a legal professional and sharing their story.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Public Perception of Medical Malpractice Cases Skewed By Media Trends

Illinois Doctor Database Now Online to Help Medical Consumers

Political discussions about tort reform often seem to divide down political lines. The Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm know that there is an impression among many that conservatives always support tort reform, while liberals are always opposed. Like so much in today’s political world, those stereotype are gross generalizations that fail to account for much of the complexity within the actual discussions about changes to our civil justice system. For one thing, over the past few months we have discussed how many of the most well-known so-called “conservative” legal scholars have come out against the effort to nationalize tort reform via a proposed piece of legislation known as House Resolution 5. Following in that trend, last week the Washington D.C. based libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, released a study which declared the ill-advised nature of most medical malpractice caps. The Institute explained that there was no proof to the claim by those pushing for medical malpractice reform that the awards in these cases were excessive when compared to the actual damages suffered by those involved.

In addition, the study’s authors—by no means a group known to be aligned with lawyers—echoed a concern that our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have often reported: These caps do little to make health care more affordable. Instead, what the caps actually do is result in some victims not receiving the compensation that they need and reducing the incentives for physicians to reduce their risk of negligence. It was explained how the threat of a medical malpractice lawsuit is actually well accounted for in the current malpractice insurance system. Physicians’ are rated according to an experience ranking which tracks the premium that they have to pay. Less risky physicians are rewarded with lower premiums. The Institute explains how caps eliminate the incentives for insurance carriers to tack the risks presented by physicians.

The report also calls out many state medical boards which do little to punish doctors who continually make mistakes. Failure to punish these bad doctors increases risks to patients. Most patients will never be made aware of the high-risk presented by the very worst doctors. In many cases, the report authors declare, it almost seems as if these medical oversight boards go out of their way to protect bad doctors from any public scrutiny about their often-deadly mistakes.

The fight to enact these caps nationwide continues. While H.R. 5 has been stalled for now, another threat looms. The “super committee” is currently meeting made up of a bipartisan group of Congress members to discuss debt reduction cuts. Many powerful interests groups with a lot to gain with the enactment of tort reform are hoping to use to committee’s unique role to push through tort reform measures. It remains important for all those who understand the vital role of the justice system to stand up to these and similar efforts. Please take the time to call or email your federal representatives to urge their rejection of all attempts to tamper with the medical malpractice system.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Most are well versed in the criticisms often faced by Chicago medical malpractice attorneys about their work and its effect on the community. Many attorneys in this area are forced to defend the aid that they provide medical victims from those who have an incomplete understanding of the work itself. A common refrain heard from those complaining about the Illinois medical malpractice system is that victims are receiving too much money from judges and juries. Many believe that this has reached epidemic proportions, causing them to advocate for incredibly damaging changes to the system itself. However, it is important to remember that this opinion is often rooted is misconceptions about the size of the average verdict and the way the figures are reached.

To help shed light on how these inaccurate perceptions of the system continue, the Center for Justice & Democracy published a new paper this week which looks at how the media covers civil justice cases in the 21st century. They also considered the effect that this coverage may have on the overall beliefs about the system. This new effort is actually a follow-up to similar effort conducted by the group ten years prior. The earlier effort found that the majority of news headline mentioned the total amount awarded to a plaintiff, but rarely referred to the actual harm that led to the verdict. On top of that, almost no news stories discussed how in more cases than not, a plaintiff may actually not receive anything and when they do it is much more modest that most believe.

This new follow-up study wanted to determine if anything had changed on this front over the past ten years. In addition, the researchers hoped to account for the widespread “New Media” dynamics—such as Twitter and Facebook—that have become popular in the years since the last study. Blog readers likely know that a growing percentage of individuals are not getting their news from traditional outlets. Instead news aggregators, such as Google, are becoming popular portals through which community members scan headlines while deciding what to read. Therefore, just as before, headlines and the small snippets of information that appear underneath them, are often the most important part of the story. This characteristic influences media outlets to create catchy headlines sufficient to draw a reader in to learn more.

However, this trend has clear consequences on the perception of the civil justice system. In this newest research, the analysts determined that the average total of a verdict reported in the news was about $4.6 million. That figure is almost 200 times more than the average total of all civil justice verdicts nationwide; according to the U.S. Department of Justice that average is actually $24,000. When settlement reporting was compared with actual settlement averages, a large discrepancy was also found. Beyond that, researchers also found that plaintiff wins were reported six times more frequently than defense wins, leading to the assumption that all those who file a lawsuit win. In addition, a surprising majority of news stories focusing on large awards failed to mention that the victim may only receive a fraction of that amount because of a cap on damages.

Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney remains proud of that the fact that the civil justice systems is the main tool available to victims of serious errors to receive compensation for their losses and work to get their lives back together. Unlike the claims made by some misguided advocates, those who file a Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit after the error are not merely seeking a way to make money. Instead, most often these victims are only hoping to use the tools protected by our founders to ensure justice and accountability.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

New Way to Support Nursing Home Laws

Pilot Program Seeks to Improve Troubled Nursing Homes in Illinois

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys consistently advocate for measures that increase transparency in the local medical system. A large part of that effort involved urging the re-publication of the Illinois doctor history database. The website had previously been available to consumers, and it provided a wealth of information to help patients make more informed choices about those to whom they would trust their medical care. It is common sense for residents to have access to basic information about the education, specialty, and Illinois medical malpractice history of their care providers. Perhaps no decision matters more to consumers than the ones they make which will affect their basic health and well-being. Yet, over the last few years consumers had little access to that information. It was much easier to learn about the history of a cell phone provider or the cable company, than it was to get basic information about the services provided by those caregivers to whom one’s life may well be entrusted.

Fortunately, another step forward in the effort to improve patient awareness was taken this week as the Chicago Tribune reported that the online database explaining information about Illinois doctors and chiropractors went online this week. The database is referred to as “The Physician Profile” and it is available at the website run by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation’s website. The site is fully searchable, and includes information on roughly 46,000 doctors and 4,500 chiropractors. Perhaps most importantly, the database allows consumers to determine if their doctor has been disciplined for Illinois medical malpractice or for errors committed in another state. Searchers can use the site to find information on malpractice judgments and settlements going back at least the past five years.

The re-publication of this information has been a long time coming. It had been available for several years. However, it was taken offline last year per the demands of certain physician groups after the Illinois Supreme Court reached the logical decision that the Illinois medical malpractice damage cap law was unconstitutional. The legislation that enacted the caps included a provision allowing for the removal of the database if the law were declared unconstitutional.

However, that all changed this year when Governor Pat Quinn signed the “Patient Right to Know” Act into law, reinstating the database. The signature was made in August, but the legislation called for a 60 days review period before the site actually went live. That review has passed, and so consumers can once again access the site to help in their medical decision making. As the Governor noted when he signed the measure, “This website is an important tool to empower Illinois consumers by giving them online, easy-to-use access to information about our state’s doctors.” Besides sharing information about previous Illinois medical malpractice suits, the website also allows consumers to see where a doctor went to school, whether they are taking on new Medicare and Medicaid patients, and whether they are board certified in any practice areas. The website is expected to draw upwards of 150,000 to 200,000 hits a week

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Federal Medical Malpractice Database Taken Down

Illinois Medical Malpractice Database Soon to Be Available to Patients

Medical mistakes often have permanent consequences on the lives of victims and their families. Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know that this is especially true when the error is made during the birth of a young child. These birthing mistakes frequently cause harm to young children that they must deal with for the rest of their lives. When that is the case, the overall costs of the mistake—financially, mentally, and emotionally—are staggering. It is for this reason that the jury verdicts and settlements in certain medical malpractice cases are often quite high.

This is illustrated in a jury award that was recently announced and shared in the Detroit Free Press. According to reports, a birth injury case concluded after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $130 million. Many observers are calling it the largest ever medical malpractice verdict in the state’s history. The significant sum was reached upon analysis of a variety of factors including the day-to-day medical costs needed to care for the victim of the medical error, her life expectancy, and her lost wages over that lifetime.

The case was filed by the victim’s parents after they learned of some problems with the birth of their daughter that may have led to her serious disabilities. Those familiar with the situation explain that the young child was born larger than expected as a result of the mother’s gestational diabetes. When a child is born larger than expected or that is safe for a mother, it is often reasonable for a cesarean section to be performed. Unfortunately, a C-section was not performed in this case. Instead, the doctor induced a vaginal birth in the mother. The resulting delivery went awry. One involved in the matter claimed that the doctors who delivered the child, “literally crushed the life out of that little baby.” The child suffered significant brain damage, had her clavicle broken, and is now a quadriplegic. As a result of those injuries the young child requires around the clock care. She will need that care for the rest of her life, so explain her doctors.

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know that it is important for observers not to use this and similar cases are proof of some problems within the civil justice system as a whole. Almost like clockwork we can expect some large insurance and medical industry advocates to use this case as justification for enacting changes to the civil justice system that take rights away from Illinois medical malpractice victims. This should be recognized for what it is: a distortion of the reality of the justice system as a way to increase the pockets of already profitable industries.

What many often forget is that these large awards are not crafted out of thin air nor decided upon by biased, involved individuals. Instead, attorneys present clear arguments and share calculations to justify the awards that are asked for. After presenting that information, the decision is left up to a non-partial group of community members who are tasked with discussing the situation, weighing the facts presented to them, and reaching what they deem a fair conclusion. Use of the jury system is a bedrock of our national history of justice, and these large awards are not reached outside of that system.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Birth Injury Lawsuit Leads to $3 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict

Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm knows that all families who have lost a family member because of a medical mistake and filed an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit would gladly accept no compensation so long as they could have their loved one back. Unfortunately, that is s not possible, and so the civil justice system is the next best avenue to ensure accountability for the loss and help improve the system for everyone in the future. A long way still remains, however, until the medical system is improved throughout the country such that no family is force to endure the losses that could and should have been prevented.

As the Commercial Appeal recently reported, one couple that lost a family member as a result of a preventable medication error decided to turn their pain into action. They recently published a new book entitled, “Don’t Be a Statistic: Top Screwups Doctor Make and How to Avoid Them.” In the book’s introduction they explain what happened to their own loved one (the husband’s mother) and what they would have done to prevent the accident had they been more familiar with the situation at the time.

The family’s victim was recovering from a successful angioplasty and stent placement in 1996. When the man went home for the evening his mother was in fine spirits, and she was looking forward to going home the following day. Unfortunately, in the middle of the night a physician had given the woman a narcotic painkiller. This was after the man specifically warned them that his mother could not tolerate narcotics. This warning was specifically mentioned in the woman’s chart. However, the chart was not at the bedside at the time that the resident doctor visited the woman and prescribed the drug—Demerol.

The man rushed to the hospital and found his mother tied to the bed, her muscles had spasmed and she was thrashing around wildly. She eventually calmed down enough that doctors thought she would be released later that day. However, literally a few hours later the man was told by medical professionals that the woman had fallen and had died. The family believed that the woman’s death was caused by an interaction with the drug and another medication she was taking called “serotonin syndrome.”

Since that loss, the family has committed themselves to preventing similar preventable tragedies in the future. For example, they have aided in the development of an online system that helps patients pay bills and make appointment. That same system is now used to allow patients to view personal records, like lab results and X-rays. Both doctors and patients have reported extremely positive results with the new online tracking systems. Another measure pushed by the family following the incident was the creation of “rapid response teams.” These are groups of individuals who are called to a patient’s bedside when they are perceived to be “going downhill.” The teams are now called both by physicians as well as patients and their families.

The newly published book is the family’s latest effort to spread awareness about the steps that can be taken to ensure the care received is the best possible. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that vigilant observation and questioning about the care given to their loved ones is the best method of ensuring mistakes are not made.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Wrongful Death Following Pressure Sore Infection

Federal Government Releases Information on Hospital Errors

The Clinical Advisor reported Monday on an Illinois medical malpractice case that was settled this month stemming from the 2009 death of a man suffering from a rare disease. The victim was a geriatric and internal medicine doctor who was diagnosed with a debilitating autoimmune disorder known as Lambert Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS). It affects only 300 people across the world. The victim himself spent more than two decades learning about LEMS, and he eventually came to believe that a stem cell transplant might provide a cure for the problem.

The man visited Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago to undergo the treatment that he hoped would fix the LEMS problem. However, in an incident unrelated to the actual stem cell transplant, a nurse at the facility committed a medication error. A note was specifically inserted into the man’s chart indicating that he should not receive any insulin. However, the nurse disregarded that note or failed to see it and she gave him insulin anyway. This caused the man to lapse into a diabetic coma. The coma lasted for three weeks before the man passed away. Following the tragedy, the widow of the victim filed an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit seeking to hold the facility accountable for the misconduct. She alleged that the staff members at the hospital failed to abide by reasonable standards of care when they were treating her husband, resulting in his death.

These cases are begun with the filing of a “complaint” which is a legal document laying out the claims made by the plaintiff. Once the defendants are made aware of the suit, they have a variety of option to respond to the complaint. Following that, the “discovery” phase of the case begins where both sides collect information about the situation to prepare for an ultimate trial. During this stage the plaintiff’s attorneys use various tools to collect more information about exactly what happened. This includes submitting written questions to the other side (known as “interrogatories”) and conducting interviews with those who have information about the situation (known as “depositions”).

This particular case was in the discovery phase when a nurse at the hospital admitted during a deposition that she had complained to the facility about the fact that the nurses were overworked and had too many patients. Inadequate staffing levels are a common problem at these facilities. Far too many medical errors can arise when care workers have more obligations than they do time. This results in cut corners and rushed practices which often fail to account for warnings like the “no insulin” warning in this case.

Ultimately, this case never went to trial. As frequently happens, the parties involved in this lawsuit reached a settlement before the case went before a jury. A settlement is essentially a private legal agreement that two sides reach whereby one usually agrees to provide some compensation while the other agrees not to proceed with a civil legal action. These settlements can be entered into at any time, usually before trial. However, it is not at all uncommon for settlement to be reached just days or even hours before the trial is scheduled. In fact, sometimes the parties agree upon terms in the very middle of trial.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medication Errors Require Millions to Receive Additional Care

Fatal Blood Thinner Overdose Leads to Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney has been closely following the developments in D.C. related to the budget deficit issues that have erupted over the past few months. Lately all eyes have turned to the so-called “Super Committee” –a group of legislators who are charged with coming up with a $1.5 trillion deficit reduction plan. Unfortunately, those who have spent years pushing for tort reform schemes to be forced upon all states are using the committee hearings to try to enact nationwide changes to the civil justice system.

Most reasonable observers admit that medical malpractice changes have no place in the deficit reduction talks. The changes would only work to hurt patients and would not bring about any necessary improvement to the nation’s financial situation. Research and investigation from a wide range of groups has consistently found that actual financial savings as a result of changes to the tort system are illusory. Even the most generous assessments place any financial savings at only fractions of a percent of our overall healthcare costs. However, the consequences for the victims of such changes are significant. Enacting tort reform measures as part of this deficit reduction plan will do nothing to help the country’s financial situation, but it will do a lot to help the financial interests of a few powerful interest groups.

Still a variety of medical interest groups and certain members of Congress are working hard to put tort reform measures into the plan proposed by the Super Committee. It is important for those who care about patient rights to do their part to fight the effort. All members of the Super Committee need to be reminded that tort reform will only hurt patients and does nothing for the budget. It is particularly important to make your voice heard if your Senator or Representative is on the committee. A full list of members can be found below:

Super Committee Members:

• Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
• Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)
• Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
• Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
• Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA-31st)
• Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI-4th)
• Rep. James Clyburn D-SC-6th)
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX-5th)
• Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI-6th)
• Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8th)

Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys encourage everyone to take a moment to call, write, or email members of this committee and remind them that medical malpractice reform does nothing to reduce costs. On the contrary, these changes would actually severely harm injured patients, leaving them without compensation for certain harm, and shifting the costs from the wrongdoer to the taxpayer. Victims without recourse in the civil justice system more often than not must rely on public programs funded by the taxpayers to get by each day. On top of that, these reforms remove incentives to make safety changes that can limit mistakes, save lives, and reduce the overall number of medical errors. Nearly 100,000 patients are killed every year because of mistakes that could have been prevented. Hospital infections take about 90,000 lives at a cost of $3.5 billion.

Please be sure to make your voice hear and share these important facts to help ensure these misguided tort reform efforts are not successful.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm is well-versed in the unique methods used by many defense teams in their attempt to avoid liability for the mistakes made by medical professionals. Contrary to popular belief, a defendant (via his or her lawyers) very frequently works to ensure that a plaintiff never actually has the proverbial “day in court.” Instead, it is often a long hard slog before the plaintiff jumps through all of the hoops and is allowed to take a case to a judge or jury for a final decision on the dispute. Before that time arrives, many defendants use every tool in the box to attempt to get the case thrown out of court.

One of the most common arguments made is that insufficient information was presented to the court before trial from which any fact-finder could establish liability. To succeed in any case there are certain elements that must be shown. If even a single one of those elements is not mentioned in court documents, then the defendant can have the case dismissed for failure to state a sufficient claim for which relief can be granted. This would be the end of the suit, even though the case had not actually been taken to trial.

For example, in an Illinois medical malpractice case, a negligence theory is usually involved. There are generally agreed to be four basic elements that must be shown to establish negligence: duty, breach, causation, injury. In a medical malpractice case the first element is pretty obvious, because a medical professional always owes a certain duty to those in their care. The breach element is essentially proven by showing that the doctor did not act as a reasonable doctor would in the same circumstances. In most cases, if the breach is shown to have occurred, than it is obvious that it caused injury.

However, in some rare cases there is disagreement about whether there was an injury caused by the breach at all. Often a defendant will claim that, even though care was not appropriate, it didn’t make any difference because the patient would have suffered the same harm no matter what. If this is true, then the injury was not caused by the breach and the case would fail. However, the idea of “injury” is not so black and white in the context of medical malpractice. For many years, courts have understood that there is nuance to the idea of injury. It is never as simple as whether or not an exact harm would unquestionably have occurred. Instead, it is more appropriate to consider the likelihood that a patient would have recovered or experienced less problems if proper care was given. There are few certainties in medical care.

This idea of malpractice leading to a diminished chance at recovery was at the heart of a case recently discussed in the Bellingham Herald. The victim in the case had a third of her brain tissue destroyed after suffering a stroke. However, her doctors failed to properly diagnose the stroke or provide necessary treatment. T he delay that she experienced, her attorneys argued, led to a decrease in the chance that she could have more fully recovered. Initially, the trial judge dismissed the case because he believed that the plaintiffs did not properly plead all of the requirements elements. However, last week the state’s Supreme Court overruled that decision, noting that negligence causing a loss of chance of a superior outcome was sufficient for the case to proceed.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Jury Awards $667,000 Following Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Over Hole in Bowel

Illinois surgical errors are particularly frightening examples of Illinois medical malpractice, because they can strike with such immediacy. A patient enters into facility for one reason, loses consciousness under anesthesia, and then wakes up with new problems that he never expected to have. That is if a patient wakes up at all. There are certainly many sad examples of patients who pass away during surgery because of a variety of complications. Many patients are understandable nervous whenever they “go under the knife.” When medical professionals make costly errors during surgery that affect the life of a patient, then the victim and their family often have legal rights to hold the wrongdoer accountable for the misconduct. This is the case so that the family will have the resources necessary to provide the care the victim needs. In addition, these suits also act as an important check on the conduct of these medical professionals, often leading them to enact necessary alterations and safety changes to ensure that the error does not happen again.

For example, on Thursday Outpatient Surgery News reported on a new jury award in a medical malpractice case related to spinal surgery and the way that the award is an important reminder for surgeons everywhere. According to the report, the case involved a spine surgeon who removed the wrong spinal disc on a patient while performing surgery. Research specifically into spinal surgery recently found that operating on the wrong vertebrae was consistently one of the most common causes of medical negligence. This problem is particularly problematic among spinal surgeons, who have the second highest incidences of errors, second only to OB/GYN physicians.

According to the report, the negligent doctor in this particular case removed the T6-T7 spinal disc even though it was the T5-T6 disc that needed to be removed. A second surgery needed to be performed to correct the problem. When discussing the case, the physician admitted that the error was made. He claimed that unclear MRI imaging played a role in the malpractice. On top of not having a clear image, the doctor also explained that the patient’s height (6 feet, 2 inches) also made it difficult to count the vertebrae correctly. Also, the herniation of the disk was apparently obscured from the doctor’s view. Following the incorrect surgery the patient and his wife filed a medical malpractice lawsuit to recover lost wages, cost of the surgery, physical pain, mental anguish, loss of consortium, and other damages. The jury eventually returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

The story explains how this latest case is being used as an important reminder that physicians need to properly sign, mark, and x-ray to verify the site of the surgery. It is important that all of these physicians insist on clear imaging and careful counting of the vertebrae to ensure that no mistakes are made and the work is performed in the correct spot on the patient’s body. This is obviously a fundamental aspect of reasonable care, and any deviation from these practices likely constitutes clear medical malpractice.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Jury Award $6.7 Million in Hospital Malpractice Lawsuit

Illinois Medical Malpractice Complaint Filed Against Brain & Spine Center

A challenge when discussing new legislative ideas is dealing with the uncertainty that often exists about the effect of the changes. However, after that legislation is enacted and changes occur, there will eventually ways to measure the effect of that bill and compare it to the goals of those who championed the measure. For example, many a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer has mentioned this very point when arguing against state and federal legislation that is seeking to take away rights of victims. As research continues to show, the intended goals of so-called medical malpractice reform are rarely found to been achieved once the legislation becomes law.

A new study out of Texas released this week has again found that the state law that limits damages in medical malpractice cases has not delivered on the promises that its proponents claimed. The Star-Telegram reported on the newly released data this week. Specifically, the new research has found that healthcare costs and medical malpractice insurances premiums continued to rise in the state after the passage of the tort reform effort. In fact, those premium rates and healthcare costs rose at a greater speed than the national average ever after these changes. The data also revealed that the changes also did not result in a significant increase in the total number of doctors in the state.

Patient advocacy groups explained that the new data is even more evidence that there is simply no logical reason to take away the rights of medical victims. It essentially amounts to an unwarranted transfer of power away from everyday community members and into the hands of deep pocketed special interest groups—like insurance companies—without any public benefit. The data did find that payouts by medical malpractice liability insurers dropped sharply over the period of time. In 2003 $247 million were paid on claims, and that number dropped to $87 million in 2010. Without a comparable decrease in premiums, the vast majority of that difference between those lowered payouts is therefore going to the insurers themselves. As our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have repeatedly argued over the years, this amounts to a simple money-grab on the part of insurers who have the most to gain, by far, from taking about the legal rights of victims of the ones that they insure.

An often overlooked downside to all of this is that once these reforms are enacted, medical providers are much less liable to their patients as before. The fact remains that medical professionals are in a position to cause immense harm to their patients if they fail to act appropriately. Lives are lost, disabilities are incurred, and families suffer tremendous at the hands of medical mistakes. However, by taking away the right of an impartial jury to decide disagreements about the quality of care, those victims essentially have no recourse to demand accountability. Medical providers, conversely, have much less incentive to enact changes to improve safety, because those who they harm cannot force any changes via use of the legal system.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

The medical malpractice “reform” debates continues to rage at both the state and national levels. The discourse has become so stale that it is hard to have any honest debate on the issue without entrenched groups resorting to their favorite talking about why changes to the legal system should or should not be made. To be fair, the typical Chicago medical malpractice attorney is likely just as guilty as those on the other side of repeating the same positions over and over again. It is hard to move beyond these common refrains and into the heart of the issue.

However, one way to break new ground is to look at how the insiders of the debate are talking amongst themselves about the issues. For example, our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers believe that there is a disconnect between the points made by insurance companies in public when seeking tort reform and the points made between insurers when talking about the success of their business. In public those supporting changes to the civil justice system explain that medical malpractice insurance continues to rise. That rise, they claim, cannot be controlled by the insurance companies, because otherwise they would essentially become an unprofitable and unsustainable businesses.

Yet, that rhetoric is much different in the latest issue of the Medical Liability Monitor which includes the 2011 Annual Rate Survey amongst medical malpractice insurers. The survey explains that the business and profits for these companies was, in their words, “stupendously good” over the last five years. In addition, the report explains that the overall rate paid by doctors has fallen each of the last five years. Therefore, even while rate decreases the insurers had some of their best years ever from a financial perspective. Of course, this flies right in the face of claims made by these very same insurers in public depicting financial devastation caused by the skyrocketing premiums, continuous claims being filed, and minimal profits for the insurance companies. Clearly these industries are presenting one side of things when they are working to strip medical victims of their rights and presenting a totally different picture when they are talking amongst themselves about the reality of the situation.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that in reality, insurance premium rates for medical professionals has actually decreased on average sixteen percent over the last five years. Also, a closer look at the survey reveals that there is little connection between the insurance premium rates and medical malpractice caps. In other words, some of the states with no caps on damages have the lowest average premiums, while states that have caps of damages have higher premiums.

On top of that, the insurance industry employees admit that medical malpractice claims have actually been decreasing over the past seven years at least and potentially longer. The loud public claims about an “epidemic” of medical malpractice lawsuits are thus better viewed as a successful scare tactic. So many of the claims made in public are simply myths propagated by those seeking to place caps on damage claims and enact other changes

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Person Injury Lawsuit Alleges Negligence By Hospital in Bad Diagnosis

Former Tort Reform Advocate Realizes the Harm from Damage Caps

Complaints about the civil justice system in the United States have likely been made from the moment the Bill of Rights was drafted and included a provision guaranteeing the right to a jury trial to settle civil disputes. Today is no exception, as political rancor is still wrought by those who claim that “tort reform” laws need to be enacted to save certain special interests. In our area, every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer has likely gotten used to dealing with the complaints of these groups which are seeking to take away some of the most basic rights of average community members—rights that have been around seemingly longer than the nation itself.

Commonly, the argument is made that medical malpractice lawsuits cause doctor insurance premiums to increase and therefore result in higher overall medical bills. We have repeatedly explained how those claims are not rooted in fact according to virtually all balanced research on the subject. They are usually nothing more than scare tactics. Large medical interests and insurance groups have used the claim to drum up support for legislation changes that would essentially immunize themselves for significant liability for the harm that they cause, no matter how severe.

Besides those tired old claims, sometimes arguments are made explaining the woes of our civil justice system by comparing it to legal systems across the world. America is a particularly litigious nation, the claims goes, and so we should model ourselves upon the methods used by other nations. However, a new paper published two scholars and reported in Forbes explained that these comparisons are a lot more complicated that some initially think. In fact, the paper explains how the American legal system does not differ much at all in everyday litigation matters when compared to other industrialized countries. In fact, the paper’s authors were quick to point out that the U.S. is particularly efficient at creating predictable outcomes in business matters, such as contract disputes.

Overall, the U.S. does have a higher percentage of litigation per captia than other systems, and there are more lawyers in the U.S. as a percentage of total population than elsewhere. However, the story’s authors explain that these statistics are often distorted by those seeking to enact tort reform legislation. Many other nations have lower rates of lawyers, the paper explains, because non-lawyers are allowed to perform certain tasks in those countries that they cannot here. For example, lawyers are required to do certain tax and real estate work in America whereas places like Japan allow those services to be performed without a legal degree or license.

There is always room for discussions about ways to improve our legal system. Every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer who has experience in the field will likely have a list of ideas of things that should be changed. However, it is one thing to work to improve the way that justice is handled, and it is quite another to completely bar juries from making certain decisions in one fell swoop. Virtually all tort reform proposals on the table are not the product of balanced discussions among all involved actors to improve our system of justice. Instead they reflect reactionary, rash decisions making by those who have a lot to gain by not having to pay for medical malpractice lawsuits after patients are horrifically injured by preventable mistakes.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

H.R. 5 Medical Malpractice Proposals Shot Down By Committee Testimony

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm has had to fight back complaints from those involved in the “tort reform” movement who are under the mistaken assumption that helping victims of medical errors somehow worsens medical care throughout the area. This may seem wildly off-base to most. However, there remains a strong undercurrent of interest groups that are working to perpetuate this myth for their own gain. This skewed logic posits that increased medical malpractice lawsuits cause insurance for doctors to increase which ultimately results in those medical providers having to increase their prices for medical care.

Almost everything about that string of logic does not hold up to facts. For one thing, experts across the board have found repeatedly that healthcare rates would only be affected by a fraction of one percent if any changes are made to the tort system. It is a red herring. On top of that, medical malpractice insurance premiums are influenced mostly by insurance company decisions and not civil justice decisions. For example, a new survey published in the Insurance Journal explained that premium rates for medical liability insurance decreases this year for the sixth year in a row. In other words, anyone who claims that insurance premiums continue have been incorrect according to insurance companies own data for the past six years. In other words, the average rates doctors have had to pay for insurance have been decreasing at the very time that many are complaining about the “epidemic” of increasing rates. This takes virtually all of the steam of the argument that taking away rights of medical error victims is necessary to combat the increase.

On top of that, the insurance companies own figures also indicate that their profits have been going up consistently for that same period of time. The medical professional liability insurance industry reports that last year, 2010, was actually one of the best financial years for owners and stockholders. In fact, this particular form of insurance was outperforming (financially speaking) those of other property or casualty insurance industries. Therefore, despite claims repeatedly made to the contrary by those involved in the industry, medical liability company profits are actually thriving. It is all the more surprising that it is thriving even amid the rough U.S. economic picture that has forced so many other industries to cut back and tighten their belts. It calls into questions all of the claims made over the years about the devastating effects of medical malpractice lawsuits on the industry.

As usual, each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer is able to combat the wrongful claims about the consequences of our work by sharing a dose of reality about the insurance industry. The truth is that virtually all of the claims about the need for tort-reform are simply sophisticated attempts by those involved interests to shield themselves from liability for the harm that they cause. By convincing the public that having to pay for their harm causes a national problem, the insurance interests have been able to convince a large number of people to support plans to legislative protect themselves for paying for legal consequences just like every other business in the country.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Person Injury Lawsuit Alleges Negligence By Hospital in Bad Diagnosis

Former Tort Reform Advocate Realizes the Harm from Damage Caps

Certain cases of medical malpractice are more straightforward than others. A Chicago medical malpractice attorney who has spent any amount of time working in this area would likely appreciate the difference between some types of case where negligence is clear and others where it may require a significant amount of more evidence to prove. The harm in each case may be just as severe, but the process of proving the misconduct on the part of medical professionals is different.

For example, some of the clearest cases of malpractice are those involving medical objects left inside the body of a patient. As reported in the NV Daily, that appears to be what happened according to a new medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a woman who claims that a doctor left a Mirena inter-uterine device (IUD) inside her body. The IUD is a birth control piece of equipment. According to the recently filed complaint, the woman had the device inserted in September of 2006. Over the next year the woman warned her doctor that she had not expelled the device, even though she had developed a left ectopic pregnancy that required treatment.

Unfortunately, the doctor did not utilize any imaging technique or otherwise try to locate the missing IUD device. Over the course of the next few months the woman suffered pain in her abdomen that required significant treatment. However, throughout that time the doctor did not conduct any tests that would have revealed that the IUD was lodged in the woman’s abdomen. The woman continued to suffer pain, but her doctor told her that it was caused by scar tissue and nothing could be done. She was told to “deal with it.” Eventually, over three years later, the woman she as rushed to the hospital for severe abdominal pain. A basic CT scan found an IUD device floating in her abdomen. She eventually underwent surgery to have the device removed.

Unlike other situations, in this case, if the allegations in the complaint are true, then it is hard to see how negligence was not involved in the treatment of this woman. IUDs do not naturally become stuck inside a person’s abdomen. They are a specific medical device that has a specific medical purpose and need to be removed when that purpose is no longer filled. However, in this case, the device was not only left in the patient, but her specific concerns about its location were ignored by the medical professional.

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm would be able to explain how this case and those like it are very clear cases of malpractice. Some problems can be caused by both natural occurrences as well as medical errors. Other problems are cause almost exclusively by medical mistakes. This incident seems to be indicative of the latter. As a result, the victim was smart to contact a legal professional to learn how her rights could be protected. By holding the negligent professionals involved accountable, the woman can be sure that she will receive redress for her losses as well as protect future patients from similar misconduct.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Alleging Sponge Left in Patient

$500,000 Verdict After Sponge is Left Inside a Patient Following Surgery

Virtually every Chicago medical malpractice attorney is forced to fight a daily battle beating back to false claims that repeatedly seek to link the rights of victims and use the civil justice system to public financial problems. We know that big local interests who have a lot to gain by limiting the rights of Illinois medical malpractice victims have waged a campaign for decades in an attempt to take away the ability of victims to hold their wrongdoers accountable. Of course, it is difficult to make this notion palpable to the vast majority of community members unless they frame the debate as one necessary to save certain public interests—like the overall costs of healthcare or the government budget problems. Therefore, even thought the actual connection with these issues is greatly exaggerated (and often downright false), many so-called “tort reformers” continue to claims that the legal rights of victims have to be taken away to save society money.

The latest use of these tactics is going on right now, directed at members of the “Super Committee” charged with making deficit reduction recommendations. This group was the one created by the latest budget compromise enacted when a group of House members sought to deny the President the ability to borrow money to pay off already existing federal debt. The Committee will consider whether medical malpractice “reform” proposals—such as those modeled after the draconian House Resolution 5 (H.R. 5)—will be included as part of the deficit reduction plan. It goes without saying that the members of this committee should not be distracted by the rhetoric which claims that money can be saved only by cutting off certain uses of the justice system.

Recently many patient rights’ allies sent a letter to the members of the committee urging them not to include H.R. 5 ideas in the deficit reduction plan. This included a large group of consumer and public safety groups reminding committee members that not only would use of these measures hurt injured patients, but they would actually increase the deficit. All of this is on top of the fact that use of these so –called medical malpractice reform strategies would be an unprecedented federal usurpation of the rights of states and localities to make decisions about the justice system on their own. For one thing, even the most generous estimates of the potential costs savings of these issues—likely an overestimate—claims that a maximum of four-tenths of one percent could be saved on health care costs. However, enacted these changes would mean that an additional 4,000 patients would be killed every year. All of this also does not include consideration of the new financial burdens on localities should these laws pass.

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm strongly opposes all efforts to limit patient’s rights by those who stand to personally gain from the effort. It is important that all budget reduction efforts be focused on information rooted in fact—not heated rhetoric that has been built up on general claims and not actual data. The truth of the matter is that improving the nation’s budgetary problems will not be accomplished by limiting the rights of medical patients. In fact, the best data that we have actually suggests that the overall problems will only be exacerbated by such efforts. The Super Committee must be aware of this as it enters into deliberations.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Truth About Punitive Damages in Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

The Truth About “Tort Reform” Effect on Doctor Increase

Our Illinois DePuy hip injury lawyers continue to follow all new developments related to the danger that these metal-on-metal hips may present patients who received them over the past several years. As blog readers are aware, the hips were recalled a year ago amid growing pressure on the makers to pull the devices after growing evidence showed that they presented patients with an unacceptable risk of harm. Many questions are still being sorted out about how much the negligent DePuy hip manufacturers knew about the risks of the metal devices while they were still being used and put into new patients.

Recently ABC Nightly News ran a segment on the problems with the hips. As the report explained, the high failure rates of these devices is leaving the medical community scrambling to recover from what is being deemed one of the nation’s largest ever medical device failures. The problem, of course, is not found in all devices, just those utilizing the metal-on-metal format. The story highlighted the story of one woman who was promised a new life after having both hips replaced using these devices. She was told that the hips would each last her twenty years. However, that was not to be. Instead, less than five years after the original surgeries, the woman was forced to go back in and have both hips changed again to a version that did not use metal-on-metal components.

This victim shared a story that may be familiar to others who have undergone problems with these hips. She reported waking up many nights with severe fevers while experiencing intense pain in her hips. She explained how the pain she experienced was more severe than that which led her to go in to have the hip replacements in the first place. Doctors involved in the recall effort remind all patients who have received a DePuy hip implant that they should seek out help anytime they experience problems with the hip, like pain or swelling.

The problem is widespread. This year alone, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received more than 11,000 complaints about metal-on-metal implants. The DePuy recall has spurred many advocates to reiterate the problems with the entire medical device regulation process. Unlike prescription drugs, it is often easier for potentially harmful devices to slip through the cracks and reach patients. Advocates remind those with hip problems to exhaust all non-surgical options before taking the steps to have an actual implant.

Our DePuy hip recall attorneys continue to help patients who have suffered because they received one of these devices. If you or someone that you know has received a DePuy metal-on-metal hip implant in the past, please get in touch with our office and see how we can help. Our experienced lawyers continue investigating all of the facets of this recall and are working to sort through the legal implications for all patients. Be sure that your legal rights are protected in this matter by having professional guidance ensure in your corner.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Number of Injuries From DePuy Hip Replacements Continue to Grow

Illinois Hip Implant Recall Shows Problems with Improper Product Testing

Through the years our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers have worked on a variety of cases where patients suffered because of poor communication between doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, and other involved employees. In many cases the series of errors that led to faulty care injuring the victims was caused not by the mistaken efforts of one person but instead include a series of errors that several employees fail to catch, even though they should. This common component of medical malpractice cases is likely a testament to the often systematic problems that can become engrained at some facilities where it is difficult for one employee to question another when they have concerns about a particular course of conduct.

For example, when patients are not properly monitored by an entire medical team, then potentially deadly complications can arise without notice. That appears to be what happened to one woman whose medical malpractice lawsuit went to trial this week, according to the South Texas Record. The suit was filed by a man following the death of his wife several years ago. Both a hospital and a physician are named defendants in the case. The complaint in the suit states that the involved defendants were negligent in caring for the patient primarily by allowing her breathing tube to become inadvertently removed and having inadequate procedures in place to allow the victim to communicate her distress to medical providers.

According to the complaint the woman’s breathing tube accidentally become dislodged, causing her severe distress. However, to compound the problem, the woman’s heart monitor—also known as a ‘finger light’—had been removed. Therefore, her caregivers did not know that her breathing had become labored or that she was in any form of distress. In fact, the woman’s problem was only caught when her ten-year old son came into her room and saw his mother in trouble with an oxygen tube hanging from the side of her bed. The boy’s father came in shortly after and explained that he saw that his wife had stopped breathing with her skin turning purple. As a result of the oxygen deprivation and missing heart monitor the woman suffered severe lack of oxygen to her brain over an extended period of time. The woman eventually fell into a coma because of the problem. She died not long afterwards.

It is unclear what series of events led to the problematic care being provided. However, as this case illustrates, even one misstep by care providers could be the difference between life and death. It is suggested that the dislodging of the oxygen was a completely accidental occurrence not connected to negligence on the part of caregivers. However, because of their actual negligence in not having a heart monitor attached, the breathing problem became deadly. This is a common facet of these cases. It is incumbent upon all medical professionals to follow through with safety measures that are designed to catch a patient in trouble. While the underlying medical condition may be entirely accidental, the failure to follow reasonable safeguards which would prevent that complication from becoming more serious is an act of negligence. The Illinois medical malpractice attorneys at our firm understand these and other issues that commonly occur in these situations. We are proud to help all victims and their families who are hurt when these monitoring mistakes are made.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Importance of Doctor’s Disclosing Their Mistakes

Mother Campaigns For Medical Malpractice Disclosure

The death of a loved one caused by the mistakes of others in a position to prevent the passing is one of the hardest things that a family ever has to go through. Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have worked with many families in that situation and understand the variety of emotions that are involved. While nothing can make one completely whole again after they lose a family member, the legal system provides an avenue for those victims to hold the negligent individuals involved liable for their misconduct. Taking the steps to do so it helpful both in terms of providing redress to the family and as motivation to prevent the wrongdoer from making the same mistakes and harming another in the future.

Last week the Washington Examiner discussed a verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit that sought to hold a doctor and medical facility accountable for their poor care that ultimately led to the death of a woman. The family of the 43-year old victim died after a doctor’ failure to provide a through screening led to her passing. The woman was brought to the hospital because she was having trouble breathing and had chest pains. While at the facility she was examined by an emergency room doctor. T he doctor performed only a cursory examination of the woman before sending her back home noting only that she had chest pains of an unclear cause and bronchitis. A week and a half later the woman was found unresponsive in her bedroom and was pronounced dead when brought to the hospital twenty minutes later. She had died of a heart attack.

The victim’s family sued, and a jury ultimately agreed that the care provided to the woman in the emergency room visit was inadequate. They concluded that if the woman had received a proper examination when she went into the hospital the first time, then the doctor would or should have caught the warning signs of an impending heart attack. They awarded the family $4 million following the plaintiff’s verdict.

This case illustrates an all-too-common form of medical malpractice—failure to diagnose. When one enters a medical facility with clear health concerns, it is incumbent upon the professionals who evaluate her to do everything in their power to properly diagnose the condition. As this case demonstrates, failure to do so frequently results in necessary care not being provided. Lives are lost when emergency care is delayed or never received by those in distress.

Continue reading "Jury Awards Family $4 Million Following Medical Malpractice-Wrongful Death Lawsuit" »

Yesterday we discussed the positive news out of the latest version of the Illinois Hospital Report Card which indicated that local hospitals are slowly improving on their rate of hospital acquired infections. Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm believes that these are very welcome results which hospitals should work to duplicate in the coming years. All positive news as it relates to hospital safety should be promoted.

At the same time, all information that reveals problems in medical care or inadequate focus on patient safety measures should also be promoted to ensure that necessary changes are made. For example, the latest issue of the legal newsletter Vested Interest highlighted a Chicago Tribune story which uncovered troubling new information about poor infection control at Illinois surgical centers. The surgical centers involved in this latest news were those that performed same-day procedures. These locations are popular with patients who are in need of surgeries that can be performed in a relatively timely manner with less recovery required. However, the benefit that one gains in less hospital time may come at a cost of an increased risk of falling victim to Illinois medical malpractice.

According to new data from state inspection reports, many of these same-day surgery centers are far too lax in enforcing their safety protocols—placing patients at risk. The specific safety indicator of concern related to infection control. It is incumbent upon these centers to do everything in their power to prevent the spread of dangerous viruses and bacteria which could be particularly deadly to those undergoing surgical operations. Failure to take proper steps to prevent these infections and keep patients safe is an often-hidden and costly type of Illinois medical error.

According to newly released data there were twenty one same-day surgery sites inspected by officials last year. Of that total, two-thirds (14 facilities) were cited by inspectors for deficiencies in their infection-control procedures. Specifically, local regulators noted a variety of problems at these facilities. For example, a Chicago eye surgery center failed to sterilize instruments for as long as necessary—often cutting out 2/3 of the time required to ensure proper control. Another facility cleaned instruments in a sink that had no hot water—a very basic, but potentially deadly mistake. The potential harm caused by these cut-corners should not be underestimated. On top of placing each individual patient at risk, these errors can also cause community-wide problems. Several years ago an outbreak of hepatitis C in Las Vegas was eventually discovered to have been caused by unsafe practices at same-day surgery clinics.

The wide-ranging potential consequences of improper infection control make it imperative to seriously crack down on those that fail to take reasonable step to prevent their spread. Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers appreciate that the task of improving falls squarely on those who work at these facilities and are in charge of patient safety efforts. Pressure on all sides—from inspectors as well as victims—is important parts of the process that will ultimately lead to improvements necessary to save lives.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Hospital Infections Remain Deadly Problem Across Our Area

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Over Hole in Bowel

One important resource that our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers believe is helpful l for local patients is the Illinois Hospital Report Card. The website is published by the Illinois Department of Public Health and is made available to all consumers to that they can make more informed choices about the medical facilities that they visit. On the website you can access information on the cost of services hospital and treatment centers, nursing staff information, patient satisfaction survey data, and summaries of local laws that apply to medical consumer protection.

In addition, the website lists information on hospital quality and safety data—an important piece of information on all those who care about preventing instances of Illinois medical malpractice. Recent information collected on hospital safety and made available by the Illinois Hospital Report card reveals some encouraging news about local improvement in at least one area—the prevention of Illinois hospital acquired infections. The data shows that there was a significant drop in the number of reported infections in 2010 when compared to previous years.

These infections are almost always preventable and involve unsafe and unsanitary practices by medical professionals that allow patients to develop new infections on top of whatever original medical condition brought them to the facility to begin with. These complications can lead to thousands of preventable deaths across the country each year and literally billions of dollars in additional healthcare costs. There has been a strong push in recent years to lower the prevalence of these errors, and if this latest data is correct, Illinois may finally be making a bit of headway on the issue. To get an idea of how local hospitals are performing on the indicator of hospital safety, the Illinois Department of Health analyzed bloodstream infection rates associated with “central lines.” Those central lines include things like catheters inserted into the neck or arm, heart vessel studies, and blood withdrawals. Each of those lines inserted into the body can cause serious infection if proper controls are not maintained by medical professionals.

Overall, when looking at that data, the department noted that roughly 75% of hospital reported fewer rates of infections in 2010 as compared to the previous year. In total, there were 282 infections reported last year, while that figure was 383 the year before. If this data is true, that represents a good start in the effort to curb the prevalence of these infections and keep consumers safe. Of course, there remains a long way to go, and central line infections are just one piece of the overall puzzle. But this and all good news should be welcomed.

Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys applaud the efforts of the medical professionals that are working to keep infection rates down at local hospitals. While we advocate on behalf of consumers and patients who are victimized by inadequate practices, we are capable of recognizing beneficial improvements by area medical professionals. In fact, we believe that allowing patient-victims to maintain open, honest, and fair access to the justice system is one of the key factors that encourage medical facilities to make changes that lead to these improvements.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Nearly 100,000 Die Every Year From Hospital Acquired Infections

A Hospital’s First Priority: Do No Harm

The Illinois medical malpractice lawyers at our firm have frequently explained the difference between civil and criminal lawsuits and the way that each type has different goals. While the civil medical malpractice lawsuit works to compensate the victims for the specific harms that they suffered, criminal suits are actions initiated by a community when a specific crime has been broken. Criminal cases have much different motivations, and there remains constant discussion about the goals the criminal justice system. From deterring the conduct of other citizens and punishing the wrongdoers to providing a system to rehabilitate the criminals, various motives drive policymakers when they are crafting our criminal laws.

When medical malpractice is mentioned it essentially always refers to the civil component of the justice system. It is rooted in the law of negligence, which allows victims of unreasonable conduct of all forms to hold those wrongdoers (also called “tortfeasors”) liable financially for the consequences of their conduct. However, when a medical professional’s conduct is particularly bad it may reach a level of reckless or “criminal negligence.” In those cases an actual law passed by policymakers may have been violated. In such cases, a criminal suit may also be brought by local prosecutors completely separate from the civil lawsuit.

A recent high-profile case illustrates this principle well. The personal physician of Michael Jackson is currently in the middle of a criminal trial related to his conduct which may have led to the death of the famous pop star. As a new Associated Press story explains, the case represents the unique, but not unheard of, situation where a medical professional is criminally charged for a standard of care deviation—in this case he is charged with involuntary manslaughter. To be found guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter an individual must generally act in a way that is reckless or, in some areas, criminally negligent resulting in the death of another. Recklessness and criminal negligence are terms of art in the legal world which refer to the level of mental culpability than a defendant displays at the time of the complained of conduct.

Therefore, at issue in this case was the reasonableness of the doctor’s use of the drug propofol to treat his chronic insomnia. The reasonableness of the conduct is generally measured against the actions of similar individuals in similar circumstances. The jury will be asked to consider whether or not the doctor was reckless in using the drug in that manner—recklessness generally being defined as a “gross” deviation from an applicable standard of care. This is a higher standard than the level of culpability that must be shown for a plaintiff to succeed against a defendant in a civil medical malpractice lawsuit.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Can Lead to Criminal Charges" »

Every Illinois medical malpractice lawyer at our firm knows that advertising plays a large role in some systematic problems in the medical community. For example, when large pharmaceutical companies engage in illegal practices to convince doctors to prescribe their medication for off-label purposes, then many patients are ultimately harmed by the subsequent use of the drugs in unsafe ways. Similarly, when claims are made about certain medical procedures that are untrue, many more patients than otherwise likely agree to have that surgery. Unnecessary complications and potential risks are therefore endured because of deception on the part of those in the medical community who seek to maximize their profits with little regard for the needs of the patient. When it occurs in our area this represents a hidden but damaging form of Illinois medical malpractice.

Along the same lines, Health Day News reported last week on new steps being taken by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to crack down on improper advertising by those promoting the popular LASIK eye surgery. In a new letter, the FDA challenges eye doctors to stop using deceptive and potentially harmful advertising practices. The letter claims that these medical professionals are over-selling the potential benefits of the surgery while failing to adequately inform consumers about the risks associated with LASIK. Specifically, the FDA noted that many professionals do not warn consumers that the surgery can lead to vision loss, under or over correction of one’s vision, glare, halos, double vision, dry eye, or infection.

This is not the first time that the FDA has tried to crack-down on dangerous advertising by these medical professionals. In May of 2009, the agency sent a similar warning urging eye surgeons to correct problems with their procedures. Considering this latest letter echoes many of the same concerns as before, it does not appear that the first warning was all that effective. As a result, the agency claims in this most recent warning that if the targeted eye doctors do not step up and make the necessary changes within 90 days, then the FDA will take regulatory action. One of the main concerns is drawing in people who have little to no use for the surgery. For example, those with thin or irregular corneas, various types of eye disease, glaucoma, or cataracts should likely not have the procedure performed.

The Illinois medical malpractice attorneys at our firm urge all area residents to make informed choices about these and other voluntary surgeries. In order to ensure that one does not fall victim to medical malpractice, the most important step is choosing the right doctor. It is always a good idea to look into the medical professional’s history and to speak with those who have worked with the surgeon before. In addition, doctors who are members of local ophthalmology associations, surgeon’s organizations, and are board-certified are much more likely to provide the quality of care that all patients should expect. If you ever happen to fall victim to a negligent medical professional, be sure to get in touch with legal professionals to understand if the civil justice system may provide any recourse.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Several Hospitals Fined for Serious Medical Errors

Madison County Man Files Lawsuit Against Negligent Eye Doctor

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers believe that it is incumbent upon medical professionals to keep up to date on the latest information about the efficacy of their treatments. Of course, it is vital that patients not be exposed to certain drugs or procedures that at one-time might have been thought helpful, only for researchers to later learn that they actually posed unnecessary risks. This rule should also apply to properly balancing the potential risks of a treatment plan with the possible benefit. Patients rightly rely upon the expertise of their medical professionals when deciding that a particular course of treatment has more upside than downside. If doctors are wrong or mislead patients on that balance, then that trust is broken.

For example, studies continue to pour in on the dangers posed to patients who were prescribed atypical antipsychotic drugs for “off-label” uses. These drugs are often prescribed to elderly patients—like those with dementia—but patients of all ages can suffer harm as a result of these prescriptions. The “off label” use refers to those purposes not specifically provided for or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

According to Medscape, a new analysis of more than 150 efficacy trials of these drugs showed that at least 200 adverse outcomes were common in those who took the medications—including death. The lead author of the study found that the beneficial outcomes for all patents—including those with dementia—were slightly smaller than they expected. She also noted that they found virtually no effect for a wide variety of conditions that these medications are used to treat. The author explained that this latest effort was the largest of its kind of should prompt clinicians in all situations to reconsider the way they prescribe atypical antipsychotic drugs.

This information is no surprise to any medical malpractice lawyer who has worked with patients who were given these drugs. It has long been suggested that the widespread prescriptions of these drugs was dangerous. The atypical antipsychotics are approved by the FDA only to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression under specific circumstances. Unfortunately, medical professionals have gone way beyond those initial, approved uses to treat things like dementia, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress, and substance abuse. These off-label uses have grown exponentially as of late, far outpacing use of the medication for reasons actually approved by federal regulators. Many doctors feel that if a drug works for one thing, it might work for something else. While this is occasionally true, it also runs the risk of creating more problems than it causes.

Our Chicago malpractice attorneys urge all patients to be aware of each and every medication they are prescribed. It is important for patients to take an active role in the care that they receive to help guard against medical errors and oversights. By asking questions about the drugs they are given and keeping up with the specific use of the medication, local residents can best ensure that they are receiving only the drugs that will help them and not those that are unnecessary or dangerous.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Steven Levin Interviewed For Story on Antipsychotic Drug Use in Nursing Homes

Widespread Use of Antipsychotic Drugs in Nursing Homes

Yesterday we discussed the case of two medical malpractice suits that were filed on behalf of victims of defective kidney transplants. It was explained how the patients developed the very serious brain infection known as encephalitis which killed one victim and caused the other one permanent blindness. Unfortunately, these sorts of organ donation problems are not as rare as they should be. Stories continue to roll in of those who suffered extreme medical complications because they received organs which they never should have been allowed to receive.

For example, Third Age News reported last week on yet another medical malpractice case related to an infected kidney transplant. According to documents filed in this latest suit a man received a kidney that was infected with Hepatitis C. The kidney was actually donated by the man’s life partner of the last 21 years. The woman did not know that she had the condition before donating the organ. Yet, blood tests taken before the transplant showed that the woman was infected with hepatitis C. However, for reasons that are still under investigation, the hospital approved the woman for donation anyway and performed the surgery. The man who received the kidney contracted hepatitis C as a result.

The medical center which allowed the transplant has since admitted that it was “human error” which allowed the infected kidney to be approved for donation. The live-donor kidney and liver transplant programs at the university medical center were temporarily shut down when the problem was uncovered to ensure other victims were spared. The program has since been re-opened. Also, the doctor and nurse who were tasked with analyzing the blood test results were sanctioned by the hospital for their costly error.

Failure to properly evaluate test results is an all-too-common medical error that our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers have seen over the years. Doctors owe a duty to all patients to properly analyze the results of the diagnostic tests which are performed. When that duty is breached and injury results, a patient can file suit to seek compensation for their losses. Some local community members may be under the mistaken belief that to be found liable for these problems medical professionals must make an “active” mistake—such as operating on the wrong body part or giving more medication than necessary. However, negligence can be committed in “passive” ways as well, like the failure to take some action which a reasonable doctor would have taken in the same circumstance.

For example, in this case, the medical doctors did not physically botch the surgery or create the hepatitis C infection on their own. In fact, the infection was already present in the donor. However, the doctor’s were still negligent, because the circumstances were such that it was reasonable for the patient to rely on the doctor’s advice that the transplant was safe. All medical professionals understand that the advice they give has real consequences for those who receive it. Clients who visit all types of professionals—from lawyers to accountants—will rely on advice given by the professional under the reasonable assumption that the individual is highly trained in the field. When that advice is egregiously wrong, as it was in this case, then the victims who relied upon that advice can seek redress in the civil justice system.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Deaths Could Have Been Avoided if Doctors Washed Their Hands

Too Much Noise in Operating Rooms Increase Surgical Errors