Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

Failure to take timely and quick action in response to a medical complication is one of the single most common forms of negligent medical care. Frequently, a Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm will sit down with a new client who will explain that they experienced a variety of conditions which were not properly taken into consideration by their nurses, nurses’s assistants, doctors, and other medical care givers. Usually, the client will explain that the true extent of the harm was only discovered by those individuals until much later, and significant pain was experienced and complications developed. Time is a key factor is all medical actions, and failure to act at the right time or quickly enough is often the basis of an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit.

A new story in the Santa Fe New Mexican examines a new medical malpractice lawsuit where the same basic issues were involved. The case in that story is one of a woman and her husband who are suing their medical providers. At the center of the lawsuit is a claim that the medical providers failed to properly monitor the woman while she was taking painkillers. The victim was first taken to the emergency room a year and a half ago because she was suffering severe abdominal pain. Emergency room professionals soon admitted the woman to the hospital and gave her an intravenous dose of the painkiller Dilaudid.

Unfortunately, the situation would only get worse for the victim. The following day saw an increase in her pain. She also began to vomit. Of course, all of this was told to the nurse, but the nurse did not think anything was wrong. In the middle of that day that woman’s husband and daughter went to the cafeteria in the hospital. When they arrived back to the room they found the woman in a fragile state. Her arms were twitching, her face was purple, her eyes were rolled back in her head, and foam was coming out of her mouth. The family called for nursing help. Fortunately, the medical team realized the seriousness of the situation at that time, and they were able to perform emergency maneuvers to save her. They admitted that had the woman been in that condition for even two more minutes she likely would have died.

It was only later learned that the woman’s problems were caused by her sleep apnea, a condition that reduces blood-oxygen levels during sleep. The victim in this case was morbidly obsese and the apnea is a common factor in those with significant obesity. The oxygen reducing complications of sleep apnea are aggravated by painkiller use, including Dilaudid. In the subsequent medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed by the family after the incident, the complaint noted that the doctors who described the painkillers failed to warn the nurses to monitor the woman’s respiratory and neurological conditions. The hospitals had a duty to insure that the personnel who were providing care were properly trained to identify conditions that they should monitor. As the result of their negligence the woman had the near death experience which has left her with a variety of long-term emotional problems.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Improving Healthcare Requires Identifying the Most Common Medication Errors

Illinois Nursing Homes Show Widespread Abuse of Antipsychotic Drugs

Over the years the Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at our firm have been confronted with many ways in which insurance companies and other perennial litigation defendants attempt to skirt their responsibilities. It remains frustrating that these groups are not content with simply defending themselves in a court of law, but instead seek to take away rights from consumers so that they do not have to participate in the legal process at all. Tort reform measures are one aspect of this tendency.

In the nursing home context, another way that insurance companies and long-term care conglomerates try to avoid liability is via arbitration clauses. The Illinois nursing home lawyers at our firm often warn local consumers about the risks of these clauses. They are usually signed by unsuspecting family members during the admission process. The clause forces the family to take any dispute through the arbitration process, instead of the regular state or federal court system. The arbitration process means that families may not get the chance to have a jury trial, certain evidence may be excluded, and appeal rights might be curtailed. This is on top of the fact that it is often quite expensive.

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court issued two rulings related to these arbitration clauses which, Attorney Perconti explains, might have ramifications on nursing home neglect cases throughout the country. As recently reported in Lawyers.com, the two cases involve damage limitations which were included as part of the arbitration agreements. In Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, the court ruled that it was impermissible for an agreement to be signed which waived the victim’s right to all punitive damages being awarded by the arbiter. Similarly, in Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, the court nullified a clause which placed a limit of $250,000 on non-economic damages being awarded. In making its ruling, the court explained how these clauses could only dictate the forum of the dispute, not eliminate substantive rights held by the plaintiff. Punitive damage bans and a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages would not apply in the regular court system, and so they cannot be curtailed in the arbitration context.

While these cases only have actual binding authority in Florida, the ruling may have implications throughout the country. John Perconti explained that “these options should deter nursing homes in other states from imposing damage caps in their agreements.” Fortunately, he reveled that Illinois facilities have thus far been reluctant to try to limit consumer rights in this way. He noted, “We have not seen any clauses imposing damage caps in any of the nursing home contracts as they would violate Illinois public policy and undermine the remedies set forth in the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act.”

Legislation like the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, which seeks to limit Illinois nursing home neglect and abuse, cannot be undermined by facilities via use of contract clauses. In other words, courts will consider the spirit of this legislation and its mission being nullified if they approve of these clauses. Similarly, general public policy concerns can be taken into account. There is a public interest in allowing the jury system to adjudicate these disputes and not having community members lose their substantive rights unknowingly.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Arbitration Agreements Continue to Unfairly Limit Rights of Nursing Home Neglect Victims

U.S. Senate Arbitration Fairness Act Would Provide Fairness for Nursing Home Abuse Victims

Every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm is well-versed in the variety of ways that medical negligence can affect the lives of unsuspecting victims. One practice area where negligent medical care seems to occur with particularly frequency is in cosmetic surgery. Horrific cases of permanent scarring and life-altering complications continue to be reported involving plastic surgeons who fail to act properly in performing these operations. Many times the doctors who commit the medical malpractice are allowed to keep practicing, hurting more and more patients before they are actually held accountable for their conduct.

For example, the Huffington Post reported yesterday on the case of one surgeon who was suspended only after a staggering 40 different medical malpractice suits were filed against him for botching cosmetic operations. It is likely that he erred in many other cases as well which never resulted in a lawsuit. The list of victims of this one negligent doctor is long, and the consequences are varied, from giant scars and blood loss to reduced vision and chronic pain.

Our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys know that plastic surgery mistakes occur far to often occurrences across the country. What makes this particular situation so troubling is how long it took medical oversight bodies to take action. There are reports on file about this doctor with the state’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct from nearly nine years ago. However, nothing was done to protect patients until this month. It was only now, after thousands of new patients were exposed to the risk of his practice, that his license was suspended while it was noted that his work “constitutes an imminent danger to health of the people of this state.”

Just this week the Chicago Tribune published a story warning local residents about the risk of Chicago medical malpractice occurring in local cosmetic surgery facilities. The story included a list of tips to help consumers make smart choices about who they decide to perform these operations.

Some of the highlights:

1) Use the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation’s website to learn if the doctor has a surgical background. It is one thing to have a medical license it is another to have experience, special training, and certification in these operations. At the same time, the website should provide information on whether or not the doctor has any recent malpractice or disciplinary judgments.

2) Ask the doctor questions to explain how often he or she performs the procedure. Also ask for more information, such as before and after pictures and the ability to speak to former patients.

3) Probe the doctor for a list of potential complications that could be caused by the operation and the ways that the doctor would treat those complications if they arose in your case.

4) Learn if the doctor is affiliated with any local hospital or clinic.

5) The thoroughness of the doctor’s preparations before the operation is a good indication of the quality of work that will be performed. For example, a detailed health care evaluation should be performed before any work is done. If you are lined up for surgery and you do not think that the evaluation has actually occurred, then it may be a big red flag that the practices of the doctor are not up to current standards.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Occurs All Too Frequently in Cosmetic Surgery

Twist in Fraudulent Cosmetic Surgery Case

Yesterday we were troubled to read a new story in the Chicago Tribune bemoaning a lack of oversight of negligent Illinois hospitals. Any Chicago medical malpractice lawyer will explain that besides individual victims demanding accountability when poor care is provided, it is vital for regulators to also provide proper review when medical malpractice occurs. Ensuring that victims receive redress and future victims are spared requires this joint effort between public and private supervision.

Unfortunately, that public oversight might not be as strong as it should be.

According to the new Tribune investigation, hospital regulators rarely pursue allegations against hospitals for Illinois medical malpractice and basic negligence. This was found to be the case even when the allegations involve claims of serious harm and death.

For example, one man was at a local hospital for less than an hour before he used his sheet to hang himself. His body was left hanging from an observation door for nearly fifteen minutes before anyone cut him down. The man was admitted to the facility specifically because he had threatened to kill himself, stating that he couldn’t handle the recent death of his brother. Policy at the home required at-risk patients to be afforded special provisions, such as visual checks every fifteen minutes, or one-on-one observations. However, the hospital failed to take the basic steps demanded of it to keep the man safe. Unfortunately, hospital regulators knew that this facility had a long history of failing in this very basic charge. The hospital had been repeatedly cited for negligence in the past regarding at-risk patients, like the man in this case. Hospital officials always promised changes but never actually delivered. State regulators ultimately did little to enforce their rules and ensure that the total cases of Illinois medical malpractice at the hospital actually decreased.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that the string of problems at this facility are indicative of problems elsewhere. Many critics have explained how hospital regulators do little to actually pursue complaints. Even when they are pursued and corrective plans are demanded, the regulators can do little to ensure that the changes are actually made. The corrective plans are filled out in private. Beyond that, the only enforcement tools are often seen as “nuclear options” of shutting down a facility or removing its federal funding (which often amounts to a shut down). There are few intermediary steps to actually get changes to be made that will keep patients safe.

Amazingly, unlike with nursing homes, local hospitals are not fined by state regulators for their conduct. Hospital lobbying organizations have long blocked proposed legislation which would allow regulators to use fines as a way to demand that hospitals actual implement their corrective plans. As one patients’ rights advocate noted in the story, “The hospitals hold all the cards.” Private corrective plans are of little value if they are never actually followed, and considering that regulators have few options to ensure that they are followed, many hospitals do not prioritize improving the care that they provide.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Importance of Doctor’s Disclosing Their Mistakes

Mother Campaigns For Medical Malpractice Disclosure

Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm was saddened to read last week about a string of cases involving intentional abuse by a physician of his child patients over a period of thirty years. Of course, virtually all Illinois medical malpractice cases in which we are involved stem not from intentional misconduct, but negligent actions by nurses, doctors, and others involved in the caregiving process. Yet, we’d be remiss if we failed to mention that the trust placed in these providers can also lead to intentional abuse, often with particularly disturbing consequences.

For example, UPI News recently discussed the latest legal wrangling involving the case of a doctor who apparently used his position to take illicit photographs of hundreds of children. It is a particularly grotesque case of abuse of the position of power given to medical professionals, particularly when it comes to the care and well-being of our children. Unfortunately, the doctor himself was never held accountable for his conduct, as he passed away before his actions were uncovered.

In fact, it was only a fluke that led to the discovery of the situation to begin with. The abuser apparently used his position as chief endocrinologist of a hospital to photograph 500 children without clothes on. He was able to do so under the false premise of conducting a “growth study.” He apparently stored the photos (totaling over 60,000) inside a false wall of his home. The doctor died in 1998 without anyone being made aware of the situation. Eventually another family bought the home in which he lived. The family accidentally stumbled upon the false wall and the photographs. They informed the local authorities.

The situation ultimately spurred at least sixty five different injury lawsuits filed by the victims of the sexual misconduct. The doctor was no longer around to be held accountable for this conduct, but the hospital that employed the man when he committed the crimes is accountable in a civil suit for their role in the matter. Recently, the hospital announced that at least seventeen of the cases may soon be settled. A tentative agreement was reached with those first set of victims. It will hopefully allow them to demand some accountability and move on.

However, as often happens in these situations, the insurance company which was covering the hospital at the time of the incident is working to limit its exposure. Essentially, the insurance company claims that the incident in question falls under the hospital’s medical malpractice liability coverage, instead of its general liability coverage. Each type of coverage has difference coverage amounts, with the total medical malpractice amount being lower. If the judge agrees that that the incident is related to medical malpractice, instead of general liability, then the insurance company may be spared payment of millions of dollars—perhaps at the expense of the injury victims. The judge will need to closely evaluate the terms of the insurance policy to make his ruling. However, on the face of the situation, it is unclear how the intentional sexual exploitation of children would fall under medical malpractice—which usually implies negligent care in the pursuit of medical remedies.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medication Errors Require Millions to Receive Additional Care

Fatal Blood Thinner Overdose Leads to Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

The majority of medical professionals provide quality care to patients the majority of the time. We should be proud and thankful for the work that these individuals do each and every day. However, as any Chicago medical malpractice attorney can tell you, that does not mean that doctors do not make mistakes that should have been avoided or that should go without accountability. It is possible to acknowledge the great work done by so many competent professionals as well as work with victims of local instances of medical errors and negligence.

Those victims need support and aid to help ensure that they recover for the losses that they have sustained which should have been prevented. Those who do not know a victim personally may not be aware of how frequently these mistakes occur and what significant consequences they have on lives of entire families. For example, the monthly newsletter for the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association recently sampled just a few cases of Illinois medical malpractice that have occurred recently.

For example, a Cook County court recently approved a $4.9 million settlement for a man who suffered a brain injury while under the care of medical professionals at a Kankakee hospital. The victim was rushed to the hospital after experiencing breathing problems, and he was eventually diagnoses with epiglottis. He spent two weeks in intensive care before being transferred to a regular room. However, his condition did not improve, as his breathing actually got worse. Medical professionals failed to act in a timely manner before providing additional help. In fact, it wasn’t until he had stopped breathing completely that nurses took emergency action. Yet, even then there was at least a 45 minute delay in inserting a breathing tube. As a result the man suffered severe brain damage and is unable to work, drive, or manage his own affairs.

In another Illinois medical malpractice settlement this month a Jackson County woman reached a $3.5million agreement following a botched cryoablation surgery. The surgeon performing the procedure perforated the woman’s uterus. As a result she suffered freezing injuries to her small intestines. The woman was eventually forced to undergo a staggering twenty different surgeries to correct the problems. Nearly half of the settlement amount involved penalty payments made by the medical liability insurance company. The court had previously chastised the company for knowingly delaying in making the required payments for frivolous and unnecessary reasons.

A large $12 million settlement was reached recently between a patient and a Glenbrook Hospital following failure to properly deal with the patient’s meningititis. The victim in that case woke up at home with a severe headache that became significantly worse over the course of the day. By the evening he could barely function and called an ambulance to rush him to the hospital. Unfortunately, the medical professionals in the emergency room failed to act appropriately—in many ways, they failed to act at all. The victim essentially waited for nearly six and a half hours without receiving any antibiotics. Even then, he only received any care at all because the failure to administer antibiotics caused him to go into septic shock. His body unnaturally clotted blood, and blood flow stopped in his extremities. All told he had partial amputations in his arms and legs and he lost vision in one of his eyes.

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know that these and similar cases arise all the time in our area. It is important not to forget these victims and to ensure that they have the resources they need to get their lives as close to normal as possible.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Last week Heart Wire News posted even more information about yet another doctor that has been charged with committing intentional or at least reckless medical malpractice by convincing patients to have heart stent procedures performed unnecessarily. As a Chicago medical malpractice attorney recently explained, these cases present many unique legal questions, and it will be interesting to see how the civil lawsuits filed in the wake of the scandals ultimately shake out.

The latest accusations are making national headlines as a medical malpractice lawyer has accused a doctor of improper stenting who himself was on a committee seeking to curb improper stenting. If the allegations are true, it would represent a troubling case of hypocrisy, raising many questions about the honest effort being made to actual prevent these unnecessary surgeries and keep patients safe. The latest claims were part of a new lawsuit alleging that two patients received heart stents unnecessarily in 2005 and 2006. Documents filed with the lawsuit claim that the doctor overstated the percentage of blockage in the coronary artery of one of the patients in an attempt to justify the call for surgery. If the claims are accurate the unnecessary stenting would have taken place at the same time that the doctor was a partner in a high-profile cardiovascular clinic. Another partner at the clinic already faces hundreds of medical malpractice lawsuits alleging that he acted improperly in order to convince patients to have the procedure performed.

The committee on which the newly charged doctor sits was actually set to give its findings in a public hearing of the health commission last year. Undoubtedly the allegations cast a pall over the proceedings. Part of the committee’s recommendations to curb the outburst of unnecessary procedures is having the legislature enact legislation that would require all hospitals that perform these procedures to be reviewed and evaluated based on established standards. In addition, the group suggested that the state legislature establish national accreditation standards and require that all cath labs in the state meet those standards. Interestingly, the committee did not recommend that individual physician reviews become part of the process. It is unclear why this oversight mechanism would not be encouraged, since it is individual physician conduct which is essentially at the heart of all of these latest stent implementation problems. In fact, other oversight groups have criticized the work of this task force for the inadequacy of their recommendations. One alternative body explained that “voluntary oversight provides no guarantee that all citizens…are afforded equal, high-quality healthcare.” They added that “good hospitals have nothing to hide or fear (bad ones do).”

Of course, we fully support close oversight and worthwhile documentation of physician actions when it comes to recommendations of these procedures. It should not be impossible for fair evaluation of individual physician’s work to become a part of the process to ensure that patients are not received skewed advice about their medical condition. Trust is essential to the patient-doctor relationship, and these scandals (and minimal efforts to change practices) are severely damaging to the overall trust in the relationship industry wide.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Safety of New Heart Stent Design Questioned

Federal Unnecessary Stent Lawsuit Ends with Settlement

One of the top stories on the Huffington Post this week was spurred by a new Center for Justice and Democracy report on some deceptive insurance industry tactics. The report, entitled “Repeat Offenders: How the Insurance Industry Manufactures Crises And Harms America,” is a comprehensive project that is predicting an upcoming manufactured insurance industry “crisis” to hit in 2012. It is an important read for all those hoping for a better grasp of how the insurance industry operates. For any local Illinois medical malpractice lawyer it also provides a wealth of ammo to combat the endless barrage of misinformation that is sent our way by those seeking to enact tort reform.

Of course one of the main arguments of tort reformers is that insurance costs increase because of medical malpractice lawsuits. This false claim has been used for the last decade and a half in order to sell these legal changes to a public that often unsuspectingly fails to realize the so-called “reform” will only work to increase the profits of big industries at the expense of legal rights for regular residents. It is disappointing how these underhanded arguments have been used to mislead large segments of the public about the need to limit damage awards, change statute of limitations requirements, limit evidence that can be presented, and otherwise make it more difficult for victims of medical malpractice to receive fair compensation for their losses—regardless of what a jury decides.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys were particularly interested to read in this latest report that the insurance industry is gearing up to raise rates in the coming year. This increase will no doubt be blamed as usual on the civil justice system, spurring even more calls for dangerous tort reform measures. According to the latest report, the industry is working hard to shift to a “hard” market where companies are allowed to increase premiums (and cut services) as a result of claims about money problems. In this case, the industry may suggest that the losses they sustained as a result of damage from Hurricane Irene led to a money shortfall necessitating increased profits. It is important to recognize this claim for what it is: a dishonest ploy to raise rates.

In reality, the losses from Irene were much less than expected. At first industry insiders believed that the total could reach $14 billion in losses. Yet, the figures turned out to be much lower when properly analyzed, around $2.8 billion. Regardless of the overall costs, records indicate that the industry was well placed to handle the event, as in 2010 the industry had a surplus of $580 billion according to data from Best’s Aggregate and Averages. However, by altering the way it reports its financial picture, the industry may be able to sell the belief that it needs to raise rates in order to spare the industry. The industry is exempt from antitrust provision under the 1944 McCarran-Ferguson Act, and so they are allowed to pressure competitors to stop competing for premiums and jointly try to raise rates industry wide.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

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

Medical negligence almost always involves doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals who fail to act according to a reasonable standard of care, resulting in physical harm to patients. While this basic mold is far and away the most common form of medical malpractice, failure to act reasonably in other ways can cause harm to patients that is not directly physical. In our area, a more experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer has likely come across a few cases involving more unique situations, such as the loss or theft of patient records. The high-profile push to move away from paper records and to electronic records has some worried that medical data breaches will likely only rise.

The New York Times discussed the issue this week, using the example of a stolen laptop to highlight the sensitivity of these records. An employee who works for a small nonprofit association that helps doctors digitize patients records had a company briefcase stolen from his car. Inside that briefcase were records from nearly 14,000 patients. Those records included everything from names and Social Security numbers to birth dates, contact information and insurance data. Anyone with their hands on that information willing to commit identify theft would have had free reign.

A new report from the Ponemon Institute found that there has been a sharp rise in digitized health data beaches since the increased use of electronic health records over the past couple years. In the last two years alone the group estimates that breaches increased by thirty two percent. One nonprofit CEO who was involved in a breach explained that the medical community was entering a “brave new world” because of the electronic records shift. He suggests that medical providers and the companies involved would simply have to enact much more stringent protocols and security features to ensure that the breaches are curbed.

The cost of the breaches is no laughing matter, totaling an estimated $6.5 billion last year alone. For example, in October of this year a desktop computer containing unencrypted patient records of more than four million patients was stolen from a nonprofit health company. The theft ultimately led to a suit seeking at least $1,000 for each of the victims whose records were breached. That could ultimately mean that that the single breach could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and costs. Even a comparatively small breach, such as one that occurred at a local hospital a few months ago involving 192 patients ultimately cost the hospital over $ 1 million.

Any Chicago medical malpractice attorney knows that the electronic records shift maybe a mixed bag, especially at first. But, at the end of the day, all those involved in the effort to shift to electronic records must remember the duty of care to which they are under when it comes to prioritizing patient safety and well being. Problems that arise that could not have been reasonably prevented are possible, but it is unacceptable for errors to be made which could have been prevented. Failure to prevent those errors is medical malpractice.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Electronic Records May Have Effect on Malpractice Lawsuits

Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Reports on Concerns About Electronic Health Records

Ask any Chicago medical malpractice lawyer and they will likely explain that beyond helping families receiving support following devastating injuries, one of the important goals of these lawsuits is to ensure that dangerous doctors are no longer able to hurt patients. At the very least, all those working in this field work hard to raise awareness of a wide range of medical errors, thereby incentivizing medical professionals to make changes that will ultimately improve patient safety. Research into the effects of medical malpractice lawsuits suggests that both of these goals are furthered by the justice system.

However, at the same time, we know that much progress can be made when it comes to patient safety. For one thing, as explained in new Kansas City Star story, many of the medical professionals cited again and again for misconduct are allowed to continue practicing without recourse. Not only that, but their identities are often protected so that consumers are not even capable of deciding not to visit that physician if they chose. This state of affairs goes against the most basic standards of accountability of providing fair information to consumers allowing them to make educated decisions about that which matters most: their health.

The Kansas City Star story gives the example of one doctor, known only as Practitioner No. 222117 who is likely the most disciplined doctor in America. A staggering 20 different states have revoked the doctor’s licensed over a four year period for a wide range of problems. The practitioner violated drug laws, provided substandard care, obtained licenses fraudulently, prescribed unauthorized medication, and more from 2002 to 2006. The doctor lost membership in two medical societies and lost the ability to bill Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency took away the professional’s ability to prescribe any controlled medication.

Yet, despite all of this, the doctor may very well still be practicing. But federal secrecy rules prevent anyone from finding out who the doctor is or identifying if he or she is still seeing patients. Not only that, but journalists are even prohibited from investigating to find out the answers to these questions. This bizarre and downright dangerous situation is the result of new rules imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which restrict how online searchers can utilize the government database which shares information on medical malpractice and similar instances of doctor sanctions. This research ban is effectuated by forcing all those who seek to access the database to first agree not to combine the information obtained in the database with outside information.

Every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer that cares about preventing incidence of malpractice as well as vindicating it should be outraged by these backwards tactics to keep honest journalists from sharing important information about medical professional regulations. Accountability breeds improvement. It is a basic principle that has been recognized in every public and private sector. As such it remains incredibly misguided for public accountability to be withheld in perhaps an area that matters most of all to the community.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Federal Malpractice Data Back Online, But With Restrictions

Federal Medical Malpractice Database Taken Down

Popular legal shows on TV suggest that every suspicious death is followed by an autopsy. It would seem common sense for an investigation to be conducted when someone dies for reasons that are unknown. However, each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm knows that this fictional belief in the universal use of autopsies is far from reality. Unfortunately, there remain very lax, uneven, and dysfunctional systems of postmortem medical examination. As a result, when it occurs in our area many mysterious deaths stay mysterious, often covering up instances of Illinois medical malpractice.

According to a new comprehensive investigation by ProPublica the vast majority of unexplained deaths never receive an autopsy at all. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that autopsies are conducted on less than 5 percent of patients that died in hospital. Fifty years ago, that rate high ten times higher, with half of all hospital deaths resulting in a complete medical audit to determine exactly what happened to the patient. Teaching hospitals have the highest rate of autopsies (around 20%), whereas the majority of hospitals have rates near zero. This downward trend is well documented and is thought to have a variety of causes. Insurers rarely cover them, for one thing. Beyond that, hospitals are often loathe to perform them, because they worry that the results will uncover medical malpractice as a cause of the death. There is a belief among some that it is often best to just bury a mistake instead of exposing it to scrutiny.

It would seem natural for those deaths which are sudden or unexpected to trigger an autopsy. But, more and more that is not the case, including in our area. Any Illinois medical malpractice attorney knows that these declining autopsy rates have far-reaching consequences. For example, some believe that many diagnostic errors ultimately go unstudied, because victims are buried without anyone ever becoming aware of exactly what they were suffering from that caused their death. Many opportunities to learn from these errors are lost. In addition, the efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of some treatments methods cannot be tested because incorrect information ends up on death certificates. That information is subsequently used to skew crucial health statistics. Currently hospitals are not required to conduct any number of autopsies to remain in good standing with Medicare and Medicaid.

The lack of autopsies has led some to argue that more automatic reporting requirements need to be set up. However, it is unclear if forcing hospitals to report certain deaths to a coroner’s office would do much good. That is because even when deaths are reported, most medical examiner’s offices rarely investigate hospital deaths. In addition, most new hospitals are built without a place for an autopsy to be conducted. The reimbursement system from federal sources usually provides for autopsy payments only as part of a general “quality assurance” benefit. This means that hospitals get paid the same amount whether an actual autopsy is conducted or not. A 2003 panel recommended that CMS change is process to pay directly for autopsies or otherwise incentivize raising the autopsy rates. However, those proposals gained little traction and were soon tabled.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Every day our every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm is forced to read new stories that ridicule, distort, skew, and sometimes just plain lie about the civil justice system in our state and throughout the country. The inaccuracies about how the judicial system works, who uses it, and its effects are one of the main reasons why downright dangerous tort reform policy proposals have advanced in many parts of the country. As with anything, if you use bad data to create a policy, the result will be similarly bad. It is one thing for falsehoods to be spread about the civil justice system, it is another for those falsehoods be used as a basis to take away legal rights for all victims and fundamentally change the way that the legal system.

One of the most high-profile producers of this “bad data” about Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits (and the justice system generally) is the so-called “Judicial Hellhole” designations by the American Tort Reform Association. The group pretends to use objective, fair and accurate assessments about certain circuits to create lists of what it perceives to be the locations most favorable to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits. The general assumption is that if injury victims win too many cases in a certain area than it must be caused by something wrong with the judicial system in that area.

Likely because of the provocative name, many media outlets report on this list, which always includes a few downstate counties (Madison & St. Clair) as well as Cook County. Under whatever criteria the group decided to use this year, Cook somehow made the “Watch List” instead of the actual “Judicial Hellhole” list. Of course, these designations make little sense as they are based exclusively on the whim of the few anti-victims’ rights members of the group which creates the list.

As the president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association explained, these lists are not only supremely misleading, but they have very real effects on the jury pool. He explained that the public inaccuracies on how the justice system works leads many community members entering a jury pool with preconceived notions about the legal realities of civil lawsuits. Of course, the public perception about the system as a whole is completely devoid of acknowledgement that each case is decided on the facts of that particular case. Beliefs about the justice system as a whole are irrelevant to the resolution of each case.

In other words, in the medical malpractice context, when a jury hears a case, they should never be swayed in their determination about whether negligence has been committed based on whether they think that medical malpractice damage caps need to be instituted. Instead, the entire justice system is premised on the notion that the jurors will simply take into account the specific evidence that is allowed to be presented at trial, match that up with the law, and reach a verdict. Efforts to effect those case-by-case determinations with information beyond the facts of the case are damaging. It is disappointing that those who work in the legal field and should know better continue to engage in silly publicity efforts that have that damaging distortion effect.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

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

Last year we reported on the case of one formerly high-profile cardiologist who was hit with a string of medical malpractice claims suggesting he implanted potentially hundreds of heart stents unnecessarily. Now, according to a new Biz Journal Report, a few fellow cardiologists in the same hospital have also been hit with medical malpractice lawsuits claiming that heart surgeries were performed on patients who didn’t need them. Expectedly, money is alleged to the motive behind the unneeded surgeries being performed.

All told there have been over two hundred lawsuits filed against the original doctor as well as a few other cardiologists who worked with him. Virtually all of the suits allege that the patient involved were mislead about the actual extent of arterial blockages in their heart. Based on that skewed information, the patients agreed to undergo the risky heart stent implantation surgery which widens the blood vessels in the heart with mesh stents. Previously, it was known that the problem may have extended from those who received the stents between 2007 and 2009. The involved hospital sent a letter to more than 500 patients in 2010 explaining the situation and letting them know that their surgery may have been unnecessary. However, this latest round of lawsuits involves clients who had the surgery performed well before 2007, suggesting that the problem may have been far more widespread than previously believed.

The first round of 25 cases are set to go to trial sometime next year. Some of the cases involve explicit allegations that the doctors intentionally exaggerated artery blockage claims in order to convince patients to have the surgery. Generally, the stent procedure is necessary when the patient’s has an artery that is at least 70% blocked. However, the lawsuits will only be successful if the lawyers can prove that the exaggeration led to actual implantation of a stent that otherwise would not have been implemented. Also, actual harm must be shown, because if a patient actually benefitted from the procedure then there would be no damages awarded. However, the increased risk of complications, pain, suffering, and other intangible factors would play into the damage award.

The latest suits also suggest that the problem may have extended beyond the original cardiologist implicated in the scandal. Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm knows that the problem of medical financial incentives influencing medical care exists across the country. For example, last July another doctor was criminally convicted of health care fraud for unnecessary heart stent procedures. The motivation in the case was the lucrative nature of the stent surgery business.

These medical malpractices cases related to unnecessary procedures are a bit unique, and much different than what many think about when they allege medical negligence. For one thing, many of these cases involve intentional misconduct. It is a different degree of culpability for a medical professional to knowingly do something not in a patient’s best medical interest specifically because he or she stands to gain financial for doing so. This form of recklessness can never be tolerated. Hopefully these high-profile cases spur more federal crackdowns and these unnecessary actions.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Safety of New Heart Stent Design Questioned

Federal Unnecessary Stent Lawsuit Ends with Settlement

No one thinks for a second that their trip to the dentist might result in serious injury, let alone death. Yet for one family what was supposed to be a routine oral surgery to get wisdom teeth taken out turned into an unimaginable tragedy. The family has since filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the medical professionals (an anesthesiologist and oral surgeon) involved in the botched operation.

According to a report in the Baltimore Sun, the 17-year old girl was a high school student who was active in the choir and well known in the community. Like many teens her age, she had a routine surgery planned to have her wisdom teeth removed. However, it did not go at all as planned.

The state’s chief medical examiner investigated the event and explained that the girl was first given an insufficient dose of anesthesia, because she was not deep enough for the procedure. Therefore, she was given more anesthesia by the doctor in charge of the process. Eventually, in the middle of the operation the young girl began to experience bradycardia—a slowing of the heart rate. Not long after that the oxygen levels in her blood began to drop, eventually sending her into hypoxic arrest caused by the oxygen deprivation. The doctors began emergency life support procedures, and emergency responders were eventually called. The emergency responders took about four minutes to regain a pulse. The girl was rushed to a local hospital where she eventually passed away while remaining in a coma. It was later learned that the girl suffered extensive damage to herbrain (hypoxic-ischmic encephalopathy) as well as severe swelling of the brain tissue.

The dental malpractice lawsuit cited the practitioner’s for negligence in failing to resuscitate the girl after her heart rate dropped to dangerous “panic” levels. Documents filed with the court in the case explain that the girl did not have a pulse when emergency responders arrived at the office. That delay ultimately led to the serious brain damage that caused her death a few days later. Investigations by county officials following the tragedy found that hypoxia—oxygen deprivation—was one of the central causes in her death. That hypoxia occurred while the girl was under anesthesia during the procedure.

Of course, during these procedures a patient’s breathing and oxygenation levels need to be constantly monitored. A pulse oximeter should be used in conjunction with “caregiver observation” to ensure that the patient does not experience problems like this while under anesthesia. With proper monitoring lack of oxygen would be noticed well before it caused actual cardiac arrest. The family decided to file the malpractice lawsuit after obtaining the autopsy report and learning more about the specific course of conduct that occurred while their daughter was undergoing the procedure.

The victim’s mother explained that her daughter’s death did not have to happen. She is working to raise awareness of dental-related death across the country. Our Chicago malpractice lawyers send sincere condolences to this family. These tragedies affect friends and family members for the rest of their lives, and everything must be done to demand accountability and ensure future victims are spared.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Doctor Warns of Unrecognized cancer Risk from Unnecessary Dental Radiation

Dentist Accused of Medical Malpractice

Hampton Roads News recently reported on the end of an appeal from a medical malpractice case where a bench verdict was upheld following a botched C-section birth. When surgical births cause serious complications to the mother, it almost always involves bleeding problems. That is what happened in this case.

The story explains that the victim’s ordeal began when she entered a hospital in early 2005 to deliver her child via a scheduled C-section. Before the procedure even took place the medical personnel were on notice that the woman had certain bleeding vulnerabilities. She had a history of pregnancy induced high blood pressure. Therefore, it was particularly important for caregivers to closely monitor her blood pressure during the procedure, especially after the delivery, to ensure nothing went awry. In many medical malpractice cases caregiver knowledge factors into the situation—it is one thing to fail to act when in the dark, it is another to act negligently in the face of a known risk.

After successfully delivering the child, the woman was brought to a private room to recover. A few hours later her partner, who was at the bedside, noticed that something was wrong. He tried calling for nursing help, but at first his pleas were ignored. Eventually a nurse did come, but she did not evaluate the situation very thoroughly. She altogether missed that the woman’s blood pressure and heart rate had become erratic. If the nurse would have looked at the monitor readings the problem would likely have been clear.

Less than two hours later the woman’s monitor alarm went off. Her blood pressure levels had become so low that her body went into shock. It wasn’t long before medical personnel decided that she needed emergency surgery. As her body was lifted from the bed to be taken to surgery the scope of the problem became clear—the bed sheets were soaked in the woman’s blood. She had actually lost half of her entire body’s supply of blood while laying the bed. The medical team was able to save her life, but not before she suffered brain damage.

Following the incident the woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit to seek recovery for her damages as a result of the poor care she received at the facility. The three-day trial was held a few years after the actual incident. It was a bench trial, so there was no jury. After hearing the evidence the judge in the case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $900,000. However, the family did not immediately receive the award. Instead, the verdict was appealed. It wasn’t until a few days ago that the federal appeals court upheld the verdict.

It turns out that part of the reason why the medical malpractice case was drawn out so long was the because that the doctor involved was under a federal investigation. It seems that the doctor had a history of problems, and he had botched another C-section delivery just as in this case. He was investigated by the state Board of Medicine and he eventually was forced to surrender his medical license.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Birth Injury Lawsuit Leads to $3 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict

Our entire team at Levin & Perconti was thrilled today to learn that this very blog was named the LexisNexis Top Tort Blog of 2011! The award was handed down thanks to the support and votes of all of our loyal blog readers. You can find out more information about the contest at the LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community.

The LexisNexis contest had been underway for several weeks as voters first nominated a list of the top twenty five blogs and then voted in a recent poll for the ultimate winner. Throughout the contest we asked for the support of the blog advocates, and we are humbled to have received all of your help.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys take great pride in our work. That includes keeping this online web space updated with new, interesting, relevant, and important information related to medical malpractice issues in Chicago, Illinois, and throughout the country. We are happy that so many local readers have added this blog to their list of daily online news stops.

Thanks again for your continued readership.

Daniel Kahneman is known as perhaps the greatest living psychologist of the last half century. His work has spanned decades, including groundbreaking efforts on some of the most important psychological insights of all time. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics several years ago for the work he had done over a lifetime on the irrationality of human decision-making. Just this year he published his magnum opus, essentially a summary of all of his work and his current understandings of the most important psychological issues of the day. The book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” was recently named one of the New York Times ten best books of the year. It is also a treasure trove of fascinating information for all injury lawyers (as well as defense attorneys) as it provides the best overall analysis yet of how many people make choices and what influences those choices.

For example, Kahneman discusses one “heuristic” (a now commonly used term that Kahneman invented) known as “anchoring” and the perspective that it might provide in the context of medical malpractice damage caps. Anchoring is a phenomenon whereby individuals who are asked to consider a particular value (i.e. jurors considering a damage award) are influenced by some other subtle suggestions. Psychologists have found that no one is immune from it, and even when they are aware of its impact they are still affected. In that way anchoring effects are some of the most reliable and robust in all of psychology.

The most common studies analyzing the effect involve asking two questions of participants about an unknown quantity. Two possible questions might be asked in this exact order:

1. Is the tallest redwood tree more or less than 900 feet?
2. What would you guess is the height of the tallest redwood tree?

Some participants were asked the same question but 900 feet in the first question was replaced with 300 feet. The first question does not necessarily have any connection to the second. However, the exact quantity included in the first question highly influences what respondents guess in the second. Those whose first question included 900 feet guess a far higher estimate than those whose first question was 300 feet. In other words, the first question was an “anchor” that influenced the participants raw judgment of quantity in the second. Amazingly, these results hold even when the anchoring value is obviously wrong. Even if the question asked whether the tree was more or less than a mile high, individuals were still found to be influenced by the value of that anchoring text.

In his latest book Kahneman explained that this anchoring effect can have implications on damage amounts in personal injury cases. He suggested that implementation of a “cap” on damages might actually act as an anchor. If certain damages were capped at $1 million that value would likely be used by jurors as an influencing factor, often pulling up award amounts that would be lower than if jurors had no cap and could reach a decision on their own. Therefore, medical malpractice caps may actually “pull up” many awards that otherwise might be nowhere near the cap amount. The jurors will hear that the max that they can provide is $1 million and be influenced to award a sum closer to that amount, even if they otherwise would have awarded far less. This would hold even if jurors are aware of the anchoring effect—it is almost impossible to fend off. In this way, Kahneman suggests that it is only the largest, “serial” defendants who could ever benefit from these caps, as smaller companies are likely to be hurt by arbitrary damage limits.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

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

Last month the federal “Super Committee” failed to reach agreement on a debt reduction scheme. As a result, mandatory cuts in virtually all federal spending areas are set to take effect. Of course, Medicare is no exception, and pending any Congressional intervention, the public healthcare providers will see a decrease in funding when the cuts set in. Many experts have begun weighing in on the consequences of these cuts on the healthcare industry. Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm has been particularly interested in understanding how these changes are likely to affect patients and quality of care standards.

The mandated cuts, known as “sequester,” will ultimately reduce federal spending by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. The cuts will hit healthcare spending less than other sectors, because Medicare spending cuts will be capped at two percent per year. In addition the cuts will come out of provider payments and managed care plans—not in senior premium increase or cost-sharing. In total, Medicare cuts would reach roughly $123 billion during that ten year period.

An article in last week’s Washington Post discussed the same topic. It was reported that there are severe disagreements about the ultimate effect. Expectedly, many medical professionals are warning that there may be serious repercussions on the entire health care industry. Their specific concerns center on possible hospital staff layoffs and facility consolidations. In addition, there are concerns that some doctors may stop accepting Medicare patients—limiting the medical options for those who depend on this healthcare system. An underlying concern whenever layoffs and facility changes are enacted is the possibility of increased instances of medical malpractice.

Yet, many health care industry analysts are refuting those dire predictions, and suggest that these concerns are misguided exaggerations. In fact, an independent agency advising Congress on Medicare suggests that even after the cuts, many in the industry will continue to be paid too much. In addition, there are suggestions that the cuts are actually marginal. In that way they can be easily absorbed by the facility and might work to encourage more efficient care.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence over the years that some doctors and hospitals change their recommended medical advice based on financial factors. For example, a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) found that many doctors have compensated for medical pay cuts in the past by providing higher costs medical services in larger amounts. That is why, even though there have been price reductions over the past many years, the average cost of Medicare spending per patient has increased by 64% since 2000. It should go without saying that it is clearly inappropriate, and an instance of intentional medical malpractice, for medical decisions to be guided by financial concerns of the medical provider. It is that abuse that has led to problems like those cases where thousands of patients receive unnecessary heart stents because of the value of those procedures to the heart surgeons involved. No matter what happens at the federal level with the sequester (or the changes mandated under the new healthcare law), it remains imperative that patient care not be unnecessarily sacrificed. When it occurs in our area it is often a case of Illinois medical malpractice, and we will work hard to help all those who suffer as a result.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Public Urged to Contact Members of “Super Committee” to Protect Patient Rights

Medical Malpractice Has No Role in Super Committee Deficit Reduction Costs

All local Illinois injury attorneys (and some intrepid non-lawyers) might be interested to know that the latest set of Illinois civil pattern jury instructions are now available online. The complete set of instructions can be found HERE –at the Illinois Courts main website. The information can be obtained as downloadable .pdf in its entirely or each individual section can be obtained.

Of particularly value to Illinois medical malpractice attorneys, the professional negligence pattern instructions (Section 105.00) can be obtained HERE. As noted in the introduction to this particular section, the professional negligence instructions apply to doctors, dentist, attorneys, architects, and other professionals. Of course, contrary to other versions of these pattern instructions, the term “malpractice” no longer appears. Instead, it is has been replaced entirely by “professional negligence.”

The classic medical negligence instruction uses the familiar language of possessing the “knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily used by a reasonably careful [professional].” It then follows with the geographic component in the professional negligence standard of “practicing in the same or similar localities.” It continues with the statement first added in 2006 noting that it also includes “the doing of something that a reasonably careful [professional] would not do, under circumstances similar…” This last addition, retained form 2006, has led to much consternation and had provoked widespread criticism.

Of particularly noteworthiness, the comment following this particular negligence instruction was revised this month following the court’s analysis in Studt v. Sherman Health Sys., 951 N.E.2d 1131, 2011. The court suggested in Studt that this civil jury instruction from 2006 relating to professional negligence may be an inaccurate statement of the law. In the case the state’s highest court explicitly distinguished between professional medical negligence and institutional negligence. It was clarified that except in limited circumstances, professional negligence required use of expert opinion testimony.

Many local medical malpractice attorneys may be aware that the 2006 revision was seen as problematic by many in the community. Some trial judges struggled with the situation and ultimately used their own versions. Since the change (and the Studt case) many local advocates have argued that there need to be less frequent changes to these instructions. Some even called for an explicit revocation of the 2006 change to professional negligence rules. However, with this latest release the Committee on Jury Instructions does not seem to have explicitly backtracked.

The pattern instructions from institutional negligence can be found at sec. 105.03.01. The second paragraph of the instructions makes note of the potential need to rely upon expert opinion testimony. However, the paragraph should be omitted if the jury is allowed to rely upon “common knowledge.” Expert testimony can be used to prove institutional negligence, along with by-laws, statutes, accreditation, community practices, and similar customs. Unlike the strict standards applicable to professional negligence, institutional negligence does not necessarily require expert testimony. As explained in the note following the instructions, institutional negligence is distinct from vicarious liability, but instead refers to the independent duties that the hospital owes to its patients (beyond ordinary care being exercised by the medical professionals working there).

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

On this blog our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers frequently discuss the topic of rising healthcare costs. It is obviously relevant to all community members who are forced to spend increasing sums to get the same care. However, it is also relevant to our attorneys in another context, because medical malpractice lawyers are often blamed for playing a role in increasing medical costs. One need only listen to the current crop of Republican candidates talk about these issues for a short time before they will inevitably bring up the need for “tort reform” or in other ways suggest that all medical costs problems can be placed at the feet of those who use the civil justice system to seek redress after they have been harmed by a medical error.

These claims are incredibly misguided, and it is important to continually fight back against them. Medical costs are indeed rising, but virtually all credible evidence has shown time and again that taking away rights of medical malpractice victims has no bearing on the debate. Not only is it wrong, but tying the legal system to the cost debate is distracting. Instead we need to focus attention on the real issues related to the rising costs and the way that they can and should be curbed.

This week the outgoing head of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Donald M. Berwick, offered very candid comments about medical waste and its contribution to overall healthcare spending. The New York Times reported on his comments and implications. Dr. Berwick explained that anywhere from 20% to 30% of health care spending is essentially “waste” that yields no patient benefit. If his estimates are correct that suggests that $150 billion to $250 billion might be saved in federal spending every year by eliminating that waste. He listed several factors for the waste including failure to coordinate care, complexity within health care administrations, fraud, and burdensome Medicare and Medicaid rules.

He retorted that “Much is done that does not help patients at all, and many physicians know it.”

The comments were made on his last day on the job that he had served for nearly two years. Commenting on the new healthcare law with which he was involved, Dr. Berwick explained that the deep divisions over the bill are in large part based on misunderstandings about what it does. He noted that it is complex and most community members simply don’t have the time to understand it fully. Yet, he analogized that Americans supported manned missions to the moon even without knowing rocket science, and so they could support this bill as well. He continued to praise it explaining that “we are headed for much more healing and much safer care.”

Dr. Berwick has long been an advocate for patient safety. During his tenure he worked to ensure that electronic records were implemented across the board and the operations of different medical providers were merged to coordinate better care. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that both efforts were spurred in large part by Dr. Berwick’s desire to eliminate medical errors that continue to take the lives of thousands of patients each year.

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

When most community members think of “malpractice” or “medical malpractice” certain things immediately come to mind. Images are conjured of doctors operating on the wrong body part, patients receiving far too much medication than necessary, or physicians who fail to identify deadly cancer spreading through a patient’s body. These are certainly all common examples of medical errors. However, in the legal context “malpractice” can apply to all kinds of professionals. Lawyers, dentists, accountants, and others can all be found liable of not acting as reasonable professionals would have acted under the same circumstances.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week on another malpractice lawsuit that was filed outside of the common hospital context. The unique case involves a suit against a psychologist filed by a former patient who claims that the doctor implanted memories to get her to stay at her recovery center. The 31-year old alleged victim spent fifteen months seeking treatment from the defendant-psychologist to receive treatment for anorexia. Part of the treatment involved hypnosis sessions. The victim claims that while in the middle of the fifteen months of treatment she began having horrific memories. The memories involved her being raped on multiple occasions, having multiple personalities, and participating in satanic rituals. They were so strong that at one point she tried to commit suicide. The plaintiff lived full-time at the involved facility during certain parts of her treatment.

The victim claims that she only recovered when she discovered that all of those memories were of events that never actually occurred. She claims that she eventually discovered that the memories were actually implanted by the psychologist during the hypnosis sessions. According to the malpractice lawsuit, the woman claims that the doctor implanted the memories in an effort to keep her returning for more sessions and to run up the bill which ultimately totaled more than $650,000. While the claim seems difficult to believe, the attorney for the woman explained that there are other victims with similar stories who are also considering coming forward. Interestingly, several of these other potential victims also were convinced that they had participated in satanic cults. Like the plaintiff in this case, they were also supported in their stays at the facility through insurance companies that paid for the costs of their long-term care for eating disorders.

These “repressed memory” cases are not without precedent. More often than not they involve repressed memories of child abuse. Usually these cases are highly dependent on the testimony of experts, because it is difficult for most community members to fully understand how memory works and whether or not these claims are true in any given situation. Often there is disagreement between experts on these unique aspects of memory. Yet, most professionals do agree that individuals can have memories of things that did not occur and that suggestion can play a key role in producing those memories. Our Chicago injury lawyers have worked with many experts over the years, as virtually all cases of professional malpractice demand their use. Considering that the issues in professional malpractice cases are by their name steeped in the conduct of those with expertise in an area, it requires other experts to explain the issues and verify their reasonableness or unreasonableness.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Governor Quinn Signs Patient Right to Know Act

Chicago Medical Malpractice May Be Caused by Uncivil Doctors

Administrative change is not easy in any profession, as it is common to get particularly accustomed to a certain way of filing paperwork, creating records, and similar tasks. That is certainly true in the medical context, as creating, maintaining, and transferring proper medical records is a vital component of ensuring that patients receive the care they need when they need it. Considering the familiarity with which many have likely become with the old system, it is no surprise that some are concerned about the potential effect of the widespread push to change to electronic health records.

For example, Med News Today recently published a story on the concerns of many medical professionals and others involved in the industry regarding the potential for an increase in medical malpractice lawsuits with the transition to electronic records. The concerns are mostly centered on the fact that the transition is being pushed quickly. The federal government is requiring physicians to shift to the new system as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly known as “the stimulus”). One aspect of the bill, referred to as the “Meaningful Use’ requirement means that the electronic records must be implemented in large part by 2012.

Some caregivers have expressed worry at that deadline, and there are concerns that this may lead to more medical errors being made by involved medical professionals. Some physicians are worried that the electronic health record vendors may be making fateful systematic and design flaws in their rush to have everything operational by that deadline. They worry that much of the fine-tuning necessary to ensure that mistakes aren’t made will not be conducted before patient care is exposed to the system. These electronic systems are meant to capture all aspects of patient data—if that data is incorrect, it is easy to see how troubling mistakes might be made.

Physicians and electronic health record vendors are already discussing the potential legal liability as a result of record problems. As is often the case in these situations, a variety of different individuals and entities may play a role in electronic health record related negligence. For example, the article explains how many clinical laboratories and pathology group practices are also evaluating their protocols, because it will be their test results which will likely be included in the patients’ electronic records. Problems with those tests results can have disastrous consequences, and it is imperative that all those involved in each stage of those records not make preventable errors.

Continue reading "Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Reports on Concerns About Electronic Health Records" »

Lowering healthcare costs is a common refrain echoed by politicians, particularly those dominating the airwaves as of late in the Republican presidential primary contest. Observers are likely to hear a few general platitudes about the need to stop “Obamacare” and the need to lower healthcare costs. However, voters of all persuasions should demand much more from our elected officials and candidate then mere talking points. We need real answers to real problems.

As a Des Moines Register article this week explained, so far there is little information out there about how the current crop of Republican presidential candidates would actually hold down health care costs. One health policy expert explained that none of the platforms currently put forward by the candidates is anywhere near as comprehensive as the vision outlined by the President. That is not to say that the President’s vision is correct, but as the advocate explains, it does suggest that current Republican proposals are void of any real, new ideas to deal with the public concerns around healthcare costs.

It seems that the only thing that any candidate can say specifically is that they support medical malpractice damage caps. This is usually greeted with support among those who believe that courtrooms are filled each day with fake victims trying to win a quick payday by following through with a pointless medical malpractice lawsuit. Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm is well aware of the criticisms of our line of work among some who misunderstand the system and distort the evidence which actually shows that the legal system has little to no effect on the cost of healthcare.

As the health policy expert explained for the article, even scholars who support such caps are always forced to admit that the changes to the legal system would not do much of anything to cut the overall cost of health care. Claims to the contrary are disingenuous, and they are usually propagated by those who have much to gain from the elimination of rights for those hurt by preventable medical mistakes.

Instead of tired arguments about lawsuit damage caps, many suggest that real solutions must be discussed. There are potential good ideas brought forth by many of different political persuasions. For example, many suggest that allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines could help lower costs. Similarly, elimination of extensive tax breaks for employers who buy extensive programs are being encouraged, because economists have found that it eliminates the incentives of many to directly face the costs of their healthcare decisions. This idea was long-supported by conservative thinkers and is now being pushed by the President.

All current Republican contenders have argued that, if elected, they would repeal the recently passed health care bill. However, little alternatives have been proposed that would in any way address the real problem that millions of Americans have no healthcare specifically because they cannot afford it. These problems are too important to ignore or to allow good proposals to languish in worthless political debate. We need real ideas.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Truth About Punitive Damages in Illinois Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

The Truth About “Tort Reform” Effect on Doctor Increase

Last week the News-Gazette discussed a recent Chicago medical malpractice lawsuit in which a large settlement was reached between a family and a negligent area hospital. According to the report, the Illinois medical malpractice in question stemmed from problems during the birth of a young child in 2002 at the Christ Medical Center. As it common in many of these birth injury cases, the lawsuit was filed by the young child’s guardians claiming that the care provided during her birth was inadequate, leading to significant birth injuries.

In this case, the complaint alleged that the nurses and doctors involved in delivering the girl delayed unnecessarily. As we have often explained, when a newborn is showing signs of fetal distress, it becomes incumbent on the medical professionals involved to act in a timely fashion to ensure that the child is born as quickly and safely as possible. Unfortunately, while most of the time a medical team acts just as expected and does their best to prevent injuries, there are some instances when those individuals do not act in as efficient a manner as possible. When that occurs, there may be medical liability.

For example, in this latest instance, the fetal distress led to the young child’s brain being deprived of oxygen. Lack of oxygen and blood flow to the brain can have serious and permanent damage to the child, which is exactly why time is of the essence when it comes to these situations. In this case, the oxygen deprivation continued for far too long. The young girl consequently had severe brain damage. She was eventually diagnosed with cerebral palsy. As a result she will require the daily help of caregivers for the rest of her life. The young girl’s grandparents became guardians of the young child a few years after she was born. At that time, they initiated the legal action seeking to hold those responsible for her improper delivery accountable for their actions. The hospital involved decided to settle the lawsuit earlier this year. The family and the facility recently agreed to a settlement in the amount of $7.5 million. The obstetrician and gynecologist who was involved in the case did not take part in the settlement.

The family explains that the award will ensure that the young girl has everything that she needs now and in the future. A concern of many parents in these situations is what will happen to their child when they are no longer around. There are very real questions about who will take of their disabled loved one for the decades that they may need it without their parents. That is particularly true in this case, considering that the girl’s legal guardians are grandparents who are nearing sixty years old. As a result of this settlement it is likely that the child will have the resources she needs to live her best life even when her grandparents are no longer around to take care of her. These legal actions take those situations into account. Considering the costs of daily care and the life expectancy of many children born with these disabilities, our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys know how quickly these medical malpractice lawsuits can demand significant damages.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Birth Injury Lawsuit Leads to $3 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict

Yesterday our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys Steven M. Levin and Jordan Powell announced that they had reached a settlement in an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of a client who was the victim of a surgical error. The agreement was reached with a Chicago neurosurgeon and the involved medical facilities that, according to the claims in the lawsuit, failed to properly investigate the spine of an 84-year old woman before conducting a sensitive spinal operation. As a result of the surgical error the victim was left permanently paralyzed.

The surgery in question was performed in March of 2007 on a Palatine woman who was then 78 years old. The victim needed a pain pump fixed that had previously been inserted into her spine. The pump (known as an intrathecal catheter) was supposed to release appropriate doses of medication to control the woman’s back pain; however, it was not working as intended. Unfortunately, the surgery that was supposed to correct the problem would only make things much worse. Attorney Levin explained that the doctor “did not perform an adequate investigation of our client’s spine before surgery, and during the procedure, he caused irreparable damage to her spinal cord.” As a result of the surgical error the victim was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Of course, permanent paralysis is a frightening outcome for all medical patients, made even worse by the fact that the problem was caused by a preventable medical mistake. The victim in this case has struggled over the past five years to adapt her life after losing the ability use her lower limbs. She can no longer walk, and moving around on her own is a constant struggle that requires the help of others. This has obviously had a significant impact on all aspects of her life, including limiting her ability to interact with her children and grandchildren. Before the surgery the woman was completely independent, but that all changed after the error. She is now completely dependent on others, and requires constant home health support.

Following the medical error, our medical malpractice attorneys filed a lawsuit on the victim’s behalf in Cook County. After more information about the situation was uncovered, the involved parties reached a settlement late last week. Per the terms of the settlement the victim will receive $3 million. The award will ensure that the woman has access to the considerable support she will need to maximize her well-being following the paralysis.

Our attorneys remain proud to help victims throughout the state who have suffered harm because of medical errors that could and should have been prevented. We also hope that these cases continue to send the message to medical professionals that substandard care will never be tolerated. The civil justice system demands that all community members interact reasonably with one another. Any deviation from that standard of reasonableness requires those involved to compensate victims for the consequences of their actions. This principle holds no matter what the context. Drivers, doctors, lawyers, and everyone in between is held to the same standard.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Birth Injury Lawsuit Leads to $3 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict

Last week the results of the Lexis Nexis’s Top 25 Tort Blogs of 2011 were announced. We had earlier asked for your help in adding comments to the nomination page supporting our blog. We happy to announce that thanks to your work, two of our blogs made the cut and were officially named in the top 25. We are very happy for the honor and thank all of those who nominated the Illinois Medical Malpractice blog and Illinois Injury Lawyer blog.

However, there is still one last part of the contest.

For the rest of the week voting will take place to narrow down the top twenty five to just one blog to be named THE top Tort Blog of the Year. This time, votes are not being collected via comments. Instead, an actual online poll has been created. To vote you may be asked to “log in,” however you are allowed to log in using your log in information for various social media sites, like Facebook, Google, and Twitter. In other words, voting takes only a second.

We would greatly appreciate your support in this contest one final time. Voting ends at Midnight this Friday. Please take a moment to follow this link to Vote for the Illinois Injury Blog or the Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog.

The Chicago DePuy hip recall lawyers at our firm have often written about the problem with the Johnson & Johnson metal on metal hip designs. Many individuals in our area have been affected by these products. Since the DePuy hip recall officially took effect in the summer of 2010, more and more information has been released on the harm caused by the poorly designed product. The recall itself was mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the devices in question failed at rates far higher than other hips and far higher than was acceptable. Victims of these problems are usually required to have risky revision surgery where the old device is removed and replaced. These surgeries are dangerous, costly, and can be painful for the victims. In addition, some victims had added problems caused by the release of metallic particles into their bloodstream. The metal-on-metal replacements sometimes allow small particles to flake off, entering the patient’s body and wreaking a range of damage.

Of course, considering the seriousness of these consequences, it is necessary for all those who even suspect that they may have been given one of these products to take reasonable steps to ensure that they are not at risk of future harm. Over the last year and half more and more people have learned that there was a recall, but many still are not 100% sure if their own hip is defective. To help in that awareness effort, we have compiled a short list of factors which may help residents learn if they were personally affected by the DePuy hip recall. The factors below are not conclusive, but are simply meant as a helpful guide to indicate whether or not you may need to seek out an attorney to protect your legal rights…

• Did you receive a hip implant after July 2003? The recalled hips were not used in surgeries before this time.

• Do you know if your replacement was an ASR XL Acetabular System or a DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing Platform? Most patients do not memorize the name of their device, but your doctor can explain the specific model of your hip replacement.

• Did you receive a recall notice explaining that your hip may have been included?

• Were you required to have revision surgery within five years of your first hip replacement? If so, it very well may be caused by a defect in the original replacement that you received.

• Are you experiencing pain in your hip, leg, lower back, or groin? It may be caused by hip problems.

• Does your replacement device exhibit any strange feelings or sounds? These may include clicking, crunching, or a dislocation feeling.

• Are you having general mobility problems or is it difficult to perform basic physical activities?

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm that is working on these cases encourages all community members who have had a hip replacement to take the time to ensure that they are not unknowingly using a defective products. Many elderly individuals get these replacements, and it is often helpful for family members to take the initiative and remind their seniors loved ones of the need to check on their device’s reliability. If you discover that a DePuy hip was used, it is vital to get in touch with a legal professional as soon as feasible to ensure that your legal rights are respected. The large companies that caused these harmful products to be used are required to pay for the consequences of their mistakes.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Number of Injuries From DePuy Hip Replacements Continues to Grow

Illinois Hip Implant Recall Shows Problems with Improper Product Testing

Boston News Health published a story this week that discusses new efforts to curb the problem of medical errors being made during patient transfers. A Chicago medical malpractice attorney understands that it is simply unacceptable for a patient to suffer problematic care because of communication breakdowns between different medical providers. These mistakes are ones that are 100% preventable and should not happen. When they do, medical malpractice lawsuits are often filed to hold those responsible for the consequences of the transfer problem.

As explained in the new story, a few health care organizations are taking positive steps to tackle the problem by using a pilot program that capitalizes on electronic records. The goal is that the care of individuals that are transferred between nursing homes, hospitals, or home care will not falter as a result of the transition. The four month project is funded by a $1.7 million federal grant and will seek to test the benefits of a Universal Transfer Form. The form includes data about the patient’s medication needs and current treatment plans. In addition, each of these forms will come with specific directions explaining how the individual needs to be cared for in the event that the patient becomes incapable of making decision for themselves. This may be particularly important for senior patients who often get transferred to the hospital after suffering a health event that prevents them from communicating with those around them.

It is hoped that medical transfer mistakes will be minimized as this Universal Transfer Form follows patients no matter where they are sent—from facility to facility. After this initial test using paper forms, an electronic Universal Transfer Form will also be used and evaluated. One possible concern is that the electronic form would give trouble to those facilities that currently do not have access to electronic health records. However, this electronic form will actually be completely usable by all facilities, including those without electric records access.

One medical researcher involved in the pilot project explained that, “The beauty of this system is that it leverages information already collected electronically in EHRs and patient assessment tools in order to minimize rework or having patients tell their medical history over and over again.” He went on to explain how the electronic transfer form will also ensure that the necessary information is delivered to new care providers in a timely manner. In the past, even when the right information reached the right doctors, it often did not do so in as efficient a manner as possible or necessary.

Continue reading "Attorney Explains How New Patient Transfer System May Save Lives" »

Our team of Chicago injury attorneys are proud to announce that we were recently named the Personal Injury Law Firm of the year in the United State by Lawyer Monthly—an international legal publication. The honor was part of the Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2011 meant to recognize firms and attorneys that are providing quality legal services at the top of the industry.

The award winners were carefully selected after on online nomination process. Nominees were then examined by the Lawyers Monthly awards research team during a detailed six month process. The research team collected votes and evaluated those votes against a strict set of measurable criteria. The finalists and winners are intended to represent professional achievement and excellence in the country and practice area. A full set of international winners can be found here.

Our Chicago injury lawyers are humbled by the award, and we remain incredibly proud to be trusted by so many community members with their legal needs.

Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm knows that it is just as much evidence of mistreatment to fail to provide the hospital care a patient needs as to have the patient undergo procedures that they do not need. In both cases patients suffer physically, emotionally, and financially in needless ways because their care providers failed to act reasonably. When either form of error occurs in our state it is likely a form of Illinois medical malpractice.

Many community members fail to consider that hospitals and doctors may have incentives to provide more treatment than necessary. However, evidence exists in many contexts that doctors and hospitals, either consciously or unconsciously, make diagnosis decisions in part on the amount of money that they will be receiving for the work needed to treat the problem that they diagnose. For example, the SF Gate reported this week on disturbing new information that starkly shows that certain hospitals may be claiming that many more people than necessary have acute heart failure based on the rising financial benefit that treating these patients has for the hospital.

For example, an analysis of Medicare claims made by the one hospital from2008 to 2010 found that a staggering 35.2 percent of Medicare patients were claimed to have been suffering from acute heart failure. This claimed condition is not insignificant but instead represents a potentially fatal break down in the organ’s ability to pump blood throughout the body. It often requires costly, serious, dangerous treatments, and a diagnosis comes with untold anxiety for those receiving the news.

Experts believe that the surge in heart failure rates has conveniently coincided with changes in Medicare rules that authorize bonus payments when a hospital needs to treat patient with certain complications. The heart failure diagnosis is usually an “add-on” to another condition, bumping up the money that the hospital receives for treatment. For example, a medical patient who needs a defibrillator will usually allow the hospital to receive $30,000 in funds. However, that reimbursement rises to $52,000 (in increase in $22,000) if the patient also has acute heart failure. These bonuses only recently took effect. The hospital referred to above went from treating not a single patient for acute heart failure in 2006, to 2,000 such patients the following year. There has yet to be any logical reason given why this enormous jump would have occurred other than a very troubling attempt to make the hospital more money. Medical experts across the board have explained that the rates of many of these hospitals are grossly high—as a rate of 5-6% would be a normal.

A Chicago medical malpractice attorney would be shocked to learn of similar rates of diagnosis in area facilities. However, there is very much a chance that such misconduct could be occurring in our area. These forms of medical malpractice are harder to notice and most patients will never be told that they were victimized. It remains unclear whether this problem is based on false diagnosis, “upcoding,” or both. Upcoding refers to exaggerated billings to Medicare, a form a fraud that the federal agency takes very seriously.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Criminal Prosecutions for Medical Malpractice on the Rise

Dangerous Illinois Doctors Stripped of Licenses

Blog readers are likely aware that it has now been nearly a year and a half since the the DePuy Acetabular Hip Replacement System (ASR Hip) recall affecting thousands of patients across the country. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers have followed the developments closely because we work with local patients who have suffered harm because of dangerous medical device, like these defective hips. Considering that we have been reporting on the situation consistently, it is easy to forget that news about these recalls do not necessarily travel fast throughout the community. In fact, there very well may be more individuals who have been unknowingly harmed by this faulty device. That is why it remains important to keep spreading information about these issues so that those who may be individually harmed by the DePuy hip recallmay seek out appropriate medical and legal advice.

The defective device in question is a new design of the traditional hip replacement, which include a “ball and socket” that mimics the movements of the actual human hip. All of these replacements have traditional used by metallic and plastic parts in conjunction. But the DePuy system is different in that it used entirely metallic components, and allows for a metal “ball” to move on top of a metal “socket.” The metal-on-metal feature of the device is now known to present an issue for those who had the replacements, as it may lead to problems. The ASR hip was first used in 2005, after it used an alternative FDA approval mechanism—known as the 501(k) process)—to send the hip to market without undergoing clinical trials beforehand. That shortcut would ultimately prove ill-advised.

Soon after patients began receiving the replacement, problems were reported. It seemed that the devices failed at a much higher rate than many other devices, and reports kept coming in of patients who needed risky and painful revision surgery. In other words, there were huge red flags right out of the gate. The “socket” component of the device was soon discovered to be the main problem leading to the hip failures and the release of metal shavings into the bloodstream of victims. As early as 2007 there were reports in major publications about the concerns about the devices. There is no denying that DePuy knew of these issues for years before the ultimate recall. However, patients kept receiving the product even after these concerns were first raised. Medical professionals that have since reviewed the data available to DePuy admit that the company had ample data indicating problems with the product from the get-go.

Those looking into the matter soon discovered that the DePuy hip defect was likely design-related. That means that there was not some unique error in how the manufacturer took the design and built it, but instead there were problems with the whole idea of the product. In fact, the very surgeon that designed the system admitted that the company was well aware of potential problems in 2008. Sadly, the company again failed to take action to protect those who were still receiving the device from facing the harm. It is likely that money played a role in the company’s decision-making, as the hip replacements were very profitable. DePuy (and its parent company Johnson & Johnson) made more than $5.4 billion in 2009 alone selling the hip. Finally, the evidence of problem mounted so much that the FDA forced the product to be recalled in July of 2010. Following the recall, the company released data where it admitted that up to 13% of all patients who received the device—or upwards of 12,000 patients—may ultimately need revision surgery.

The Chicago DePuy hip attorney at our firm remain shocked by the misconduct of the company involved in these actions. It is vital that all those patients hurt by this dangerous product take action to ensure that their health is not adversely affected. In addition, the law is clear in allowing those harmed by this company’s problematic product to seek legal action to hold them accountable for their misconduct leading to the harm. If you or someone that you know was affected, please visit our office, share your story, and learn how we can help.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Number of Injuries From DePuy Hip Replacements Continues to Grow

Illinois Hip Implant Recall Shows Problems with Improper Product Testing