Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm has worked on cases that tug at the heartstrings. Some of the most tragic are those involving patients that go in for elective surgery—something that is not medically necessary—and end up permanently scarred, or worse. That appears to be what happened in a case that took the life of a mother of three. The 39-year old woman went in to a clinic near her home for breast implant surgery—she would die the very next day.

According to a comprehensive story on the case in the Milford Daily News, the mother visited this particularly facility to have implants likely because it offered lower rates than other nearby providers. In addition, this particular clinic was popular among many of her friends who, like her, had emigrated to the U.S. from Brazil. At first it seemed like the procedure went well. The woman left the clinic and was sent home after the operation. However, it wasn’t long before her family knew that something was wrong. The day after the surgery her family called 911 after she fell in her house. When emergency responders arrived, they found the woman in the bathroom, unconscious, with irregular breathing and a very weak pulse. They did everything they could to save her, but she was pronounced dead shortly after she arrived at a nearby medical clinic. The family was devastated by the loss and is in the middle of preparing to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against the involved facility.

A few weeks after the death a medical examiner ruled that the woman’s death was the result of “therapeutic complications” from the breast implant surgery. A blood clot was found, and it apparently broke off and traveled to the victim’s lungs as an embolism. It remains unclear exactly how the surgery may have led to this problems. There is a risk that the implant may press up against a vein which could lead to this sort of accident. Surgeons are required to make sure that the implants are positioned to avoid this possibility. Failing to do otherwise is likely medical malpractice.

This particular tragedy is leading those in the area to make renewed warnings about the dangers of doctors performing these operations that are not board-certified. As our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers have explained in previous posts, the experience level of many plastic surgeons can vary wildly. Some states do not require much extra training, and so doctors with little familiarity with these procedures are allowed to switch practice areas and take these cases as a way to increase revenue. However, with less experience and more cost-cutting efforts, the risk of harm to the patient increases.

As always it is absolutely vital that patients learn about the experience level and training of those doing the surgery. As medical experts in the area have warned, there is a big difference between doctors who are performing plastic surgery. The best surgeons are always the ones who are actually licensed by The American Board of Plastic Surgery. As one doctor explained, “I don’t think the public knows the difference [between the different types of certification], and that’s very dangerous.”

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Occurs All Too Frequently in Cosmetic Surgery

Twist in Fraudulent Cosmetic Surgery Case

Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm appreciates that failure to diagnose is one of the single most common errors committed by medical professionals day in and day out. The potential harm from such mistakes runs the gamut, depending on the type of problem faced by the patient. For example, earlier this month WWLP News reported on a new medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed by a mother and father claiming that their son was blinded by a failure to diagnose.

According to the suit, the seven-year old boy was active, energetic, and had no noticeable health problem. However, a few years ago, on Halloween night, the boy’s mother noticed that her son was noticeably lethargic. Sensing something was wrong, she took him to the family pediatrician. The doctor gave a quick inspection, diagnosed him with an ear infection, and then sent them on their way. Unfortunately, the child did not get better. He went back to the doctor on several occasions with noticeably worse symptoms. However, the doctor did not properly act in the face of the worsening conditions.

After repeated visits, the doctor still did not diagnose him with anything other than an ear infection. What she missed what that he was suffered from potentially deadly bacterial meningitis—an inflammation of the brain lining. As a result of the misdiagnosis, the boy fell into a coma for months. When he finally awoke the child was blind and was unable to eat or walk. He has been able to slowly learn how to walk and feed himself. However, he will never be able to see again and will need around the clock medical care for the rest of his life.

Every Illinois medical malpractice attorney at our firm appreciates that cases resulting from failure to diagnose presents one common legal hurdle—proving causation. All negligence cases—of which Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits are included—require proof that the claimed negligent conduct actually caused the harm complained of. At times the cause is clear—like when a doctor operates on the wrong body part. However, there are other cases, like failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis, when the cause is not immediately apparent. In these cases, the medical professional does not directly make the harm occur but instead does not do what should have been done to fight the harm.

In these situations defense attorneys always argue that the harm would have occurred regardless of what the doctor did or did not do in any individual case. For example, if a doctor fails to diagnose cancer quickly, then the defense is likely to suggest that the doctor obviously didn’t give the patient cancer and that the consequences of the cancer were therefore not caused by the doctor. However, the law rightly understands that inaction can be just as harmful as inappropriate action. This is especially true in situations of progressive problems, like cancer. Even a short delay in diagnosis of the condition can result in significant deterioration in ones prognosis.

Proving these issues is often tricky in court. After all, there is no way to show exactly what “would have” happened—there is inherently some speculation. Yet, the fact that there is some speculation does not mean that one cannot use expert testimony and past situations to explain how one’s chances of avoiding harm would have been significantly higher had action been taken earlier. If your case involves these types of issues it is important to seek out legal help from those with experience in failure to diagnose cases.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Each individual case of Illinois medical malpractice leaves a trail of victims far beyond the one actually hurt by the medical negligence. Every Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm is aware of the most recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics which show that as many as 90,000 patients die each year because of various forms of medical errors. Many more are severely injured. Those statistics alone are quite shocking. However, even they do not do justice to the true scope of the problem. To fully understand the effect that these incidents have one must remember those whom the victim leaves behind. The mother who never thought she would outlive her son; a daughter who has to grow up knowing that her father will not be able to walk her down the aisle; or a husband who provides around-the-clock care to a wife who was permanently injured by a preventable medical error. For every single error there are dozens of people affected.

North Jersey News recently published a story that touches on the ripples that affect virtually all of us in one way or another because of preventable medical mistakes. The article shares the story of one mother who lost her daughter because of medical malpractice. The mother explained that she had just recently enjoyed a wedding with her 23-year old daughter. A few days later the daughter was scheduled to go in for what was supposed to be routine gallbladder surgery.

The surgery first became an option after the mother drove her daughter to the emergency room after she was complaining of abdominal pain. However, after being sent home the woman fell ill in the bathroom as was rushed based to the emergency room. It was there that the doctor recommended gallbladder surgery. The mother explained that the doctor told her that the procedure was supposed to take only 45 minutes. When talking with the daughter about whether the operation should be performed, the doctor noted that the procedure was simple, didn’t involve many risks, and that it was logical to have it performed. On that advice, the daughter went in for the operation.

She would not make it out of the hospital alive.

As the hours ticked by with the girl’s parents waiting, they soon began to get worried. Eventually, five hours later a doctor come out and told the parents that her daughter had been injured and lost blood but that she was young and would likely be able to produce her own blood. The mother was able to see her daughter who at first seemed fine. However, her condition soon grew worse. The mother explained that as she was holding her daughter’s hand she called for a nurse when she noticed that something looked wrong. A nurse came, no pulse was found, and the mother was asked to step out of the room. The professionals were unable to revive the daughter, and she died shortly after.

According to arguments made by the medical malpractice attorney in a subsequent legal case, the lead surgeon mistakenly caused an injury to the vessels supplying blood to the woman’s liver during the procedure. Post-operative tests revealed the blood problem. Had doctors attempted to tackle the issue as soon as the results were revealed, then the woman could have been saved. However, the results of the post-operative test were not revealed to anyone in time.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Methadone Overdose

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

TC Palm News reported this week on the end of a medical malpractice trial in which a plaintiff-victim was ultimately awarded $257,000. The case involved a broke needle being left inside the woman during an operation. Surprisingly, each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm can attest that these sorts of glaring mistakes—including objects being left in the body or surgery being performed on the wrong part of the body—occur at hospitals and medical facilities much more frequently than most would suspect.

In this particular case the plaintiff went to the hospital to correct urinary incontinence. The procedure went fine except that a part of a suturing needle broke off during the procedure. The involved doctor apparently stitched the woman up while the needle was inside—knowing full well that it was still in there. There remains disagreement about whether the doctor informed the woman that the needle had been left inside her stomach. However, it is clear that the woman began experiencing sharp pain in her abdomen. She returned to the doctor, this time her family physician, only to find that there was a half-inch needle inside of her. Fortunately, the needle was able to be removed, which relieved the pain.

According to documents that were released during the course of the medical malpractice trial, hospital records indicate that the woman did have a needle buried in her internal tissue but that the hospital left it up to the doctor to tell the patient. The victim explains that she was never shown the hospital records. In addition, the doctors own records (distinct from hospital records) did not indicate that there was a needle left in the body. The medical malpractice lawyer leading the case explained to the jury that “there was a significant failure of checks and balances.”

Both sides also disagreed during the trial on whether the needle posed danger to the woman when it was left in her body. The doctor claims that he left it there because opening up the body to get it out might have harmed nearby organs. Conversely, the plaintiff’s attorney explained that the needle was left in a dangerous location, near vital organs, which at the very least merited a real discussion about the possible risks.

In the end the jury agreed that the doctor and medical facility did not act appropriately when they left the needle inside the body and did not properly inform the patient of the situation. As a result they returned a verdict for the woman in the amount of $257,000. This includes medical expenses, other economic losses, and some damages for the pain that she was forced to go through as a result of the traumatizing abdominal pain.

It remains surprising that these sorts of cases still occur. Perhaps most shocking about this situation is that the patient left the hospital with a half-inch needle inside of her without any idea that it was there. Of course hospitals and medical providers should always fix errors that they make. But , even more than that, it is absolutely essential that patients at least be made aware of the situation with real discussions had about potential complications.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Doctor Leaves Device Inside Patient for Years

A Hospital’s First Priority: Do No Harm

The Louisiana Record reported this week on a new medical malpractice lawsuit stemming from negligent care provided to a vulnerable patient at a medical facility. The incident occurred a few years ago. The plaintiff in the case was first admitted to the facility because she was suffering from a high fever and was experiencing severe gastrointestinal problems. Her condition made her very dependent on care workers, because her mobility, strength, and overall cognition were affected by her fragile condition.

The documents filed to initiate the medical malpractice lawsuit state that at one point during her stay the woman was helped to the toilet by a caregiver. However, the caregiver left the woman unattended. For quite some time the woman tried to signal for help leaving the toilet. Eventually, with no other options, the woman attempted to get off of the toilet herself. She fell while doing so and suffered significant injuries. Her neck, back, head, and right leg were all damaged in various ways in the fall.

She ultimately sought legal help and filed suit. The lawsuit claim accuses the involved medical facility of negligence for not taking proper fall precautions. The fact that certain medical patients might need help in this way and are at risk of falls is not anything new. It is common practice for these facilities to be prepared for these sorts of situations and to act accordingly to protect the safety of the patients. The medical facility should have had a coordinated, consistent, multi-disciplinary fall prevention plan. In addition staff members should have properly monitored this individual patient’s situation much more closely.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that this case highlights a legal principle that separates different types of legal actions. Medical malpractice is alleged when negligent care is provided to medical patients. However, there is a distinction depending on the specific care that is provided. Not helping a resident with mobility problems is a different kind of negligence than that implicated when a caregiver makes a mistake that is directly related to providing the expert medical care. Medical negligence exists in the latter while the former usually only implicates ordinary negligence.

The distinction between each type of negligence is crucial in a legal case, because there are different requirements about what must be proven in each case. Most notably, when actual medical negligence is at issue there is a requirement that expert testimony be presented. The logic is that community members on the jury do not have the experience to make judgments about whether or not a doctor prudently followed existing medical standards in any given situation. Experts might help explain to the jury what those standards are and whether they believe they were followed in each individual case. Jury members are capable of gauging the reliability of experts but not the underlying expert knowledge itself.

Conversely, in ordinary negligence cases, expert testimony is usually not needed. For example, car accident cases are classic ordinary negligence cases. Jury members are capable of listening to testimony about what happened and determining who failed to act appropriately. The basic rules of the road are common knowledge unlike appropriate medical actions.

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

The Illinois Times reported last week on a few concerns that are being raised about a sheriff’s decision to continue using the services of a local doctor even after more than $1 million in Illinois medical malpractice payouts have been made following allegations of inadequate care being provided by the physician. According to the story the doctor and his company have faced literally dozens of Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits where he was named as defendant based on substandard care that he provided in jails throughout the area.

Yet, despite these lawsuits and settlements, which should likely raise alarm bells about the services being offered, sheriffs in communities across our state still sign contracts with the doctor and the company he owns to provide medical services to inmates. The most recent Illinois medical malpractice settlement payout came late last year, when $737,500 was paid to an inmate’s family. There is no specific information listed on the Department of Professional regulation website about the case. However, the timing coincides with a lawsuit filed by the family of an inmate who died after the perforated ulcer that he suffered went untreated.

In a different care of apparently troubling medical care being provided, an inmate was found sitting in a cell with a compound fracture to his lower leg. A pool of blood had built up on the floor and the injury appeared to be gangrenous. The man had previously suffered a broken ankle and head injury following a seizure in his cell. Instead of sending the man to an orthopedic surgeon—as recommend by the emergency room physician—caregivers instead sent him back to his cell. It was there that he became delusional and took off his splint without knowing what he was doing. This led to the aggravation of the injury which ultimately required that his leg be amputated below the knee.

The company is defending itself in another Illinois case this year. That situation involves an inmate who died while having a seizure in his cell. The man had previously been denied his seizure medication for unknown reasons.

A few are questioning whether campaign contributions have factored into the decisions to keep using this company. Sheriffs are elected positions in our state. Therefore, like other officials, sheriffs and candidates often raise large sums of money in order to engage in competitive campaigns. This presents the possibility that those who have a stake in the sheriff’s decision will seek to influence the decision with campaign contributions. The medical firm in question here has made campaign contributions to many different sheriff races.

Of course, our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers are not accusing anyone involved of specifically trading funds for these medical contracts. However, it is always important for local community members to be aware of the potential conflict so as to ensure that a spotlight is shone on the issue. Sunshine is often the best policy in these cases. There will always be some additional issues involved in the medical care of jailed inmates. However, we do not live in a society where our inmates are denied basic medical care and left to languish in horrid circumstances. Instead, inmates must be allowed to serve their time without fear of making it out of the facility alive.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Psychiatric Malpractice Claim Proceeds

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Jail

Gastric bypass surgery has been growing in popularity in recent years as community members try to take advantage of the new, seemingly positive weight control option. Those selling the surgeries are fond of using before and after photos in an attempt to convince wavering applicants of the merit of the procedure and highlight its possible benefits to those considering it. However, as with similar procedures, each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm understands there are often significant risks faced by patients who undergo these procedures. Unfortunately, medical providers often fail to appropriately warn patients of these risks. Matters are made even worse when the surgical team makes egregious mistakes during the procedures, often leading to lifelong consequences for victims.

For example, yesterday News 4 Jax profiled the story of one man, a former police officer, whose life was permanently changed because of medical malpractice after his gastric bypass surgical procedure. The man went in for the surgery over three years ago. At first it seemed like the procedure went well. However, it wasn’t long before complications began to develop. The hospital’s responses to those problems were amazingly inept. According to a medical malpractice attorney involved in the case, the facility failed to following standard protocols to provide even basic care to the victim. Many of the complications went undiagnosed, and by the end the man suffered a range of problems from brain damage to bed sores. He is now unable to walk, feed himself, clean, bathe himself, or speak clearly.

Following the ordeal the man filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against his caregivers. His suit was actually one of five different lawsuits filed by various victims against the same facility for a series of errors caused by basic problems at the hospital. Nurses at the facility even mentioned that they knew there were staff shortages and other issues which placed the care of patients in jeopardy.

Just the week the jury returned a massive verdict against the facility including punitive damages—totaling $177 million. Obviously the award amount is eye-popping, but it was settled upon mostly via punitive damage to punish the facility for its putting profits ahead of patients. The award is also a reflection of the immense costs that this particular victim will face for the rest of this life. The defense attorney even admitted that the man’s injuries were “one of the worst that any human being could have.” He will need around the clock care to perform even the most rudimentary functions and the overall toll on his quality of life cannot be minimized.

Expectedly, the hospital will appeal the decision, and so the case will drag on a bit longer. In the end it remains unclear what the man will actually receive and when. However, at least from this point forward he has the assurance that a jury of his peers heard the evidence and agreed that the care he was provided was far below the basic standard of care that all patients deserve when visiting a medical professional.

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

The debate continues over the ultimate effects of a transition to electronic health records. Last week the Digital Journal published another story that weighed the pros and the cons of the transition. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers understand the concerns that are being raised. We also appreciate that the long-term benefits of the shift cannot be forgotten. However, no matter what, patients must remain vigilant about how the records shift might apply to their care, particularly at the outset, to ensure that they do not fall victim to .

In the broadest sense it seems obvious that our medical records should shift toward electronic formats. After all, we live in an age of technological marvels, and so many aspects of our lives have shifted to computers and the internet. It seems natural that records concerning that which is most important to us—our health—should similarly take advantage of the benefits of cutting edge technology. In theory, our medical malpractice lawyers believe that quick submission of information and the ability to electronically check for potential problems (such as medicine prescriptions and allergies) can pay huge safety dividends for patients. Paper files—which still constitute the majority of medical records—have the potential to include incomplete or inaccurate information. Information can be mislabeled, misfield, be written illegibly, or lost. Potentially serious errors can result because of those problems.

Electronic records will hopefully eliminate some of those risks. However, this shift away from paper records does not come without risk. There remain challenges to the development of certain software plans that are working to compile patient information. Converting the data to electronic forms can be time consuming. It also is a delicate process requiring doctors to learn proper coding and enter those codes to correspond to certain ailments and treatment plans. Failure to enter the data properly can lead to medical malpractice when patients are harmed as a result.

Some are also concerned about the “overload” effect. Electronic health records systems can be set up to create alerts when certain triggers are met or issues are raised—thing like the expiring of a prescription. However, these alerts can lead to more problems. For example, there is a risk that when an alert is triggered doctors may act immediately with our checking in on a patients overall progress. If a prescription is filled immediately without checking it may lead to problems.

Another issue is the effect on record access from potential computer network problems. Obviously the electronic data is only as good as the access to the data over a computer network. However, those networks can go awry. There may be outages which could leave doctors without access to patient records. It takes little imagination to understand how dangerous it could be for there not to be access to these records in certain situations where time is of the essence. There are also privacy concerns, because access to the records could fall into various hands if the network access is compromised.

It goes without saying that all patients should remain abreast of these risks and to take action if they feel their care may have been compromised.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

New Data Reveals Prevalence of Hospital Errors

Electronic Records May Have Effect on Malpractice Lawsuits

The rights of medical malpractice victims are under assault on an essentially non-stop basis. Over the past few decades different states (and the federal government) have considered, and sometimes passed, legislation which seeks to do three things:

1. Make it tougher for victims to file a lawsuit against those who caused their injury

2. Make it harder for those victims to win those suits after they’ve been filed

3. Make it impossible for victims to receive the damage award that a jury deems reasonable even after winning the case.

Ask any Chicago medical malpractice lawyer and they will confirm that misconceptions about the legal system allow those who stand much to gain from tort “reform” (i.e. insurance companies and certain big interests) to use the skewed public opinion to advanced dangerous legislation. The misinformation machines which pump out false data about these lawsuits is difficult to stop, because it is backed by deep-pocketed interests who will stop at nothing to improving their bottom line. However, at the end of the day those of us opposing tort reform efforts know that our arguments are stronger. Tort reform laws help only a small sliver of society while hurting the vast majority of us. At the end of the day there are two battles to fight to limit the advance of those pushing these efforts:

1. Defeat the legislation before it passes

2. Explain to the court how the legislation violates fundamental constitutional principles.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys are active on both fronts, as we urge the defeat of legislation which takes away rights of Illinois medical malpractice victims and support legal arguments which point out the unconstitutionality of most of these laws. Fortunately, a few years ago our Illinois Supreme Court validly recognized that a law in our state which capped damages unconstitutionally infringed on the separation of powers doctrine in our constitution. Certain decisions must be left up to the judicial branch of government and legislatures are not allowed to mettle with it without changing the constitution.

This week the Arkansas Supreme Court made similar arguments while striking down a law in its state which limited the kinds of medical experts which could testify in certain medical malpractice cases. According to the Baxter Bulletin, the state’s high court found that the requirement that expert testimony has to come from “medical care providers of the same specialty as the defendant” violated the separation of powers doctrine. Last week we discussed this particularly damage requirement in another state. On its face, of course, the measure sounds reasonable. The problem is that instead of being used reasonably, the requirement in practice was nothing more than a way for meritorious claims to be thrown out of court on a technicality. Some courts required that specialty of the expert be identical to that of the defendant doctor. In some cases, meeting that requirement was virtually impossible, essentially immunizing those doctors from accountability.

Fortunately, with rulings like this, the court rightly notes that decisions about what evidence is or is not allowed at trial is within the purview of the judiciary alone, not the legislature. There is a reason that there are split branches of government—each maintains its own sphere of power. When one branch tries to take away the power of another, it cannot stand.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Tort Reform Laws Keep Legitimate Medical Malpractice Claims Out of Court

Experts Admit Lowering Healthcare Costs Not Affected by Tort Reform

The News and Tribune reported this week on yet another medical malpractice verdict stemming from a medical provider’s failure to act quickly enough to deal with a complained of condition. Frequent blog readers (and those familiar with medical malpractice lawsuits) will recognize that this sort of conduct is often at the very heart of these cases. Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm knows that time and again doctors, nurses, and other care providers do not act with the speed that would be reasonable under the circumstances, often with serious repercussions for the unsuspecting patients’ involved.

According to the story, this latest verdict stemmed from a woman who suffered serious injury because her doctor did not perform a vital surgery in a timely fashion. The victim, a special education teacher, was only 21 years old when she checked into a local hospital complaining of severe abdominal pain. Shortly thereafter she had a surgical consultation with a doctor to determine if surgery were necessary to fix her abdominal problems. According to a medical malpractice attorney representing the plaintiff in the case, the surgeon initially determined that surgery was absolutely necessary, and so the procedure was scheduled for the very next day. However, when the woman arrived at the hospital the next day the doctor bizarrely decided to cancel the surgery altogether. Then the doctor left town for the weekend and did not make any other arrangements to procure alternative surgical coverage.

The consequences of the delay on the patient would be severe.

The woman’s condition worsened over the next two days. It got so bad that other doctors providing care began worrying if the woman was going to even survive. Eventually two days later an alternative surgeon was called to perform an emergency surgery late that night.

It seems that the woman had what is known as ischemic bowel disease (also known as “dead bowel”). Unfortunately, by the time the surgeon actually performed the operation, virtually the woman’s entire bowel had been destroyed. She now suffers from short gut syndrome because of the removal of most of her small intestine. This is a permanent (and debilitating) disorder.

As the woman’s medical malpractice attorney noted during the case, it is unreasonable for a surgeon to cancel an operation and leave without properly monitoring a patient. Either the doctor should have performed the surgery or he should have said no to the surgery while keeping an eye on the situation to ensure that no problems came up. This is particularly true considering that the situation was such that immediate surgery seemed necessary at first anyway.

Following the four day trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. They found that the overall past and future losses suffered by the woman amounted to $1.4 million. However, some of that award will be cut because of arbitrary damage caps in the state which randomly limit the amount of money that wrongdoers have to pay regardless of the consequences of their negligent conduct.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers know that medical errors come in many forms. The civil justice system does not necessarily list specific medical actions which automatically leads to liability. Instead the law generally prohibits negligent conduct generally—which can include a wide range of actions. However, there are certainly some trends that are often lead to the most prolonged costly medical malpractice cases. For example, as an article in Guam PDN News mentioned late this week, at the root of much medical negligence are communication breakdowns by the doctors.

The story explains that while some insurance companies advise not talking to patients when an error has been committed in order to avoid a medical malpractice lawsuit, this recommendation is incredibly misguided. Of course, it is no surprise that insurers would want to keep secrecy involved in the process. Insurers are almost always interested in the bottom line—making money for their shareholders in as many different ways as possible. Of course in public the insurance industry usually tries to present the face of an industry that is only concerned about helping those in need and providing as much support as possible in times of tragedy. Yet, when push comes to shove the industry is usually willing to do whatever possible to avoid paying out claims. This is a large part of the reason why tort reforms efforts are pushed so hard by insurance industry proponents. Tort reform efforts are essentially system-wide attempts for insurance companies to pay less money when those they insure make mistakes that hurt others.

Of course, as the article notes, there are obvious ethical issues behind hiding instances of errors. Instead, the logical approach would always be to admit the error, issue an apology, and then try to compensate the victim for the injury. Any medical malpractice lawyer knows that the legal process can be made much more efficient if those responsible for errors engaged in open and honest communication with those who suffer injury as a result of misconduct.

According to a University of Michigan Health System communication between doctors and patients leads to decreases in prolonged medical malpractice lawsuits. The results of the survey actually led many to support national “apology laws” which would seek to require use of apologies and accountability as a way to avoid prolonged litigation while still providing necessary redress for families. In 2005 there was a national push to enact an apology law known as “MediC Act.” Though it never passed, it spurred action in over 36 states.

Honestly admitting mistakes is important for accountability and improvement purposes. When doctors admit mistakes there is a much greater chance that the error will spur changes which prevent future problems. Most errors are part of systematic problems at the facility. For example, a medication error could be rooted in a wide range of problems from ordering, transcribing, dispensing, delivering, and administering the drug. At the end of the day, admitting a mistake is not only the right thing to do ethically, but it is the smart thing to do to improve patient care.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Nearly 100,000 Die Every Year From Hospital Acquired Infections

A Hospital’s First Priority: Do No Harm

A failure to diagnose or a delayed diagnosis is one of the most common forms of Illinois medical malpractice. This sort of mistake is often the difference between life and death, because timely treatment is crucial with so many medical ailments. In general each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm knows that these sorts of errors come in two varieties. Most often a patient will visit a doctor complaining of a certain problem, the doctor will then either fail to order the appropriate tests and/or make a quick decision about the ailment and then send the patient on their way. When the patient does not get better they return and it is only later that the true source of the ailment is uncovered. In other cases, a doctor may correctly diagnose a patient with some condition. However, in taking the tests before that diagnosis an even bigger problem should have been evident to the medical professional but was missed.

According to an article in the Charleston Daily Mail, a failure to diagnose was at the heart of a new medical malpractice trial that is set to get underway this week. The suit was filed against a hospital and several physicians after the death of a 67-year old man. The victim suffered from multiple sclerosis and went to the hospital after suffering a urinary tract infection. While in the hospital the family became increasingly concerned because they noticed that his condition was deteriorating. The family repeatedly asked for doctors to examine him to figure out what was going wrong. However, the examination never took place. It was only when the man’ condition became gravely worse that a nurse phoned a doctor. The man was moved to the intensive care unit, and he died two hours after that call while he was being prepped for emergency surgery. It was only later that it was confirmed that that man had a bowel perforation that went undetected by medical professionals until it was too late.

The medical malpractice attorney who is representing the family explained that throughout the day at the hospital the man began to have an increasingly distended abdomen. The distention eventually made it hard for the man to breathe. Communication problem seem to be at the heart of the mater as nurse failed to properly inform the doctor of the severity of the man’s condition because “they didn’t want to inconvenience” the doctor. Of course, it is always unacceptable for a change in condition to not be properly accounted for. It is particularly disturbing when a patient is already at a hospital, his condition is clearly getting worse, and proper steps are not taken in a timely fashion to actually pinpoint what the cause might be. As this case demonstrates, even a few hours delay is often the difference. These sorts of missteps cannot be tolerated.

Jurors have just been chosen in the case, and attorneys have already made their opening statements. The entire trial is set to last at least two weeks. Many other personal injury trials do not last that long. However, because of the dense material and need for expert testimony, medical malpractice trials are often quite lengthy.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Misdiagnosis Can Be Deadly

Birth Injury Lawsuit Leads to $3 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict

The Sun-Sentinel reported last week on the end of a medical malpractice trial involving a vaccination error that left a girl (now a teen) without use of any of her limbs. The case highlights the unique circumstances that, in the end, can be traced back to inadequate care provided by hospital caregivers. It also showcases the sad fact that the losses that result from medical errors can be of the most serious and debilitating variety.

According to the medical malpractice attorney involved in the case, as a newborn the girl suffered a range of health problems. As a result she needed to have her spleen (and various other organs removed). The spleen is an organ that plays a role in filtering dangerous bacteria and viruses from the body. Therefore, the girl required special medication following her loss of the organ to ensure that she was properly prepared to defend against infections.

Shortly afterwards, the girl’s mother brought her to the pediatric unit of a local hospital to have a vaccination. The vaccination was supposed to help those who had no spleen better fight infections. Unfortunately, the particular vaccination that the girl received had expired five months earlier—it was no good. The family’s medical malpractice lawyer explained that it was a classic medication error, with the unsuspecting family having no idea that the false sense of security caused by the inadequate vaccination would come to have severe consequences for the young girl.

Roughly eight months later the child became severely ill. She was rushed to a local hospital where professionals discovered that she had a bacterial infection coursing through her body, causing blood clots to form in her arms and legs. By the time the doctors saw the child, gangrene had set in. To save her life they were required to amputate her arms and legs above the joints. In discussing the matter, the girl’s mother explained, “She developed the very disease that they were supposed to inoculate her against.”

Shortly after the tragedy the family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit seeking to hold the facility responsible for their misconduct which led to the harm. In their defense, the hospital claimed that even had the vaccine that the girl received not been expired she still would have contracted the deadly bacteria. Additionally, the defense team argued that the girl’s mother failed to give her sufficient medication at home to stave off the medication.

The jury ultimately awarded the family $12.6 million following a trial on the merits of the case. However, they also found that the mother’s failure to provide adequate medication played a role in the problem. Therefore the jury award will be reduced by 40%, meaning that the family will likely record roughly $8 million. As sometimes happens in these cases, the hospital plans to appeal the decision. That appeal will delay that ultimate recovery for the family even longer. The medical malpractice lawsuit was actually filed ten years ago, and it is only now that it has been taken to trial—various stall tactics, complications, and other legal maneuvers were involved in keeping the case from the jury for so long.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

Accountability is a pretty basic concept. Measuring the quality of performance is any field is the only way to truly understand what works, what does not, and what needs to be improved. This applies in all fields, from the law and marketing to any types of sales and medicine. Unfortunately, each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm has come to appreciate that in the hospital context there are very often huge lapses in measurement and accountability of medical errors made by doctors and hospitals.

This reality was verified again in a recent study released by the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services. Lawyers.com published a piece on the report this week and interviewed our Chicago medical malpractice attorney John Perconti for his perspective on the report. According to the study, doctors only report a shocking 14 percent of errors made when caring for Medicare patients. Obviously this low reporting rate raises serious concerns about the overall level of care provided by these professionals. It is a testament to the fact that much work can still be done to improve the care received.

No one likes to admit when mistakes are made, and it is not surprisingly that doctors are no exception. Medical professionals are not superhuman and they have personal failings just like the rest of us. However, accountability and proper reporting of mistakes remains supremely important in the medical context because lives are on the line when doctors make mistakes. Medical malpractice is troubling whenever it occurs, but is it particularly egregious when it occurs repeatedly because lessons are not learned by practitioners. Lessons can never be learned from previous mistakes when no one is made aware that an error occurred in the first place.

As our Chicago medical malpractice lawyer John Perconti explained, doctors and hospitals have very good reasons to keep their mistakes hidden—but none of those reasons have to do with improving patient safety. Attorney Perconti noted that “Reporting may have negative consequences to creditialing as well as exposure to third party claims. For these reasons, I am not surprised these errors are being under reported.” In other words, doctors don’t want to pay families for the consequences of these errors and they do not want professional repercussions for their mistakes. As a result, they often try to sweep errors under the rug.

As Attorney Perconti knows, failing to reports errors properly is not only a failure to abide by Medicare rules, it also is downright dangerous. The reporting of medical errors leads to corrective action being taken to prevent future problems. These changes are the hallmark of improving hospital safety. As the total number of medical errors continues to remain steady, the need for improvement is ever present.

Another problem, as Perconti noted is that “Doctors and hospitals are often selected based upon their reputation in the community. Under reporting of medical errors gives the consumer a false sense of security...Any reasonable consumer would not select a doctor or hospital with a significant number of medical errors.”

See Our Related Blog Posts:
 
Medication Errors Require Millions to Receive Additional Care

Fatal Blood Thinner Overdose Leads to Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Late last year our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers shared our thoughts on the so-called “Judicial Hellhole” report—a piece of fiction put out each year by a tort reform group seeking to demean the judicial system. Most publications advanced by those hoping to take away rights of negligence victims seek to make headlines and bullet points that have little connection to actual fact and honest argument about the role of the judicial system in the lives of victims and embedded in our national history. This report is no exception.

Last week, the president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association had an article published in the State Journal-Register that outlined the problems with this latest report. He explained how the report is simply another facet of the distraction tactics deployed by those involved in tort “reform” efforts—away from victims’ rights toward red herrings. As ITLA President Jerry Latherow explained, this “report” is nothing more than a repackaged editorial based on junk research that has little to no basis in fact. It is only because of the sensational name and wild claims that it gets media attention—which is all that its creators hope to get out of the effort. At the end of the day the report does nothing more than distract the public from the real point of tort reform—taking rights away from community members so that corporations do not have to be held accountable in a court of law when they do wrong. These efforts have very real effects on victims of Illinois medical malpractice (and all medical patients). They need to be fought against tooth and nail.

Latherow takes apart the false rhetoric of the opposition, noting that wildly inaccurate connections made by those issuing the report. For some reason the argument is still being peddled that allowing negligence victims—like those hurt by medical malpractice—to have access to a court and jury someone means that vast economic damage will come to the state. Of course, this ignores the basic fact that access to the jury system is a fundamentally right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, having being around in English-speaking nations for centuries. It is the tort reformers who are demanding changes, not the other way around.

The facts are much less hysterical than the claims. For example, a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that fear of litigation was not anywhere on the list of issues that local businesses find important when deciding where to build. Jobs are not being held back because of lawsuits. Instead, the survey found that concerns about taxes, energy prices, and labor costs and availability were the factors that influenced where new businesses were set down.

The corporations that fund and propagate these messages are doing so because it will help their bottom line. It is that simple. Claims about frivolous lawsuits are made because they make headlines, but those claims are false. The judicial system itself screens out lawsuits that have no merit. Even then, most lawsuits are actually filed by businesses against other businesses. Any Chicago medical malpractice lawyer knows, therefore, that the main fear among those pushing these ridiculous reports, is being held responsible for actual meritorious claims when they act irresponsibly.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Suggest Latest “Judicial Hellhole” Designation Distracts from Real Issues

Big Business Attempts to Take Away Legal Rights

Garbage In, Garbage Out. The old programmer’s adage is used in a range of contexts, and perhaps never more potently then referring to debate on legislative proposals. If those making apolitical decision, supporting a policy proposal, or otherwise influencing the process do not have accurate information about the topic, then the results of the policymaking process are likely to be trouble. The policy proposals which each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm cares about most always relate access to the civil justice system for victims of negligence.

For years policymakers and various advocates have been engaged in a tug-of-war around a range of tort reform issues including arbitrary limits on damage awards, various rules of evidence changes, and the use of more barriers to keep certain victims out of the courthouse. In making their pitch for these laws, many tort reformers propagate information to the public at large about the medical malpractice system and its effect on society. Unfortunately, often that information is wildly off the mark. The unsuspecting public usually believes the data shared with them, which is part of the reason why the public remains misinformed about certain aspects of the system. Ask any Illinois medical malpractice lawyer and they will likely explain that the truth about the system is much different than that portrayed so often in mass media and believed by the public.

The only way fight back against this stream of misinformation is to provide a counterweight of accurate information. The Center for Justice and Democracy, for example, recently put out a handy guide entitled “The Truth About Medical Malpractice Litigation” which explores the issue in a fair way to dispel so many of the myths that permeate society when it comes to the issue. The Center’s companion blog, known as “The Pop Tort,” recently published a three question quiz based off that new guide to medical malpractice lawsuits.

For example, the first question on the quiz asks readers what percentage of new civil cases filed are actually medical malpractice case? If the hysteria conjured up by many tort reformers is to be believed, that figure might rise up to 50% of all cases or beyond. Is that true? Of course not. As the latest National Center for State Courts report revealed, medical malpractice suits actually account for well under 2% of all civil filings. Even when considering just tort cases (most personal injury suits), medical malpractice accounts only for 8% of new filings. These cases do not dominate or clog the system as much as misinformation spreaders would have you believe.

Another question on the quiz asks readers whether the filing of these suits is going up or down and by how much. Again, in an effort to persuade the public that certain legislative policies need to be enacted, some suggest that there is an epidemic of these suits. Is there really? Of course not. Over the last decade the total number of medical malpractice lawsuits has dropped substantially, around 18% nationwide. Some areas have seen decreases are large as 42% over the last decade. What this tells us, actually, is that contrary to the tort reformers, it is getting harder and harder for victims of medical negligence to have any access to the justice system. The rules are working to take away these basic rights.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Person Injury Lawsuit Alleges Negligence By Hospital in Bad Diagnosis

Former Tort Reform Advocate Realizes the Harm from Damage Caps

Virtually every time that a patient visits a medical provider of any kind, the potential for medical malpractice exists. This is obviously true in more risky procedures, like surgery, but it is also true in seemingly innocuous circumstances. Routine check-ups can be the site of damaging mistakes if clear warnings signs and symptoms are not correctly interpreted by doctors. Picking up medicine can even be deadly if those involved failed to provide the correct medication in the correct amount.

One medical procedure that is often not discussed in the context of medical malpractice is abortion. Obviously the issue riles up strong feelings among many community members, some believing the practice should be legal while others arguing that it should not be allowed. The political battles over the issue—something that has been ongoing for decades—usually overshadows any consideration of the actual medical procedure itself. Like all procedures, it comes with various risks and potential harm to the mother. Also like all other procedures, when the involved medical professionals make mistakes or fail to act reasonably, then the chance of harm is high. Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm believes strongly in the rights of all victims of inadequate medical procedures to receive redress for their losses and to demand accountability. That is true in these cases just like all others.

Just this week the Clarion Ledger reported on the end of a medical malpractice case filed by a husband and wife after the wife experienced significant harm following errors during an abortion. The suit was filed against the involved doctor, a women’s health organization clinic, and others. During the procedure the doctor actually stopped work in the middle. He told the couple to come back later for it to be completed. In the interim, he did not recommend antibiotics be taken by the mother. As a result, it wasn’t long before the woman began cramping up, bleeding, becoming feverish and sick. The problem led to sepsis poisoning, throwing the mother into a week-long coma.

No representative from the clinic or the involved doctors actually responded to the suit or continued along in any way. As a result, the court eventually awarded the family a default judgment. The court ruled in favor of the family for a total of roughly $600,000. In a default judgment the court assumes that all of the factual allegations are presumed true.

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney working with us knows that default judgments are actually rare. They only arise when the opponents simply fail to defend a case at all. In those circumstances it usually means that the defendants have no defense and the business in which they were involved is on the way out. Unfortunately, in these cases it is sometimes tough to actually collect even after an award has been granted. In this case the medical clinic is under different ownership, and they will undoubtedly argue that they are not liable to pay the claim. Instead, the individual doctor and old, perhaps dissolved, company may need to be tracked down before actual relief is provided.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Doctor Warns of Unrecognized Cancer Risk from Unnecessary Dental Radiation

Dentist Accused of Medical Malpractice

Chicago medical malpractice occurs much more than most residents know. Unfortunately, when local residents hear the words “medical malpractice” their minds almost always jump to tort reform issues. The words seem to inspire some notions of rising insurance costs, political battles, and runaway juries. These visceral responses are unfortunate because they distort the fact that medical malpractice should first and foremost be able to victims who have suffered preventable harm.

It is the underestimation of errors that allows the preventative role played by medical malpractice lawsuits to be forgotten in these debates about the effect of tort reform legislation. The fact remains that tens of thousands of people die each and every year because mistakes were made in their care which should have been prevented. Some estimates place the yearly death total at 90,000, with many more suffering severe injury. The accountability system, with medical malpractice suits at the center, play a pivotal role in spurring safety changes and keeping safety standards at all these locations high.

To make matters worse, evidence continues to pour in confirming that the total numbers of medical errors are likely much higher than reported. An ABC News story last week discussed the underreporting of mistakes made by those working in hospitals and medical facilities. The article explains how a new report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed that more than 80% of hospital errors are actually never reported. Perhaps even worse, the same study found that even when problems were documented, little if anything was done at those facilities to prevent a repeat of the problem.

A wide range of errors were documents in the HHS study. They included many that our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys see time and again like patients receiving the wrong medication, the development of bedsores, and hospital acquired infections. Those involved explain how Medicare requires tracking of the records, but there is little accountability to ensure that the tracking is done properly. Inspectors are known to only loosing monitor this tracking information. On top of that there is often misunderstanding about what counts as a medical error and when something should be included in the data.

The study was conducted differently than many others in that it first identified 300 patients who had been harmed by a medical error. They then traced the records of those patients back to hospitals to determine whether those errors were properly documented. As one might expect when self-reporting is involved, few hospitals actually documented the situation. In 61% of the cases the involved doctors said that they did not count the adverse event as an error. Another 25% included cases that were unquestionably errors but for whatever reason were not recorded.

Interestingly, the most serious cases of medical mistakes—like hospital acquired infections or other problems leading to death—were no more likely to be reported. It seems that the problem, therefore, is not about misunderstanding of definitions, but out and out failure to properly document problems. This latest study echoes results found in efforts from earlier in the year which found that as many as 90% of medical errors are currently undetected by hospital systems.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medication Errors Require Millions to Receive Additional Care

Improving Healthcare Requires Identifying the Most Common Medication Errors

Hypocrisy in the tort reform debate is commonplace. Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys often defend our work against those who suggest that seeking accountability and redress when wronged by another is somehow morally wrong. In an effort to sell certain tort reform proposals, these “advocates” usually refer to lofty principles of self-reliance and suggest that so many of our society’s problems can be mysteriously traced back to injury victims seeking justice. These arguments are always flawed, and they are usually bankrolled by those who have much to gain by limiting the rights of medical malpractice victims and others injured by negligence.

Certain elements of the national political process have taken up tort reform a signature argument used to rile up certain elements of their base. Yet, many of the nation’s most vehement opponents of the civil justice conveniently fail to mention that their own family uses that system when it happens to suit their needs.

One recent exemplar of this hypocrisy is Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum—the former Senator from Pennsylvania. Last year a medical malpractice attorney posted a video that discussed Senator Santorum’s “do what I say, not what I do” attitude when it comes to these issues. The attorneys reminded listeners what tort reform actually means: certain aspects of the law will be predetermined before an accident even happens. It is one thing to stand up and say that victims of terrible accidents, such as egregious, preventable medical mistakes, should not be able to recover much. It is another to have your family become victimized in this way and then still believe that the victims should not recover.

What usually happens is that once an individual finds themselves on the wrong end of another’s mistake, they change their tune and seek to use the justice system in a fair way for redress and accountability. For example, in Senator Santorum’s case, his wife was injured by a medical error. The family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit and sought significant damages for injuries. In making that argument the family claimed that the tort reform laws (damage caps) in the state should not apply in her case. Specifically, the family’s attorney noted that the jury should always be the one to decide damage amounts after hearing the evidence in a case. Knowing that their position was hypocritical, the family actually tried to have the court records sealed from public view. The judge rejected that claim, and so that all of us can read for ourselves about the hypocrisy of one who claims to support damage caps except when they would apply to his family.

Taking away rights when they don’t affect you and then demanding access to those rights when you happen to need them is the epitome of hypocrisy. It is the type of conduct that we need to root out of the political system to ensure that things are fair for everyone—not just those in positions of power and influence and their allies. Please keep this issue in mind throughout the upcoming election cycle. Candidates at all levels—particularly in state governments, Congress, and the Presidency, may have a lot to say about access to the justice system over the next few months. Pay close attention to their arguments and see if their words actually match up with reality.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

New Report Exposes Chamber of Commerce Hypocrisy on Use of Justice System

Those Championing Health Reform Are True Hypocrites

We haven’t posted about the latest happening in the DePuy hip recall saga in awhile, but that is not because there have not been any developments. On the contrary, just last week the New York Times published another long story on the rise of medical defect failures, in particular the widespread problems associated with metal-on-metal artificial hip implants.

The story noted that the recent problem with the all-metal artificial hips is likely the most widespread medical implant failure in decades. While DePuy hips may be the most high-profile of the lot, all metal-on-metal devices have seen their share of failures, and the results for the victims have been staggering. The NYT story, for example, profiled a local Illinois DePuy hip recall victim who had already racked up nearly half a million dollars in medical bills as a result of the problem caused by the hip failure. Similar to complications that our DePuy hip recall lawyers have seen in area cases, the man here suffered a range of problems as a result of his need to have revision surgery. The second surgery is traumatic enough, but in addition the profiled victim suffered a fractured pelvis and serious infection.

As any injury lawyer will explain, no matter what the legal outcome for these victims ultimately is, there is no way for them to actually get back all that they lost because of this situation. Many victims were forced to spend months in virtual immobility because of their injuries. Others will never regain the strength or overall health that they had before the implant failure. While being awarded resources and having accountability in a personal injury lawsuit will be helpful, it is disingenuous to claim that the award will make everything all right. It won’t, and the victims should not be told otherwise.

Literally thousands of residents across the country have faced this struggle. This latest story explains how metal-on-metal hip implants accounted for about one third of all such hip implants performed each year. That number has declined sharply since the problems with the devices came out, but not before half a million patients had them installed in their bodies. Unfortunately, it is impossible to track the exact number of those devices that have failed. This is because the tracking of such failures does not occur in this country—a problem we have discussed before.

Yet, experts involved in the revision surgery process have noted that extrapolating the data that is available suggests that literally tens of thousands of patients may ultimately need to have risky, expensive revision surgery in the coming years as more and more of the devices fail. The involved companies have already set aside vast sums of money to cover the losses experienced by patients who have already had complications as a result of the defect. However, as always, we remind patients not to deal with insurance companies, lawyers for the medical device makers, and other on their own. At the end of the day, these companies are always working to make settlement offers that help their bottom line, not ensure that the involved patients are fully reimbursed for the entirety of their losses.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Number of Injuries From DePuy Hip Replacements Continue to Grow

Illinois Hip Implant Recall Shows Problems with Improper Product Testing

The Wall Street Journal pushed out an interesting story last week exploring the ability of experienced attorneys to predict jury verdicts ahead of time. The story summarized the results of a new study from the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. The research involved predictions by real attorneys of real medical malpractice cases. Participants in the study were all experienced civil trial attorneys. They were shown short snippets with details of a civil matter. They were then asked to predict the jury award amount in the case.

The predictions were made in several stages with an effort given to understand how different factor might influence the attorney’s opinion. In the first round, each attorney simply gave their personal opinion. Next, participants read the opinion of another attorney and were then given the chance to revise their original opinion. In round three they negotiate with another attorney. Finally, in the last round the participant was asked to make a final predictions based on everything that had occurred in the three prior rounds.

The results indicated, overall, that experienced trial attorneys are quite good at predicting verdicts based on the information presented to them. Overall, when researchers averaged the final guesses of each participant they found attorneys to be within 25% of the actual awarded amount. This is a pretty impressive stat considering that the attorneys were given only a few small paragraphs about the case. Interestingly, the research also found that attorneys usually were further off the mark the less they incorporated the opinions of their fellow attorneys. In general, the closest estimates were those in the third round, where attorneys were forced to negotiate a simple award amount prediction in conjunction with a partner.

So what should we take away from this research?

Experience matters. This simple rule is the same when you are looking for legal services yourself or when medical malpractice lawyers are seeking opinions on the next stage in a legal matter, trusting those who have been there before will make a difference.

Local residents may not realize the significance of this sort of predictive ability. However, having experience in a particular area of the law and being able to accurately explain what a jury verdict might be and what the value of the verdict might be is an essential skill in determining how a case ultimately plays out.

From the client’s perspective, they understand that they were harmed in a certain way. Therefore they often assume that it is clear that a jury will realize the truth and provide adequate compensation. However, attorneys appreciate that while the purpose of the civil justice system is to root out the truth, what matters most is not necessarily what actually happened but what evidence we have of what happened. Of course this can be quite frustrating for the potential client who was involved in a certain situation and knows what happened. Each Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at our firm appreciates that part of our job is working to explain to clients the available evidence and share how, in our experience, this might translate when it comes to a possible settlement or, if necessary, a trial.

For this reason, we are proud of our experience level. For decades our medical malpractice attorneys have worked specifically on these matters. As a result, we understand what the likely outcomes might be and are better positioned when it comes times to negotiate a settlement or advise the client on the benefits of rejecting a settlement offer and proceeding to trial. At the end of the day there is always unpredictability but trends still matter.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Possible Medical Malpractice Lawsuit After Doctor Performs Eye Operation on Wrong Eye

Rules Preventing Wrong-Site Surgeries are Ineffective

TC Palm discussed the latest happenings last week in a new medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed on behalf of a mother and young infant who both suffered injuries as a result of complications from a traumatic birth. According to the family’s medical malpractice attorney, the suit was rooted in the failure of the involved medical staff to act in a timely fashion to prevent a dangerous situation from resulting in more complication than necessary. The failure to as quickly as possible (and as demanded by the situation) is a common theme in medical malpractice suits stemming from preventable injuries incurred by children during their birth.

In this latest case, the child developed cerebral palsy, after a delay in use of a C-section to remove the child from his mother’s womb. The mother, a 39-year old woman and herself a registered nurse, was apparently allowed to have regular labor even though the medical professionals involved knew that the child was in fetal distress. The plaintiff alleges that a prudent medical team, faced with the situation of distress in front of them, would not have delayed in taking emergency action. They argue that a C-section should have been performed immediately. Instead, there was a delay. Had the same steps been taken fifteen minutes earlier (claims the medical malpractice lawyer involved) then the child would have been perfectly healthy.

Instead, the team did not action quickly enough. As a result the child developed cerebral palsy from oxygen deprivation. The mother was also injured, ultimately resulting in the loss of all of her reproductive organs. Following the traumatic birth the family filed the medical malpractice lawsuit against the involved obstetrician and neonatologist.

The trial is set to begin soon with jury selection to take place as early as today. When a case goes all the way to trial, the jury selection process is the first stage in the matter. Selecting a jury itself can take several days, and it is often a particularly long process in these sorts of cases. Medical malpractice cases can take several weeks. In this case the judge noted that he expects there to be at least fifteen days of testimony and deliberation. The need to have a wide range of (often complex) medical testimony makes these cases last a bit longer than some other injury trials. Consequently, the jury selection process usually requires a larger potential pool than in other cases. Many of those in the original pool may not be able to serve for the length of time required for these long cases. The judge noted that the original pool of fifty potential jurors will likely need to be expanded.

Readers should not forget, however, that it is actually not necessarily common for most of these cases to go to trial. More often than not, after both sides have a chance to gather potential evidence in the matter, an amicable settlement is reached. This is the case because quite often it becomes very clear that a party was negligent in certain ways. As a result, the negligent party is willing to reach a fair settlement instead of going through the long and often costly trial process.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Jury Awards $667,000 Following Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Over Hole in Bowel

Caps on certain damage awards are the most well-known form of so-called “tort reform.” However, any medical malpractice lawyer who has followed these political maneuvers can explain how damage caps are only one of many ways that those pushing for changes to the law are attempting to make it harder for victims of medical errors to receive redress for their losses. The common theme behind all of these efforts is simple: make it harder for victims to win a lawsuit and, even if they do win, make it harder for them to recover the full amount of their losses. For chronic defendants, insurance industries, and others, advocating for these “reform measures” represent a win-win. If they are not successful, then they have lost nothing, but if they can convince legislators to pass these measures than they will be able to increase their profits.

Often forgotten in all of the furor, even by those who believe that medical malpractice legal “reform” measures need to be enacted, is that legislation is rarely capable of being perfectly tailored to act exactly as desired. Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm knows the stories of so many victims of medical errors who were essentially refused access to the civil justice system because of the overbroad laws enacted by those clamoring for changes to the system.

The Seattle PI reported yesterday on a story highlighting the consequences of overbroad medical malpractice reform laws. The family in the case had known for some time that their pregnancy was high-risk. The mother had previously lost a baby following birth problems, and so she made special arrangements to work with a high-risk pregnancy specialists from Yale University when she became pregnant the second time. Unfortunately doctors at her regular hospital did not cooperate. According to the story, when the victim began having fever and back problems her regular doctors refused to turn over care to the specialists. The specialists’ recommendations were not even followed. Even more disturbingly, the experts’ care plan was hid from her so that she did not even know that the care she was receiving was contra to that for which she had specially arranged. As a result of the egregious conduct, the new baby developed an E.coli infection at birth. The boy fought hard and survived for 51 days before dying from a blood infection.

Obviously the family was devastated by the loss. Upon learning of the goings-on surrounding the care receiving by local medical professionals, the family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit. Unfortunately, the family has not been able to have their day in court. The case was dismissed by a judge on a technical rule that was enacted as part of the claimed tort reform fever that swept through the area several years ago. The legal rule requires plaintiffs to obtain the opinion of a medical expert before even being allowed to sue. Yet, defendants can often use this requirement to attack perfectly legitimate claims, and get them thrown out before being given a fair hearing.

Requiring opinion letter may seem reasonable, but they are simply another way defense advocates try to put up impediments for legitimate victims. These opinion letters often cost thousands of dollars to obtain, meaning that those without the resources essentially can never get to court if they can’t afford those costs right off the bat. It is for that reason that many states have declared these requirements unconstitutional. It represents an unfair barrier to access to the state justice system. In addition, some states have written the laws so narrowly, that even when a proper opinion letter is obtained it is deemed not to have met some specific technical requirement, leading the judge to throw out the case.

As one attorney interviewed for the story reported, “The argument is made that these (opinion letters) preclude the filing of a frivolous claim. It’s all just fear-mongering. It’s an impediment to bringing a case that gives them (defendants) a leg up.”

What these and other tort reform rules do is continue to skew the balance against victims of malpractice. The standard of proof requirement already tilts in their direction. In addition, so many fail to forget that there are already serious safeguards against frivolous lawsuit claims. The costs of litigating a case are quite high—a cost born and lost by the plaintiff’s counsel if they do not succeed in a case. There would be little reason for those parties to file suit that they would likely lose.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

American Association for Justice Comments on U.S. Deficit Commission Report

Unique Story Highlights the “World’s Worst Doctor”

The basic root of most Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits involves claims of civil negligence. When filing a lawsuit alleging negligence in any context, including medical errors, the plaintiff must prove four things:

1) The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff
2) That duty was breached by the plaintiff
3) The breach was a cause of damage to the plaintiff
4) There was actual harm to the plaintiff

Any Chicago medical malpractice lawyer will explain that the real contentious issues in the vast majority of cases are the second and third elements: whether there was a breach and whether it caused certain harm to the plaintiff. The duty element virtually always exists, because medical staff members always owe a duty to their patients. Similarly, the last element, harm, is also rarely in dispute, because the victim would not consider going ahead with a lawsuit if there was no actual harm involved. Instead, the real contentious issues are those around whether the doctor did anything wrong in the first place (breach) and whether that conduct specifically caused the complained of harm (cause).

There are times when a breach and cause are undeniable. However, in some circumstances the law can be a bit tricky with these issues. For example, the Star Tribune reported this week on a new medical malpractice lawsuit involving a misdiagnosis of cancer in a young girl. At issue is whether the misdiagnosis actually caused harm for the child. Obviously, the doctor did not create the cancer, but her conduct in not diagnosing it in a timely fashion did result in delay in treatment which itself is a separate harm. In the girl’s case there was a yearlong delay in diagnosis. As a result, the girl’s family argues that her chances of survival went from 60% to 40%. However, at the moment, the girl’s conditioned has deteriorated and she has been given less than a 5% chance of survival.

In the girl’s state the law holds that a medical malpractice case in these circumstances can only proceed if the delay causes survival to shift from likely to unlikely. An appellate court in the state recently upheld the girl’s case, rightly noting the drop from 60% to 40% fits within the definition of likely to unlikely. A trial court had dismissed the case, claiming that it represented an impermissible “reduced chance of survival” case. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that it was in fact an “improbable survival” claim which is allowed in the state.

In Illinois the rule is a bit more ambiguous. Specifically, courts here have found that a case can proceed if “the defendant’s failure to render a timely diagnosis more probably than not comprised the effectiveness of treatment received or increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff.” In this way there are not necessarily cut-off percentages or black-and-white rules. Instead, in these situations local medical malpractice attorneys are required to ague generally about whether the delay in diagnosis compromised the effectiveness of the treatment or increased risk of harm

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Illinois Brain Injury Results in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Failure to Diagnose Cancer Leads to Lawsuit

We’ve all been warned of the immense dangers of driving while distracted. Countless auto accidents are caused in whole or in part by drivers who were not paying full attention to the road, usually because they were on a cell phone at the time. But the problem of distraction from high-tech gadgets exists in all parts of society, not just on our roads. In fact, our Illinois medical malpractice attorneys have been growing more and more worried that the distractions are reaching into hospitals and operating rooms.

AMED News touched on the issue this week, in a story which noted that even fellow medical professionals are warning their colleagues that they need to better manage the distraction of smartphones on the job. The problem is more widespread than most patients would ever image, and stories are continuing to roll in regarding those who have been severely hurt (and even killed) because of medical malpractice committed by distracted healthcare professionals. Of course doctors have long been dealing with certain kinds of necessary distractions, like incoming pharmacy calls and test results. But smartphones and similar gadgets are a different matter altogether.

Recent surveys show that more than 80% of all doctors carry smartphones and another 33% use other devices like iPads and tablets. Unlike former communication tools such as work-only pagers, a huge risk with these new devices is the chance for personal distraction. A recent study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research found that the average doctor is interrupted nearly five times per hour from phone calls, emails, and other interactions. Those distractions often take the physicians mind away from the task at hand of dealing with a particular patient. As everyone knows from every day experience—and psychologists have found—it is often difficult to get fully back into a task after distraction. The potential for errors are much higher after the distraction than otherwise would be the case if focus had not been diverted.

In the medical context, the risks are incredibly high. It is one thing to get write down a number wrong when working in a business setting, but it is much worse to make the same mistake when writing medication dosages down or otherwise making decisions that will affect one’s health.

In anonymous surveys large segments of doctors admit to mass-use of these devices on the job. A 2010 study of more than 400 perfusionists found that the majority used their cell phone in the middle of a cardiopulmonary bypass. Another 20% checked their email during the operation, and 15% even surfed the internet while the patient was having the operation. Amazingly a small, but still shocking 3% of surgeons posted on a social networking site in the middle of the surgery. Obviously, patients (and their families) would be aghast to know that the one whom they are entrusting with their life had their mind elsewhere at the exact moment when he or she needed to be focused.

Every Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm remains committed to helping negligence victims who have been hurt in situations like this. To prevent medical malpractice, all practitioners, hospital administrators, and others involved in the process must take steps to eliminate the distraction. Work and consumer-related functions on these devices can be isolated from one another. It may be appropriate for employer-supplied devices to be the only ones allowed in patient care. Also, rules and guidelines should be implemented mandating “quiet zones” where these devices are not permitted—such as near the operating table.

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

WGN TV posted a story last week that is likely of interest to our fellow Chicago medical malpractice attorneys. Beginning this year, a few federal civil trial courtrooms will begin videotaping all proceedings. The cameras have already been installed and are set to go. The project is part of a three year pilot program that was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. As part of the agreement fourteen different districts across the country will participate. However, Chicago’s federal system hub at the Dirksen Federal Building is the largest of all the participants.

As of right now the program will only apply to a select number of civil trial courtrooms. There will be three static cameras in each courtroom. One will face the witness box, another will tape the judge’s bench, and the third will focus on the podium where the lawyer addresses the court. The jury will never be seen, and the judge will be free to have his or her face shielded if they choose. In addition, unlike in other places involved in the pilot project, the Chicago video feed will not be streamed live online. Instead, all recordings will be saved on a network. It is only later that they will be available for public viewing on the Northern District’s website. This time delay will allow for editing if necessary. According to the report, the judge will have the final say in whether or not any particular aspect of the trial is edited out before becoming available to the public. A federal court clerk familiar with the process noted that, depending on how the trial project goes, cameras may eventually be streamed live. Criminal courtrooms could also one day be added.

Of course, all local medical malpractice lawyers know that debates over taping court proceedings are nothing new. Many have called for the televising of trials and appellate proceedings since as long as the technology has been available to do so. However, there has always been some push-back from those on the bench who feel uneasy about the potential effects.

However, in the areas where the cameras have already been used, little disruption has so far been seen. Comparatively, cameras are more likely to be found in appellate courtrooms at the state level instead of trial courts, with a few notable exceptions (the O.J. Simpson criminal trial). Many have argued that placing cameras in trial rooms and allowing the public to view them is much more important than televising or streaming over the internet appellate debates. Appellate arguments are all about deciding law, with much of the arguing often concerning somewhat esoteric issues that are of less interest to the general public. Conversely, the fact-finding mission of juries in civil and criminal trials is something that is readily assessable to most community members. After all, everyone may be asked at one time or another to sit on a jury themselves.

Many medical malpractice attorneys, criminal defense lawyers, and other practitioners have also argued that allowing the public to view these processes is an important educational exercise that can improve appreciation of our justice system. Particularly in high-profile cases, there is often immense public dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case. Some of that dissatisfaction can be traced back to the public only hearing a verdict and not being able to follow along with the actual arguments and evidence that have been prevented. Allowing live access to these trials can go a long way in educating the public about what actually goes on in these medical malpractice trials and how the jury system actually works.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Legal Experts Line Up Against H.R. 5

New Website to Voice Opinion on Proposed Federal Laws

A Chicago medical malpractice lawyer knows that the accusation that providing fair access to the justice system is responsible for rising medical costs is simply untrue. Saving money in the healthcare field cannot and should not come from eliminating the right of patients to have juries make decisions in Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits. The reality is that these costs are a product of a wide range of forces, including profit incentives among those who provide the care. Bureaucratic entanglements are also involved, as efficiency problems have long left billions of dollars out the door that otherwise might have been saved.

The New York Times reported this week on one part of the problem. It is a troubling reminder that inefficient care not only costs more, but actually makes the lives of patients worse. The story discusses the hundreds of patients who have been stuck in the state’s hospitals for months (and sometimes years) even though they are well enough to leave and move into other less expensive nursing centers or their own homes.

Why are these patients not discharged? Because they lack sufficient insurance, have no housing, or are illegal immigrants.

One hospital vice president explained how many of those caught in limbo have no family or personal resources. That means they remain in the hospital even though far less expensive care options exist. Hospitals are forced to absorb the costs, while the patients remain forced to live in the hospital, unable to move to alternative locations where their quality of life would be maximized. The hospitals are legally not allowed to discharge the patients so long as they would be moving to a shelter or the street. Therefore, if they can’t be discharged arbitrarily and they have no resources to move into an alternative facility, they remain in the hospital indefinitely.

The troubling situation seems to be most prominent in locations where there are large concentrations of illegal immigrants. As costs of acute care hospitals continue to rise, the cost of each of these languishing patients also rises—draining money from a system already in deep need of financial assistance.

Medicaid will pay for emergency care for these individuals, but it will not pay for long-term care. Yet, at the end of the day all of the money comes from the taxpayer anyway, considering that they are paying for the much more expensive skilled care in hospitals when they would be better served in the less expensive nursing homes or health facilities. In fact, the cheapest option would be to provide basic at-home support services and let the individual live there.

The uniqueness of the situation hit home to our medical malpractice lawyers after reading the story of Yu Kang Fu. When he was 53 years old he was dropped off at the hospital by his boss after he experienced severe headaches. He was eventually admitted to the intensive care unit with a stroke, but medical professionals were able to stabilize him and began preparing for his release within a few days. However, as an illegal immigrant, he was ineligible for health benefits and there was no place that would take him. He had no family member in the country. His family in China would not take him back (nor would the Chinese government), even when the hospitals volunteered to pay for the flight. He was allowed to leave just this year after nearly five years in the facility.

At the end of the day, policymakers need to take a hard look at issues like this one when working to save medical costs. Medical malpractice damage caps may sound popular, but true cost savings are found in eliminating illogical systems like this one and instituting reforms in insurance and other related areas.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Impartial Organizers Lining Up Against House Resolution 5

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

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys understand that medical errors can often be grouped into two categories. First, there are harms that are caused simply by an oversight or the incompetence of a medical professional. These are more common errors and involve doctors who fail to diagnose things that they should or nurses who incorrectly give a patient too much medication. Second, there are systematic errors that hospitals or medical professionals engage in on a routine basis without thinking fully about the consequences. This second form of error is harder to catch, because it is often assumed to be attributes of reasonable care. However, medical malpractice lawyers are often able to show how even routine practices may have unacceptable consequences which should have been taken into consideration by medical professionals.

An example of this second form of error was discussed this week in the Las Vegas Review Journal. A the center of the story was a man who was left nearly blind and paralyzed after receiving what was supposed to be a routine injection in his back. The sixty year old man’s problems began four year ago. The Vietnam Veteran was an active man and had just spent a weekend deer hunting when went to the hospital for a shot of steroids to his neck to relief his chronic pain. However, the shot did not go as planned. Instead, it induced a stroke, leaving the victim blind and paralyzed. He now sits most days in his wheelchair, forced to use a horn to call for help if he needs food or to use the bathroom. His family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after the incident that was ultimately settled out of court.

Unfortunately, this man’s story is not a unique one. There has actually been a rise in steroid injections nationwide in order to alleviate neck and back pain. Along with the rise in these injections are a sharp rise in unexpected complications—including stroke, paralysis, and even death. In this way, the injections may represent a form of medical malpractice where involved professionals fail to fully inform patients of the risks or appreciate those risks themselves.

One positive note is that the more individuals who have come forward and shared their story of heartache after painkiller injection problems have prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to review the safety measures that have been put in place regarding the injections near the spinal cord. One member of a hospital advisory board—and the one who alerted the FDA to the problem—admitted that the practice used to be deemed completely safe. However, mounting evidence confirms that it is not completely safe. It is irresponsible for medical providers to continue under the old premise. Patients must be made aware of the risks and professionals must add them to their analysis when deciding what course of treatment is best.

Spreading information about the risks of these problems is particularly important now, considering the use of the practice increased by 159% over the last decades according to the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Those most familiar with the process believe that the rise in injections is being driven by two factors:

1) An aging population with more patients overall in need of back and neck pain relief

2) A generous reimbursement package which gives medical professionals an incentive to recommend this pain relief option

While the current information does not mean that no patient should receive the epidural procedure, it does add a note of caution which should be considered by all those who may have a spinal injection in the future.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medication Errors Require Millions to Receive Additional Care

Fatal Blood Thinner Overdose Leads to Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

When talking about medical malpractice many often get caught up in the nationwide (and worldwide) statistics on the subject. Numbers are tossed about which reveal the scope of the problem in terms of total lives lost, patients, injured, and money spent as a result of preventable medical mistakes. However, when working each day with the actual people involved in these situations, it is impossible for a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer not to get a personal perspective on the cases. At the end of the day, beyond the statistics, each and every instance of medical malpractice affects real people, real families, and real friends. When working on ways to address the issue and make hospitals safer, it is perhaps most important to share individual stories of heartache to reveal how serious the problem remains.

Last week the New York Daily News published just such a personal story about medical malpractice. It involved an interview with a man who explains how his father had beaten the odds on so many occasions through his life, only to pass away as the result of a preventable medical error. The victim was a Holocaust survivor who had assumed multiple identities during the war in an effort to survive. His exploits were eventually written up in the acclaimed book, “On Burning Ground.”

The man died last year after having heart trouble. According to his son, the victim was admitted to a local hospital for pneumonia. He ultimately stayed at the facility for six days before dying of heart failure. According to scathing criticism that the son wrote and submitted in a complaint to the state health department, the medical caregivers made a series of mistakes that led to his death. He accuses staff members at the facility of misreading diagnostic test results. In addition, he suggested that the staff members made a critical error when they bound the man’s hands after he pulled a tube out of his nose. The victim’s son explains that with his hands bound, the older man was thrown into a state of panic and terror which only mad his medical situations much worse.

Following the complaint, the state health department has launched an investigation to determine if any mistakes were made during the man’s stay there which may have contributed to his death. A hospital spokesperson refused to comment on the situation, noting that patient confidentiality rules prohibited it. However, it was noted that the hospital in question treats more Holocaust survivors than any other in the nation.

The man’s sudden and sad death at the medical facility put an end to a life that had begun in 1921 in Poland. In 1941, when he was only twenty years old, the man engaged in daunting exploits to survive a massacre in his hometown. Over that time he took the identity of a Nazi soldier and American Christian. He eventually survived the war and moved to the United States where he raised a family.

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers send sincere condolences to all those involved in this case. Obviously the loss of a loved one under any circumstance is difficult. Yet, the healing process is often made worse when those involved know that the loved one might still be around had the care they received from medical professionals been up to a reasonable level. Dozens (perhaps hundreds) of lives are affected by each and every case of Illinois medical malpractice. All of those individual stories should be shared in a continuing effort to improve patient safety.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Wrongful Death Following Pressure Sore Infection

Federal Government Releases Information on Hospital Errors

Last week we reported on the story of one cosmetic surgeon who lost the ability to see patients only after more than forty medical malpractice lawsuits had been filed. Similar stories have recently been reported by victims of botched cosmetic surgeries Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers are growing increasingly concerned that the problem is just as widespread in our area, with more and more local citizens being hurt in a variety of ways because of mistakes made during these types of procedures.

Across the country many advocates are also voicing concerns that states are doing a poor job of providing oversight and properly regulating these professionals. An article in lax week’s Tucson Sun took a close look at the problem. It was noted how one state published guidelines three years ago regarding competency levels for those performing cosmetic surgery only after three patients of a former cosmetic surgeon died as a result of his medical errors. The doctor in that case—a former emergency room doctor—ultimately faced criminal convictions for second degree murder and manslaughter. He is currently appealing his 25 year sentence. Similar cases of serious error and systematic medical malpractice in the field of plastic surgery is leading more and more states to take a close look at who these doctors are and what risks they pose to patients.

The problem, say experts, is an increase is what is known as “practice drift”—where medical doctors begin working outside of the area in which they are trained and board certified. Obviously, this can be troubling for those who care about ensuring that the doctors that they see are properly trained to handle their expert obligations safely. One physician and medical board expert reported that “This is on the radar of many state boards. What doctors should and should not do when they change their area of focus is a concern for everyone.”

The problem is most pronounced in cosmetic surgery. There has been a strong increase in consumer demand for these procedures, and so some physicians have taken advantage of the opportunity in an effort make money. Even physicians who are not properly trained to do these surgeries have decided to jump ship and enter cosmetic surgery offices. Unfortunately, unsuspecting patients therefore act as guinea pigs with potentially deadly results. Residents continue to be caught up in the process as many clinics offer cheap alternative to certain procedures. Many clinics have also been accused of downplaying the risks of certain operations, particularly liposuction, in order to convince wavering consumers.

Each Chicago medical malpractice attorney at our firm knows that many local victims have had their lived turned upside down by doctors practicing in areas outside of their specific specialty. Doctors, like all professionals, are responsible for the conduct of their actions. Those who visit these professionals are owed a duty of care equivalent to all others competent in the field. We urge all local residents considering cosmetic surgery to take extra care when deciding who to visit for the operation. This field, much more than others, is often ripe with professionals who have not been specially trained for the work.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Tips for Selecting a Proper Plastic Surgeon

Medical Malpractice Occurs All Too Frequently in Cosmetic Surgery

A Boston News story this weekend commented on unique concern among patient safety experts that provides a counterintuitive argument about monitoring patient well being in hospitals. Some medical professionals are noting that the increased use of certain heart rate monitoring may actually lead to more errors in the monitoring process. As any Illinois medical malpractice lawyer will know, monitoring the condition of patients appropriately, and providing necessary care based on that monitoring information, is a part of all prudent medical caregiving. Failure in this regard may be medical malpractice.

In the past, cardiac monitors—machines that provide constant measurement of heart rate and other variables of patients—were used only on the most seriously injured or ill. However, as technology has improved and access to these monitors has increased, many facilities are using much more advanced monitoring procedures. Many hospitals now have “war rooms’ where all monitors are tracked in one place. In other hospitals every bedside in the facility includes a monitor. This trend toward increased use of monitoring seems a logical step in improving patient care. After all, it is imperative that medical professionals correctively identify patient problems at the soonest possible time. Monitors help them do that as efficiently as possible. Also, the monitoring is noninvasive, proving little patient discomfort. Another selling point of the monitors for some hospitals administrators is that they are cost effective. They often allow sicker patients to be cared for on regular floors, ultimately lowering the overall need for nurses in intensive care units.

However, there are some who are voicing concern about the overall effect that this monitoring trend is having on patient safety.

Many experts, including many nurses, have noted that the expanded use of these machines is leading to a problem called “Alarm Fatigue.” In essence, the fatigue refers to the fact that those who monitor the machines can become overwhelmed, often missing important information that is provided by them. Each machine comes loaded with measuring alarms that provide a constant stream of beeps and buzzes. Considering that so many patients are now monitored, a nurse supervising a “war room” of monitors will be inundated with the beeping of the devices. Over time the nurse becomes desensitized to the sounds, and may miss important warnings. A study published by The Globe recently identified dozens of death that have been attributed to this fatigue.

At the root of the fatigue problem is the fact that majority of alarms coming from these monitors are caused by things like a patient coughing or moving around in bed. Alarms from these sorts of actions have been found to trigger at least 80% of alarms. By the end of the day, these alarms often become white noise. They are ignored. Of course, what the means is that some of those alarms a patient who is actually in trouble may also be ignored. It does not take a medical malpractice lawyer to explain that it is unacceptable for medical caregivers not to act upon information from a monitor that should have been acted upon quickly.

One researcher explained that “a lot of people who are on monitors are on them for justifiable reasons.” However she noted that for others they are used “as a kind of babysitter.” It is that babysitter approach which leads to more false alarms and alarm fatigue. Potentially deadly medical malpractice often results.

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