Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

A new study suggests that claims of medical malpractice verdicts in Illinois spiraling out of control are greatly exaggerated. The study analyzed Illinois jury verdicts and settlements since 2002 by county. In contrast to claims that juries are awarding Plaintiffs millions-upon-millions in frivolous lawsuits, the study concluded that Plaintiffs prevail at trial in only about 1 out of 3 cases, with median verdicts at about $1 Million. The same holds true for settlements with most offers being characterized as de minimis especially when factoring in the high costs associated with a medical malpractice and negligence case. This study also dispensed with the myth that a medical malpractice case in Illinois could only succeed in Cook County. Statistically, there appears to be little difference in either the success rates or size of the verdicts when comparing Cook County to the rest of Illinois. Altogether, the study shows that criticisms of medical malpractice claims in Illinois are greatly exaggerated.

For the full study, click here:

A new tort reform bill proposed in the House of Representatives may bring justice to those who face medical device defects and have pharmaceutical liability claims. The bill, titled the Medical Device Safety Act would allow those to bring product liability suits even on products approved by the FDA. This bill would allow those who suffered personal injuries from medical device defects and defective drugs to have a cause of action against the makers of such products. To read more about this tort reform that allows this nation to head in a positive direction click here.

After actor John Ritter died in 2003 from an aortic dissection, his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple doctors and a hospital. The family settled with the hospital and other people involved for $14 million but sought another $67 million at trial against remaining doctors, alleging that Ritter’s cardiologist misdiagnosed his aortic dissection as a heart attack, consequently mistreating it. Further, the suit alleged that a radiologist failed to perform an x-ray which could have shown the aortic dissection, leading to a missed opportunity for Ritter to receive potentially life-saving surgery. The jury, however, disagreed with his family’s arguments and found in favor of the defendant doctors.

While the Ritter family did not receive the $67 million they asked for, the case still showed the inequities of capping medical malpractice awards. For loss of income, there is normally no cap or a very high one, where as loss of companionship has very low limits. This means that wealthy people, who would have made more in their lifetime, can be awarded larger settlements for the same issues. Often this means that a case on behalf of a decedent who was retired, unemployed, or otherwise not making much money will not be worth filing because of caps on potential awards. Conversely, the same case on behalf of a decedent who was making a large amount of money will be worth filing because the award may be greater since loss of income will have a high cap, if one at all. For example, Ritter’s family could have been awarded a large amount because he had huge earning potential, whereas an unemployed person who died in the same manner would not have been able to receive nearly as large an award because their earning potential was so much smaller.

Read more here.

In a 2006 study performed by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation, over one thousand medical malpractice files from insurance companies throughout the nation were examined, revealing that more than two thirds of claims contained a clear error on behalf of a medical provider. This study helps to dispel the notion that malpractice claims are mostly frivolous.

In a separate study performed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it was shown that medical malpractice lawsuits, by enlarge, have only minimal effects on the profession. Exemplifying this is the fact states that do not place caps on malpractice awards are not experiencing large emigrations of their physicians. Moreover, most tort reform has not aided the number of physicians or effected insurance and litigation costs.

Read more here.

In an op-ed piece, the head of a state medical society favors continued erosion of patients’ rights in favor of the insurance industry by unequivocally supporting medical malpractice caps. An Illinois bill, passed and signed into law in 2005, caps non-economic damages but was deemed unconstitutional by a Cook County judge.

Those most affected by this bill are innocent victims of medical malpractice and negligence and their families. Placing a cap on their recovery takes the decision out of juries’ hands, juries that are best able to determine the level of pain and suffering these individuals experience.

One of the primary goals of tort reform is to lower doctor rates for doctors. However, historically, the most successful method to for achieving this goal is insurance regulatory reform, not tort reform. When states, including Illinois, have instituted insurance regulatory reform, rates have dropped and competition has increased. To this extent, tort reform does not benefit patients but helps the insurance industry.

For further information, click here:

For the original article, click here:

In some states, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits is on the decline by about 5% due to new policies regarding filing medical malpractice lawsuits. Though not required in Illinois, some states mandate independent medical review of a malpractice claim before the plaintiff can file. This decrease in medical malpractice lawsuits shows that “tort reform” is unnecessary. Tort reform can be very dangerous because it limits citizens’ access to justice and prevents an injured patient from recovering fully against their doctor for the doctor’s medical malpractice.

For the full story, click here.

Illinois doctors stand to receive a refund from their insurance companies in the near future. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported that insurance companies have lowered their premiums and are processing refunds to doctors for medical malpractice insurance. According to the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, companies are lowering their rates because the information is now public and subject to state review. Now that more information is available, there is a greater chance for public oversight of the insurance industry and medical malpractice claims.

See the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 14, 2008 Volume: 154 Issue: 073.

Policymakers are considering instituting a state-sponsored indemnity fund that would pay the future medical bills of injured patients, effectively shielding all physicians, hospitals, and medical staff from any liability for medical malpractice and negligence. Many groups, including the Center for Justice & Democracy, the Center for Medical Consumers, and various public interest research groups have criticized the proposal for crippling the rights of patients. Not only would the proposal’s benefits apply to insurance companies, physicians, and hospitals, but it would likely pass the cost of the indemnity fund to the average patient by increasing medical expenses.

The proposal has also been criticized by many that would directly benefit, including insurance companies, on the grounds that the harms would be too widespread. Even if successfully implemented, the fund would likely fail to compensate victims of medical malpractice and negligence even for their medical bills. Ultimately, the proposal allows the real wrongdoers to escape any liability.

For the full article, click here:

A recent op-ed article examined the “tort reform” debate that is ongoing throughout America and suggests our country look to New Zealand’s approach to medical malpractice. The article states that New Zealand has succeeded in compensating patients and ensuring accountability among physicians by taking a markedly different approach.

In New Zealand, patient compensation occurs in a process that is similar to workers’ compensation system; victims of medical malpractice get compensation as needed without consideration of fault. Meanwhile, a separate and distinct process focuses on identifying medical malpractice errors and improving quality of care. Physicians face a wide range of disciplinary outcomes, including losing their licenses to practice.

For the full article.

Ron Weidenfeller, through his attorneys at Levin and Perconti, has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Schaumburg-based Cancer Treatment Centers of America and its Midwestern Regional Medical Center in Zion on behalf of his wife who died from an undiagnosed colon obstruction.

Mrs. Weidenfeller had been complaining of severe pain, distention of her abdomen, and constipation in the days before she died. The Wiedenfeller’s requested tests to ensure she had no bowel obstruction, but instead of listening to the patient’s complaints, the facility assured the couple she would be fine and did not perform these tests. Ultimately, it was determined that the cause of death was sepsis from an undiagnosed perforated colon, revealed by an autopsy that facility staff suggested Mr. Weidenfeller not pursue.

This case is one more illustration of the devastating impact tort reform will have on victims of medical malpractice and negligence. Mr. Weidenfeller is seeking damages because he believes the facility was not candid with him about the events leading to his wife’s death. Should damages be limited where a medical facility simply fails to conduct a necessary test? How much do insurance costs affect a facility’s decision to conduct necessary testing? Shielding physicians and facilities from liability will only discourage them from taking measures necessary for the health and safety of our citizens. Perhaps the threat of liability would have provided the motivation to conduct proper testing to find Mrs. Weidenfeller’s bowel obstruction. Passage of significant tort reform measures will only increase the likelihood of negligence and malpractice and will prevent future Weidenfellers from seeking their just compensation.

For a link to this article, click here.

The debate surrounding “tort reform” and medical malpractice caps is heating up again after a Cook County judge declared capping certain damages for patients unconstitutional. In 2005, an Illinois state law was enacted that narrowly limited medical malpractice lawsuit awards for non-economic damages for pain and suffering. The law limited the damages to $1 million for hospitals and $500,000 for physicians. There is no ceiling for damages regarding medical care and lost wages, which typically make up the highest part of the award.

“Tort reform” advocates claim that medical malpractice caps encourage more doctors to practice in the State. However, as we know, high insurance premiums are driven by greedy insurance companies. The Illinois State Supreme Court will rule on the issue.

For the full article.

Like many state legislatures, the Illinois state legislature is being pressured to enact verdict caps on medical malpractice claims filed against doctors and hospitals. While there are examples of outrageous verdicts being granted by juries, most of these verdicts are dealt with within the judicial system by simple motions and orders of the court. Verdict caps, on the other hand, seek to silence juries on the issue of medical malpractice by mandating certain levels of awards no matter how egregious the act or consequences.

For a discussion on lobbying effort in other states, click here.

Last week, a Cook County Circuit Court Judge declared that a 2005 law that placed a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional. The case is now poised to be reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court, but this review could take several months to over a year.

This is an overdue and welcome ruling because tort caps are unfair to medical malpractice victims.

For articles on the ruling.
The Quincy Whig
Injuryboard.com
Belleville News-Democrat

Cook County Judge Diane Larsen ruled on Tuesday that the Illinois laws that cap recovery for non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases are unconstitutional. The laws, which limited awards for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, and disfigurement, were stricken as a violation of the Illinois Constitution’s separation of powers requirement. Because the caps on was improperly taking the award decision out of the hands of juries and putting it into the hand of legislators, Judge Larsen ruled that the law was an improper exercise of State legislative power.

Click here for the full article

A man has filed a wrongful death suit against the hospital that he alleges provided negligent custodial care to his wife. The man’s lawsuit is intentionally alleged as a negligence claim because of Wisconsin’s recent tort reform. If the case is considered a medical malpractice claim, then it would be subject to that state's recovery limits and mandatory mediation. If the case is allowed to be pursued as a negligence claim, then recovery will be determined by the amount that a jury decides is adequate to compensate the man for his losses. The man’s wife was a patient in the hospital's locked behavioral health unit. The day before her death, she was permitted to leave on a five-hour pass. When she returned, the hospital failed to perform a search of the woman. If they had, they would have found the handgun and ammunition that the woman later used to kill herself.

Click here for the full article.

The widower of Arlene Miller would like to file a wrongful death and medical malpractice claim for what happened to his wife, but he cannot find a lawyer who will take his case. Although he has collected all of his wife’s medical records and has done considerable research himself, but he has been told that it simply isn’t “economically feasible to pursue” the claim. In 2003, Texas legislators reformed state laws and capped non-economic damages for malpractice suits at $250,000. Jay Harvey, president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, says that, because of the high costs of litigation, this recovery cap tends denies justice to the very old and the very young and simply does not make sense. “It’s the only area of law that we have an arbitrary cap for fair compensation. It shows a lack of trust in the jury system. We will trust a jury to decide if someone will die from lethal injection, but not grant fair compensation.”

Click here for the full article.

Continue reading "Tort recovery limits deny justice to former Ms. Comiskey Park" »

A medical malpractice lawsuit involving a botched delivery resulting in brain damage to the newborn has been brought in front of a Cook County, Illinois judge. This lawsuit is significant in the state of Illinois. The baby's attorney is claiming that the caps placed on medical malpractice lawsuits for pain and suffering ($500,000 for doctors, $1,000,000 for hospitals) are not sufficient in a case such as this one. The law imposing caps on pain and suffering awards was signed into law two years ago. The law was in response to increasing medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors. Although the solution was based on the caps, insurance rates have been stabilizing or falling even though most cases affected by the law have not yet reached a verdict or settlement. This case will face a long appeals process regardless of the ruling in the Cook County court. The baby's lawyers will aim to prove the unconstitutionality of this law by proving that in an instance like this, when a child is unnecessarily and permanently brain damaged due to a preventable medical mistake, the caps do not offer fair compensation.

Click here for the full article

A leading medical malpractice insurance carrier says it will lower its costs by an average of 11 percent next year. This further demonstrates that the medical malpractice “crisis” does not exist and tort reform is unnecessary.

For the full article.

A jury has recently awarded $2.5 million dollars in a medical malpractice verdict against a surgeon who botched a routine cyst removal. The cyst was on the patient’s buttock, and as a result of the surgical error, the patient’s sphincter muscle was cut, resulting in permanent loss of bowel control and requiring that the patient wear a diaper. The 43 year old man sued for personal injuries sustained by the surgeon’s medical malpractice, including the costs of his medical care, the pain of his injuries, and the embarrassment and emotional pain that the man will have to suffer for the rest of his life.

Click here for the full article