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:

In a recent decision regarding the collateral source rule, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of medical bills even the amount actually paid by Medicare and Medicaid was less than the full amount. The decision came following a trial court decision to reduce the amount of damages awarded by the jury to amount of medical expenses actually paid. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed because the collateral source rule applies even if bills are paid by government agencies instead of private insurance. This decision is a victory for all Plaintiffs whose compensation would be limited by unpaid medical bills.

For the full decision, click here:

A Midwestern woman recently was awarded $2.75 Million following an incident of medical malpractice and negligence. Physicians failed to test a tumor that was removed from her foot, which had they tested it, would likely have tested positive for melanoma cancer. Instead, one year later, another tumor was removed that, when tested, revealed the cancer. However, due to state damage limit laws, she will likely only receive $1.25 Million.

For the full article, click here:

Swedish Covenant Hospital in Chicago recently settled a case for nearly $8 Million based on medical malpractice and negligence. The settlement comes following a physician’s failure to diagnose a nurse with meningitis even though she complained of sudden, severe joint pain, headaches and neck stiffness. Her meningitis was left undiagnosed for three days, leading to severe mental and physical disabilities. Further, she became dependent on others for nearly all aspects of self-care and mobility and suffered from severe deficits in social skills. Had the emergency room staff properly diagnosed the woman, she could have avoided severe life-long damage.

For the full article, 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.

The Third District Appellate Court in Illinois ruled that a wronged woman could recover from a negligent physician even though she had previously been awarded damages in a suit against the hospital. The woman’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the physician was validated by the court, especially given the extreme negligence displayed by the physician. The woman’s infant son died during child birth after a premature delivery. Her physician was not present at the hospital at the time of the delivery and do no other doctor was present to assist in the delivery. As a result, the woman sat with her baby in a partially-delivered position for over one hour until her physician arrived and completed delivering the baby, who was deceased by this time. A jury awarded the woman damages based on negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

For the full decision, click here:

A woman’s family who sued a hospital where she was treated after she died there in 2003 has reached a settlement with the defendant hospital. The terms of the settlement are unknown, but past suits against the same hospital have yielded millions in settlements for alleged hospital errors. In the case at hand, 73-year-old Evelyn Weeks died after being admitted for a brain hemorrhage. Her family alleged that medication was given to Weeks through the wrong tube, while the hospital claims she died as a result of a stroke. Either way, the family’s allegations of medical malpractice were strong enough to bring in a settlement. The family stood to gain damages for medical and funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship from the untimely death had the wrongful death lawsuit gone to trial.

Read more here.

A medical center recently announced they would pay $1.8 million to settle 100 civil medical malpractice lawsuits filed against one cardiologist. This cardiologist also faces federal medical fraud charges related to cardiac procedures he performed on patients.

This settlement follows a settlement with the Department of Justice for $1.9 million for the unnecessary procedures that were billed to federal and state health plans and a settlement with a class action lawsuit for $7.4 million. In 2006, this cardiologist was indicted on more than 90 counts of medical malpractice fraud for performing medically unnecessary cardiac procedures.

For the full article.

A jury recently awarded a woman and her son $19 million as a result of a birth injury medical malpractice lawsuit against her obstetrician. The son was born with celebral palsy and cortical blindness. After verdict, the mother said “No amount of money will make up for what happened to my son.”

For the full article.

A jury verdict decided in favor of physicians in the medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit of Actor John Ritter. The medical malpractice lawsuit was brought by Ritter’s widow and children. The jury deliberated for two days, but did not find the cardiologist or the radiologist to be negligent in Ritter’s care. The plaintiffs had already settled with eight other defendants in medical malpractice claims for $14 million.

For the full article.

Four years ago, an investigation concluded that it was easier for consumers to find out information about their building contractors than for patients to get information about their doctors. In response, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners promised to enhance its website to inform the public about doctors. But recently, the board removed medical malpractice lawsuit settlement and judgment information from the doctors’ online records. One State Senator stated that the statute covering the website was not very specific, but added “if we have to spell it out, then we’ll spell it out.”

People should have a right to the medical malpractice history of their doctors to make better informed decisions. Any board hindrance on consumer research into their own health care is unacceptable.

For the full article.

A state Supreme Court decided to expand the rights of wronged patients in medical malpractice and negligence cases. The decision reinterprets the law so that the statute of limitations on raising a malpractice claim now begins once a patient knows the extent and cause of his injury in contrast to prior decisions stating that the statute of limitations began once symptoms were initially diagnosed.

The decision arose after a district court dismissed two claims of medical malpractice based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. In the first case, parents of a 16-year-old sued a facility for negligently prescribing Antabuse to treat the teen’s alcohol addiction. However, the suit alleged that the Antabuse caused long-term vomiting, jaundice, and irreversible liver damage. The district court ruled that, because the teen experienced severe symptoms beginning in March 1999 and the suit was not filed until April 2001, the two-year statute of limitations had expired. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, reasoning that any diagnosis of liver damage did not occur until months after the she began experiencing symptoms.

In the second case, a woman sued several medical providers for misdiagnosing her breast cancer. The district court dismissed the case because she had been informed, five years prior to filing the action, that there was a lump in her breast. However, in overruling this decision, the Supreme Court noted that the woman had repeatedly been told that her lump was benign until a test revealed cancer one year prior to her suit.

In reaching these conclusions, the Supreme Court emphasized concerns over fairness to patients, doctors, and the medical malpractice industry. Ultimately, the Court found that the rights of medical practitioners were not significantly impaired where there was actual wrongdoing.

Full article:

An Illinois man was awarded nearly $24 million in an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit verdict. The man, now 34, entered an Illinois hospital in 2001 to have a kidney stone remove. While there, he suffered cardiac arrest, which interrupted the flow of oxygen to his brain. The injury put him in a wheelchair, took away his fine motor skills and caused spastic movements, severe double vision and slurred speech.

For the full article.

Multiple lawsuits were filed after 32 liver transplant patients at UCI Medical Center who were allegedly misled about the availability of surgeons were denied transplants and died. After the wrongful death claims, the University of California recently reached a $7.5 million settlement on behalf of the families of patients that died while waiting for transplants they were never going to receive.

A $22 million verdict was recently awarded in a Cook County, Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit. The jury ruled that the hospital was negligent during the birth of a 34-year-old woman's son in that staff did not properly treat difficulties with the woman's blood pressure. The woman went to an Evanston hospital two weeks before her scheduled date of delivery due to complaints of severe headache and abdominal discomfort. Medical staff soon noticed that the woman had unusually high blood pressure. Tests eventually showed that she had HELLP syndrome, meaning that she had a low platelet count and elevated liver enzymes, or hemolytic anemia. Attorneys alleged that she was not treated properly for this problem, by being given the wrong amounts of medication at the wrong times. Her son was successfully delivered by cesarean section, but the woman's blood pressure rose and she suffered a major brain hemorrhage, dying four days later. The jury found that hospital staff was negligent and that she was irreplaceable to her son and husband, ultimately awarding the multi-million dollar verdict.

Click here for the full article

A $4.5 million medical malpractice award was recently made in Illinois following the wrongful death of a woman infected with AIDS. Because the woman was being treated at a federal clinic, the case was tried under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The doctors at the Chicago clinic allegedly failed to recognize the complaints and symptoms of the patient which would have led to the diagnosis of lactic acidosis, a potentially fatal side-effect of some HIV/AIDS treatment drugs. The woman's lawyers contended that had the diagnosis been made earlier, the patient would have survived.

The mother of a 22-year-old victim of medical malpractice has recently sponsored a new law requiring doctors to make past medical malpractice settlements and verdicts against them public. The mother claims that her son was given an unnecessary surgery causing a brain injury that made him partly-paralyzed, half-blind and psychotic after his brain was jostled by the neurosurgeon. The surgeon claimed that the patient would make a full recovery after rehab but his injuries ultimately resulted in his death. When the patient's mother learned that the surgeon had done the procedure only once before and had a malpractice settlement and claims in another state, she decided to take action. The law stipulates that only settlements or final judgments will be publicized on the internet database. The Colorado bill was passed into law in early January 2008.

Click here for the full article

If physicians do not warn patients of the risks medications have on driving ability, they now can be held liable in an automobile accident lawsuit. In a recent suit, a boy was killed in a car accident by a man prescribed eight different medications by his doctor and was not warned of their side effects. The doctor now faces a wrongful death lawsuit based on his medical negligence. According to the mother of the victim's attorney, the doctor should have warned his patient that the medications he was prescribed are known to have certain side effects such as drowsiness, dizziness and fainting. The doctor should also have warned his patient not to drive. The doctor claimed that this medical mistake was too far removed from the car accident tragedy, but the court ruled that a possible consequence of that negligence could be harm to others.