Hospital Errors

November 8, 2013

$600,000 Medical Malpractice Jury Verdict for Leg Amputation

Nereida Sepulveda was an 80-year-old retiree who underwent a bilateral knee replacement surgery at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center on Nov. 9, 2009. The surgery was performed by an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Hoffman. Sepulveda suffered an artery occlusion in the right leg as a complication of the procedure. The defendant, Dr. Iyer, was called for a vascular consult later that afternoon.

Because Sepulveda complained of chest pain, the hospitalist would not permit any additional surgery on the right leg until he had ruled out a heart attack. Dr. Iyer then had to wait to obtain surgical clearance.

The next afternoon, Nov. 10, 2009, Dr. Iyer received medical clearance to do the surgery but decided to postpone the vascular surgery until Nov. 13 because the patient’s condition had improved.The surgery was elective and Sepulveda had just eaten. However, it was noted that on Nov. 11, 2009, Sepulveda’s condition had worsened, and she suffered a foot drop. Dr. Iyer performed an 8-hour revascularization procedure to repair the right popliteal artery that day.

October 11, 2013

Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death of Fifty-Eight-Year-Old Man in Airway Presentation Case

by Robert Kreisman

A confidential settlement was reached with a hospital emergency room and doctors after a 58-year-old man underwent emergency surgery. The man went to the hospital emergency room after dislocating his hip prosthesis. During the emergency surgery, the attending anesthesiologist attempted unsuccessfully to place an endotracheal tube.

The man, Doe, required an emergency tracheotomy.

Doe suffered oxygen loss resulting in a hypoxia brain injury because of the lack of oxygen. After being removed from life support, Doe was transferred to hospice where he later died. Doe was survived by his wife and two adult children.

October 10, 2013

Making Sense of the Electronic Medical Records with the Audit Trail

by Robert Kreisman

Continuity of care is paramount in patient healthcare. The goal is always to give the patient the best medical care while at the same time reduce medical errors. For the last 20 years hospitals and physicians have been using electronic health records (EHR).

Although the intent was noble, EHR has caused serious and even catastrophic injury and harm to patients because of poorly written software programs for healthcare providers. Sometimes the medical recording software does not allow for certain medical conditions, treatments and tests. In those cases, the medical providers simply use the drop down or other shortcut to comply with the entry requirements.

It used to be that narrative nursing notes would be important in providing details of patient care. But in most hospital settings, nurses simply use default screens on a computer to make their entries. Physicians often are not able to read the nurses’ remarks or notes.

September 13, 2013

Jury Finds for Hospital and Doctor in Child’s Undiagnosed Meningitis Hearing Loss Case

by Robert Kreisman

On June 22, 2006, Raymone Bowe, a 10-year-old boy, was brought by his mother to the emergency department at Norwegian American Hospital in Chicago with a sore throat, headache and a history of fever and vomiting. Raymone was seen in the ER by the defendant, Dr. Joseph Mejia, an occupational medicine/ophthalmology physician.

Dr. Mejia diagnosed flu and headache and discharged Raymone with instructions to follow up if his symptoms continued or got worse. Two days later, at 12:19 a.m. on June 24, 2006, Raymone’s mother brought him to the emergency department at John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. She reported that Raymone had 3 days of diarrhea, vomiting and fever. The complete blood count showed Raymone had an elevated white blood count, but he was still discharged with a diagnosis of a viral syndrome. Later that day, Raymone was taken to Children’s Memorial Hospital, where he was diagnosed with Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis. Raymone was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit.

Because of the delay in treating the meningitis, Raymone sustained complete and permanent hearing loss in both ears resulting in surgeries to insert bilateral cochlear implants.

August 8, 2013

Medical Malpractice Case Shut Down by Plaintiff’s Late Expert Disclosure

by Robert Kreisman

Bozena Smith filed a medical negligence complaint against two doctors who were residents in 2006 when she claims she was injured in postsurgical treatment.

After the fact discovery was done by each of the parties, and the trial judge entered a deadline of Sept. 13, 2010 for the plaintiff to disclose any experts and opinions. Bozena disclosed one expert she had hired to render an opinion. In the Rule 213(f)(3) disclosures, the plaintiff stated that the doctor retained as an expert would provide expert opinions that both the residents, Drs. Murphy and McFadden, deviated from the standard of care in treating Smith, which caused her injuries.

However, on Nov. 8, 2010, when the plaintiff’s expert doctor appeared for his deposition, he testified that he was withdrawing his adverse opinions against the residents and then testified that he held no opinions that implicated the residents in any substandard medical care of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff’s expert testified as follows:

June 7, 2013

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Do Not Have Harmful Effects on Patient Safety

by Robert Kreisman

In a May 16, 2013 New York Times opinion page editorial, written by assistant professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, Joanna C. Schwartz, discussed the Affordable Care Act in relation to medical malpractice lawsuits. The article was titled, “Learning from Litigation.” The thrust of the article is that new evidence contradicts the “conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety . . .” Professor Schwartz says that the opposite appears to be occurring; that with more openness and transparency, hospitals are responding to the risk of litigation in positive ways.

Professor Schwartz interviewed dozens of hospital risk managers who confirmed that a hospital’s approach to lawsuits has begun to change. She says that hospitals have become more open to handling medical errors up front and are apologizing to patients when mistakes do happen in some cases.

The given reason that hospitals are more open to these types of solutions is that in disclosing errors up front, hospitals and patients tend to resolve matters much earlier, reasonably and much more cost effectively.

March 14, 2013

Study: Women with Ovarian Cancer Often Do Not Receive Medical Care that Could Prolong Their Lives

by Robert Kreisman

More than 15,000 women die of ovarian cancer each year, which makes it the fifth leading cause of death among American women. A new study shows that 60 percent of the women who develop ovarian cancer do not receive the medical care they need that could prolong their lives. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s (SGO) annual meeting on women’s cancer presented the study March 11, 2013.

This research was conducted on more than 13,000 patients from 1999 through 2006. Researchers who conducted the study said the lack of proper care for the women patients was the result of inexperience among doctors and hospital staff.

Women with ovarian cancer should be treated by surgeons who see a lot of patients each year with the disease, researchers found. They also said the women should stay in hospitals where a high volume of women with ovarian cancer are treated once the disease is diagnosed.

February 27, 2013

Medical Malpractice Claim Survives Res Judicata Assertion; Wilson v. Edward Hospital

by Robert Kreisman

The Illinois Supreme Court has decided an appeal as to whether or not res judicata in a refiled medical-malpractice complaint barred its refiling. In the underlying case, Brandon and Daphne Wilson claimed that Edward Hospital in Naperville, Ill., was liable for the negligence of doctors under the theory of actual and apparent agency.

The hospital was granted a summary judgment order on the actual-agent allegations and the Wilsons voluntarily dismissed their complaint, but refiled it within one year. Edward Hospital then moved to dismiss the case based on res judicata, which essentially means that the issue has already been finally adjudicated by the court.

Under the Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 468 (2008) and Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996), res judicata bars a refiled lawsuit when:

February 26, 2013

Medical Studies Act is Not Available Where No Peer Review Committee Meeting Was Held; Tunca v. Painter

by Robert Kreisman

In June 2006, Josh Tunca was a surgeon at Northwest Community Hospital specializing in gynecologic oncology. While in surgery, Dr. Tunca removed an ovarian tumor. Later, the patient lost the pulse in her left leg due to a clog in her femoral artery.

Dr. Thomas Painter, a vascular surgeon, was called in to perform a femoral-bypass surgery to restore blood flow. According to the record, Dr. Painter approached Dr. John McGillan, the hospital’s vice president and medical affairs director, telling him that Dr. Tunca had cut the patient’s iliac artery.

Dr. Painter also told other doctors that Dr. Tunca had negligently severed the patient’s artery. None of these doctors were on a peer review committee for the hospital.

January 14, 2013

Illinois Appellate Court Rejects Emergency Room Doctor’s Claim That He is Immune under the Good Samaritan Act

by Robert Kreisman

The Illinois Good Samaritan Act (745 ILCS 49/25 (West 2010)) states that a medical professional who, in good faith, “provides emergency care without fee to a person” should be immune from civil damages except in the case of willful or wanton misconduct. Immunity from suit was the position taken by Dr. Michael Murphy because his patient, who claimed he was injured by Murphy’s negligence, never got billed for the doctor’s emergency room services at Provena St. Mary’s Hospital. Dr. Murphy argued that he should be immune from liability for negligence after the patient filed a lawsuit against him.

The First District Appellate Court rejected that argument under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act because it found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the doctor acted in “good faith” and found that since the doctor was compensated the act did not apply.

“Nowhere in the legislative history of the act is it ever stated that the intent of the act was to immunize emergency room physicians who are paid for their time,” Justice Stuart Palmer wrote in the court’s opinion.