Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

Have you ever had the feeling that your doctor may not be helping you, but actually hurting you? The Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll just read an interesting article, "How doctors do harm," written by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, cancer expert and practicing oncologist. For decades, Dr. Brawley has studied "disparities in health outcomes and the inconsistencies in how medicine is practiced."

In the past, the Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer blog has discussed how some areas of medicine, specifically the treatment of traumatic brain injuries, lack specific guidelines for establishing courses of treatment. The lack of guidelines, selective reading of science by treating doctors, and doctors or hospitals that advocate unproven screening and treatment, may disserve many patients. Dr. Brawley states that "a large number of our fellow Americans are suffering and dying avoidable deaths, because of lack of quality health care." In fact, you might be surprised to find out that America actually ranks 50th in life expectancy and life expectancy is on track to decrease further. Since the American medical community seems to be focused "on treating people after they get sick instead of preventing disease" things will only get worse.

And it is not just un- or under-insured individuals that suffer. Doctors commonly "prescribe treatments they believe to be appropriate as opposed to therapies that are known to be appropriate based on objective scientific evidence." Dr. Brawley states further:

"I see hospitals advocating unproven screening and treatment while advertising for business. There are patient advocacy groups often funded by hospitals and medical manufacturers, who also advocate the unproven and instill in patients that they need what may be unnecessary and can be harmful."

What is the solution in Dr. Brawley's opinion? Greater commitment to the practice of evidence-based medicine, for one. Additionally, he states, "Americans need to better understand the science of medicine and the scientific method, be true to science and support evidence-based medicine… to embrace an interest in public health and adopt preventive strategies."

Continue reading "HOW YOUR DOCTOR CAN CAUSE YOU HARM" »

The Center for Justice and Democracy at New York Law School just released an interesting fact sheet entitled "The Truth About Medical Malpractice Litigation," which dispels many of the myths associated with medical malpractice lawsuits and tort reform. As Chicago medical malpractice attorneys, we believe that individuals injured or killed as a result of a healthcare provider's negligence should be fully compensated for their losses. We also believe that healthcare providers must be held accountable for their actions.

According to the fact sheet, "each year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed or injured by avoidable medical errors." In fact, according to a November 2010 study by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services," about 1 in 7 Medicare patients in hospitals experience a serious medical error, 44 percent of which are preventable." Despite the great amount of medical negligence, research into 2008 medical malpractice case filings showed that “well under 2 percent of all incoming civil cases, and less than 8 percent of incoming tort cases” represented medical malpractice matters. That fact is quite different than the picture that tort reform proponents paint on a daily basis. Those trying to limit victim’s rights to recovery would have the public believe that medical malpractice filings are numerous and frivolous.

Other interesting facts contained within the fact sheet involve statistics related to malpractice leading to wrongful death, paralysis, amputation, brain and head injury and burns, lacerations, skin infections and other skin injuries. The fact sheet notes:

"[D]eath was by far the most frequent type of injury among successful medical malpractice plaintiffs, accounting for 22 percent of med mal victims who prevailed at trial. '[I]n the paralysis /amputation category, 100 percent of medical malpractice cases in which the plaintiff received an award involved paralysis caused by injury to the spine or brain. In the brain/head injury category, all injuries alleged by successful medical malpractice claimants were permanent…For burns, lacerations, skin infections, and other skin injuries, all winning medical malpractice patients suffered permanent injuries….'”

This shows that medical malpractice lawsuits often involve serious, life-threatening and life-changing injuries, and not minor injuries. More information about "The Truth About Medical Malpractice Litigation" can be found at The Center for Justice and Democracy's website. Their blog, "The Pop Tort," also published a quiz aimed at answering questions about the medical malpractice system in this country. The Illinois medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll encourage you to take the medical malpractice quiz and learn the truth about medical malpractice litigation.

During the last few weeks of December, the First District Illinois Appellate Court decided what one trial judge called a "tragically bizarre case." As experienced Illinois personal injury attorneys, we read new court rulings on a regular basis. The "tragically bizarre case" was Zokhrabov v. Park, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1298 (1st Dist. 2011). There, eighteen year-old Hiroyuki Joho was killed when an Amtrak train struck him while he was in a crosswalk at a Chicago Metra Station. A large portion of Joho's body "was propelled about 100 feet onto the southbound platform where it struck 58-year-old Gayane Zokhrabov from behind, knocking her to the ground. She sustained a shoulder injury, a leg fracture, and a wrist fracture." 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1298, *2. Zokhrabov sued Joho's estate for her injuries. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment as to the proximate cause of the incident. Zokhrabov claimed Joho owed her a duty while walking in and around the Metra station and that he breached that duty when he: "(a) carelessly and negligently failed to keep a proper lookout for approaching trains; (b) carelessly and negligently ran in the path of an approaching [Amtrak] train; or (c) carelessly and negligently failed to yield the right-of-way to approaching trains." Id. Park, on behalf of Joho's estate, argued Joho did not owe Zokhrabov a duty of care. The trial court ruled in favor of Park. Zokhrabov appealed.

The First District Illinois Appellate Court, applying a traditional analysis of duty, reversed and remanded, finding Zokhrabov was a foreseeable plaintiff and that as a result, Joho owed her a duty. What does that mean? When determining whether a duty of care exists in a particular set of circumstances, Illinois courts will consider, among other factors, the reasonable foreseeability that the defendant's conduct may injure another. Other factors that courts consider are the reasonable likelihood of an injury, the magnitude of the burden imposed by guarding against the harm, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant. Id. at *10.

In the Zokhrabov case, the First District Appellate Court decided that it was reasonably foreseeable that a train would strike, kill and fling Joho's body onto the passenger platform where Zokhrabov was waiting for her train to arrive. The Court further found that Joho acted negligently by crossing the tracks when he did and that his negligence could cause someone else's injury. The reasonable likelihood of causing an injury was great given the speed and force of the oncoming Amtrak train. The magnitude of the burden imposed by guarding against the harm was insignificant; Joho only needed to take a moment to pause, look at the tracks and cross when it was safe. Finally, placing this burden on Joho would have been minimal. Id. at 22.

What about the fact that the trial judge called the accident "tragically bizarre"? That doesn't sound like something that can be considered "foreseeable," does it? The First District Appellate court had an answer: There is a general proposition that there is no duty to anticipate and prevent injuries that occur due to unusual and extraordinary circumstances. See, Cunis v. Brennan, 56 Ill. 2d 372 (1974). However, the Appellate Court did not find that proposition persuasive in this case. Since there are no Illinois cases factually similar to the Zokhrabov case, the Court relied on traditional duty analysis and found that the injury was foreseeable, thereby creating a duty of care.

Continue reading "FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT DECIDED WHAT TRIAL JUDGE CALLED A "TRAGICALLY BIZARRE CASE"" »

As Illinois personal injury attorneys, we must stay up to date on new laws at all times. Effective January 2012, Illinois legislatures have added over 200 new laws affecting Illinois citizens. WSILTV.com published a list of the new laws. Here are a few that could impact the rights of personal injury victims:

Motorcycle Red Lights (HB 2860/PA 97-0627): This new law permits motorcyclists, who are stopped at a red light, "to proceed through the light if, after waiting a reasonable length of time, the red light fails to change to green."

Seat Belts (HB 219/PA 97-0016): The Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog reported on this one in July of 2011. Illinois's new seatbelt law requires even adult passengers sitting in the back seat of a moving vehicle to wear a seat belt. The law also requires individuals 18 and younger, who happen to be riding in a taxi cab for school-related purposes, to wear a seat belt.

Smoke Detectors (HB 1398/PA 97-0447): This law requires "hotels to be equipped with at least one smoke detector within 15 feet of every room that is used for sleeping purposes." Hopefully, this law will help prevent fires that cause serious burn injuries and wrongful death.

Uninsured Driving (HB 2267/PA 97-0407): This law fixes a $2,500 fine, plus any applicable jail time, for individuals "convicted of driving an uninsured vehicle that results in bodily harm to another person," if the individual has "two or more convictions for driving an uninsured vehicle." A person convicted of third violation will be required to pay a $1000 fine, if the person has not caused bodily harm to another person.

Vehicle Occupancy Restrictions (HB 1315/PA 97-0017): The Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog also commented on this law back in July of 2011. The Vehicle Occupancy Restrictions law makes it illegal for passengers to ride in trailers, wagons and other vehicles while they are being towed on highways, with the exemption of farm-related activities and parades.

Medical Malpractice (HB 1476/PA 97-0449): This law permits the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) to provide information to the public concerning complaints against doctors or medical professionals. The law will help patients more thoroughly research the doctors and medical professionals who treat them.

Continue reading "OVER 200 NEW LAWS ADDED TO ILLINOIS'S BOOKS" »

The Illinois wrongful death attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll have helped numerous families deal with the untimely death of a family member due to someone else's negligence. Wrongful death lawsuits present numerous issues, one being obtaining the victim's medical records, especially to determine if negligence caused or contributed to the victim's death. In the past, the deceased person's legal representative, usually a family member, was required to open an estate for the victim before being granted access to the medical records of the person that passed away. However, last month, Illinois' Governor Quinn signed a law that may make the process of obtaining a loved one's medical records a bit easier. The bill has been codified as 735 ILCS 5/8-2001.5 (2011). It states, in pertinent part:

"Authorization for release of a deceased patient's records. (a) …When no executor, administrator, or agent exists, and the person did not specifically object to disclosure of his or her records in writing, then a deceased person's health care records may be released upon the written request of:

(1) the deceased person's surviving spouse; or

(2) if there is no surviving spouse, any one or more of the following: (i) an adult son or daughter of the deceased, (ii) a parent of the deceased, or (iii) an adult brother or sister of the deceased.

(b) Health care facilities and practitioners are authorized to provide a copy of a deceased patient's records based upon a person's payment of the statutory fee and signed "Authorized Relative Certification", attesting to the fact that the person is authorized to receive such records under this Section. *** "

Upon request for records of a deceased patient, the named authorized relative must furnish the medical facility or practitioner with a certified copy of the deceased person's death certificate. The statute provides direction for preparing the Authorized Relative Certification, detailing the specific language that the requesting party should use.

The Illinois wrongful death and injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll think that this statute can provide some comfort for the deceased person's family. We applaud the Illinois legislature for simplifying what can be an otherwise cumbersome and time-consuming process. Families dealing with the loss of a loved one, especially when that loss may be attributed to another person's negligence, often suffer greatly.

Continue reading "ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH ATTORNEYS: OBTAINING A DECEDENT'S MEDICAL RECORDS" »

Every month, Chicago personal injury lawyer Jeffrey J. Kroll contributes to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in his column Balancing Life and the Law.

In this month's article, "Lawyers should take the reins with future damages", Jeff puts a holiday spin on the discussion of maximize damages for client's future medical expenses, lost earnings, future pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement and loss of consortium damages in a light of the ever-changing American economy and political climate. Here is an excerpt from his article:

My firm represents individuals who have been severely injured as a result of someone else's negligent acts. One of the most difficult tasks we have is ensuring our clients receive full and fair compensation. Before entering into a settlement or suggesting an amount of compensation to a jury, we must determine a sufficient amount of money that will provide for the individual well beyond the date of trial. Often, our clients' lives have been shattered by unnecessary and unexpected injuries. Many can no longer work or care for themselves.

In my humble opinion (with the full disclosure that I am a plaintiff's attorney), the injured party deserves the benefit of the doubt. This isn't just a "holiday, be generous" message. (Although, I am in the spirit this year; Christmas music plays in my office even as I write this article.) Who will care for the injured if their settlement or verdict award does not cover medical and daily living costs well into the future? I have yet to hear of Santa and his elves stuffing stockings with prescription medications, physical therapy, joint replacement surgeries or checks to cover insurance premiums. No one can depend on the future of Medicare and Medicaid either — nor should they have to. The harm perpetrated on the injured will consistently ripple through the individual's family, emotionally and economically. Not only do family members live with the changed — depressed and likely disabled — person, but often they also must care for the victim of negligence. The cynic will say "Well, that's the family's job. They should take care of them." But how fair is that?

The only way to protect the victim and the family, and to provide them with some piece of mind when it comes to future finances, is to maximize damages for future medical expenses, lost earnings, even future pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement and loss of consortium. Speculative damages, you might say. But there is nothing speculative about the ongoing pain and suffering that my clients will endure. Nor is there anything speculative about the medical care that they will require for the rest of their lives.

Then, there is the whole business of future damages discounted to present cash value. All future damages, except for pain and suffering, disfigurement, disability and loss of society and consortium, must be reduced to present cash value. This has become the preferred method of determining future damages. While there is no requirement that the trial attorney present actuarial or statistical evidence to the jury to determine present cash value (Robinson v. Greeley & Hansen, 114 Ill.App.3d 720, 725 (2d Dist.1983)), it certainly can be helpful at times. Of course, mortality tables also help plot the course. But how do we plan for other economic and political changes? Right now, the future of health care in this country is unknown. Regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer, we will all be affected by the changing American medical infrastructure at some point. Medical costs seem to be rising as quickly and as steadily as the cost of college. Life-care planners and economists can help us plan for our clients' futures, but we are ultimately the clients' advocates and must direct the outcome.

Read the entire article.

Continue reading "BALANCING LIFE AND THE LAW" »

As Chicago medical malpractice and injury attorneys, our Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog often discusses the dangers of using cell phones and smartphones while driving. However, we recently read an interesting article about distraction and another concerning area: something the New York Times referred to as "distracted doctoring." The incidents may shock you. The examples cited by the New York Times include:

"a neurosurgeon making personal calls during an operation, a nurse checking airfares during surgery and a poll showing that half of technicians running bypass machines had admitted texting during a procedure."

One doctor interviewed in the article lamented upon walking into a hospital and seeing "doctors and other staff members glued to their phones, computers and iPads."

Like every other area of life that the internet has forever changed, the medical community has seen both good and bad effects of widespread web access. One benefit you may have noticed at your own doctor's office is that medical records are increasingly ditigitized, at least within the office. One detriment is the increased numbers of distracted doctors, nurses and technicians.

Just as drivers acknowledge that driving while texting is dangerous, doctors and nurses that text during surgeries or while caring for patients seem to feel the same way; yet, these behaviors continue. One studied cited by the New York Times

"found that 55 percent of technicians who monitor bypass machines acknowledged to researchers that they had talked on cellphones during heart surgery. Half said they had texted while in surgery. *** About 40 percent said they believed talking on the phone during surgery to be “always an unsafe practice." About half said the same about texting."

Apparently, one of the causes of the ever-increasing distractions in this area is the wide-spread availability of such interactive devices as smartphones, tablets and computers due to billions of dollars worth of investments in this area in an effort to achieve "data driven" medicine. As Cook County medical malpractice attorneys, we know firsthand that many patients are already frustrated with the current state of doctors' and nurses' bedside manners. Patients often feel rushed and ignored at times when human contact and attention is most important -- when dealing with a serious illness or injury. It has come to a point where medical malpractice attorneys routinely subpoena the cell phone records of physicians alleged to have committed malpractice to determine if cell phone use caused or, at the very least, contributed to a medical error. Attorneys must also investigate email records and web browsing histories.

As Chicago medical malpractice attorneys we believe that all hospitals and clinics must make an effort to ban the personal use of cell phones, smartphones, tablets and computer for doctors, nurses and technicians who are treating patients.

Continue reading "DISTRACTED DOCTORS CAUSE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INJURIES" »

The personal injury and wrongful death attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll just reviewed a new study released by the national consumer rights organization, the Center for Justice & Democracy, which found that news coverage of civil jury verdicts fails to provide an accurate picture of the civil justice system and that certain new media trends are making the situation even worse. As Chicago personal injury attorneys with over twenty years of experience handling high-profile cases, we were not surprised by these findings. We know that the American public rarely is exposed to the whole picture when it comes to lawsuits since large companies often employ large marketing and advertising agencies to spin the facts of lawsuits in their favor and against the innocent victims. The documentary "Hot Coffee" did an excellent job exposing the truth when it comes to the civil justice system and settlements and verdicts against companies, organizations, and/or doctors and hospitals.

The Center for Justice & Democracy's new study entitled Headline Blues: Civil Justice In The Age Of New Media, takes another look at the problems that media pose to the civil justice system, following up on its 2001 study, Reading Between the Headlines: The Media and Jury Verdicts, which "found the media’s coverage of verdicts to be deeply skewed, fueling common misperceptions that civil juries routinely award plaintiffs eye-popping verdicts for frivolous claims." While the new Headline Blues' study found the same to be true, it highlights new media trends that further distort reporting.

As one could imagine, the way that we obtain news on a daily basis has drastically changed since 2001. While traditional media sources, such as television and newspapers, have not been completely replaced, new outlets such as online newspapers, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and even Google News, often draw in readers with a very limited description of a case and sometimes merely a headline, which may not accurately report a news story.

The researchers of the Headlines Blues' study searched Google News and the Top 25 blogs at Technorati blog for civil jury verdicts and settlements between May 1, 2011 and July 20, 2011. They selected articles reporting civil jury verdicts and settlements in cases involving physical injuries, examining several aspects of each article. The study found that 39 percent of the articles reporting a "plaintiff win" mentioned only the monetary amount of the award and the type of case in the headline, "but nothing about the defendant’s misconduct. Another 14.5 percent mentioned only the monetary award, excluding any information about the type of case or injury." As a plaintiff's personal injury attorney, I know that there can be a connection between the defendant's conduct and the amount of the verdict.

Our personal injury attorneys found this example from the study quite telling:

Headline: Woman wins $3.25 million in verdict [Mill Valley Herald, June 22, 2011]. The full article revealed:

"A Mill Valley woman who suffered severe chemical burns after a Lake Tahoe casino mistakenly served her a caustic cleaning solution in a water bottle has been awarded $3.25 million in damages by a San Francisco Superior Court jury, according to her attorney. "Julia Ellis received the award for medical bills and pain and suffering in a civil verdict delivered June 13, attorney Christopher B. Dolan said in a statement.

"Ellis was staying at Harvey’s Lake Tahoe on Dec. 2, 2007, when she asked a bartender for a bottle of water. Ellis was given a Harrah’s-branded bottle of water, took a large drink, and immediately began screaming in pain, Dolan said. She was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that the bottle contained a caustic cleaning solution.

"It was later determined that an employee had poured the solution from its larger storage container into an empty, unmarked water bottle and left it in the kitchen, where it was then inadvertently served to Ellis, Dolan said."

The study further found that for every story reporting a defense win, where a plaintiff received no award, there were six other stories reporting plaintiffs' wins, giving the skewed impression that plaintiffs win much more often than defendants. In fact, plaintiffs "prevail in only 51.3 of tort cases before juries, and 56.2 percent of the time before judges." Headline Blues, pp. 5-6.

The study recognizes that news outlets are pressured to produce news at a vastly accelerating pace; however, it also recognizes that the public and the civil justice system in general suffer as a result. Jeffrey J. Kroll has lectured for the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education on the topic of managing the media in high profile cases, including how to deal with pretrial publicity.

Continue reading "MEDIA'S SKEWED COVERAGE OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM" »

Many of the personal injury clients that we serve at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll must undergo MRIs prescribed by their doctors after becoming injured as a result of another person's negligence. An MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging, is a radiological technique that doctors use to see inside the body. MRIs are a common, diagnostic test, and typically make it easier for doctors to distinguish problematic tissues from normal tissues. MRIs differ from x-rays and CT scans by using magnetic fields opposed to radiation, which make x-rays and CT scans possible. MRIs are thought to be reasonably safe; however, as one recent CNN article pointed out, "if mistakes are made, they can hurt or even kill you."

CNN reported four main ways MRIs can go wrong:

(1) Projectiles: MRI machines contain powerful magnets that can attract other metal objects. Serious, injury-causing problems can occur if a patient is being scanned when a metal object collides with the MRI machine. CNN reported a New York child who "was killed in 2001 when the MRI machine sucked an oxygen canister into the machine where he was being scanned." Projectiles can be prevented if the MRI technicians follow proper policies and procedures.

(2) Burns: The RF transmitters in MRI can produce intense heat. Problems occur if a patient accidentally touches the walls of the MRI tunnel or is not checked properly for electrical conductors that can pick up concentrated RF frequencies. MRI technicians should make sure there is enough material between the patient and the wall to prevent burning.

(3) Hearing loss: If you have ever had an MRI, you know that the machines make a lot of noise. One CNN interviewee compared the MRI noise level to the level of noise exposure near a jet aircraft. Repeated MRIs raise the risk for hearing loss. Hearing loss can easily be prevented by providing patients with earplugs or earphones.

(4) Implants and medical devices: The magnetic fields in MRIs can move or damage metal devices implanted in a person's body, such as aneurysm clips and pacemakers. Although most current medical devices are MRI-safe, anyone undergoing an MRI should advise the MRI technician of the presence of a medical device before undergoing the scan.

To ensure your safety before undergoing an MRI, make sure you thoroughly complete MRI questionnaires or screening forms presented to you by the MRI facility. Review the answers with the MRI technician. You must also remove all metal from your body before an MRI. Any metal, such as a medical device or bullet, etc., which cannot be removed, must be discussed with a technician and a doctor. Be sure that you are provided ear protection that fits you properly. Notify the technician if you notice any open doors, loose wires or metallic objects that could be attracted to the magnetic field of the MRI machine. Avoid contact with the inside of the MRI machine's walls.

The Chicago personal injury and wrongful death attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll are dedicated to serving injured individuals and their families in personal injury and wrongful death actions. For over twenty years, Jeffrey J. Kroll has assisted injured clients in Illinois and throughout the United States. Our personal injury and wrongful death attorneys have achieved many multimillion dollar verdicts and settlements in a wide variety of practice areas including trucking accidents, auto crashes, medical malpractice, workplace injuries, train accidents, barge accidents and bus and taxi cab collisions.

Continue reading "WHAT TO KNOW BEFORE YOUR MRI" »

The Chicago personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll read an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune, reporting a study which found that people with a certain genetic make-up "displayed PTSD symptoms more frequently...." The researchers studied students from Northern Illinois University (NIU), in DeKalb, Illinois, who were studying at NIU on Valentine's Day in 2008, when a gunman tragically killed five people before turning the gun on himself.

Students with certain genetic frameworks (related to serotonin levels, which affects mood and mental function) exhibited PTSD-like symptoms, such as anxiety and nightmares, more frequently than others. Among the 204 individuals studied, "about 50 carried a variation in a gene commonly targeted by anti-depressants." Of those individuals with the variation, fifty-two percent reported experiencing PTSD-related symptoms after the day of the shooting.

Continue reading "GENETIC LINK TO PTSD FOUND" »

The Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll recently read an interesting article in Newsweek magazine that stated some medical test and procedures do more harm than good. In fact, the article documents doctors and medical researchers refusing blood tests, electrocardiograms and mammogram screenings due to the rate of false positives and misleading findings. Many found more health care led to worse health. The article states: "for many otherwise healthy people, tests often lead to more tests, which can lead to interventions based on a possible problem that may have gone away on its own or ultimately proved harmless."

Sadly, we have seen that this phenomenon is true. If you have suffered a personal injury after undergoing medical treatment, the Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll may be able to help. We are experienced trial attorneys and settlement negotiators. We have recovered million-dollar settlements and verdicts on behalf of our clients in personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits.

Continue reading "CAN MORE HEALTH CARE LEAD TO WORSE HEALTH?" »

The medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll just read an informative article by Dr. Barry Bialek on CoverMd.com. There, Dr. Bialek explains the top ten most expensive medical errors, considering cost of health care as well as the patient's loss of income due to the medical error. The injuries include brain injuries, errors that lead to quadriplegia and death due to myocardial infarct.

Seven of the ten most expensive medical errors are those that lead to severe brain injuries, with birth trauma as the number one most costly injury, since many who suffer birth injuries may have a normal life expectancy, yet require lifelong medical care. Even brain injuries as a result of falls are discussed, since a failure to diagnosis a brain injury may cause a severe subdural hematoma and even coma. Next, errors that lead to quadriplegia are found to be the eighth and ninth most costly errors since many who suffer these injuries will require constant skilled health care for the duration of their lives. Finally, death from untreated, unstable angina is found to be the tenth most costly medical error because many who die from this condition are typically supporting families at the time of death and the loss may impose a severe economic strain on the surviving family.

The medical errors are attributed to technical medical errors, failure to use indicated tests, avoidable delay in treatment, failure to take precautions, failure to act on test results, inadequate monitoring after a procedure, inadequate follow-up after treatment, avoidable delay in diagnosis, and improper medication dose or method of use. All could amount to medical negligence by a health care provider.

Continue reading "WHAT ARE THE MOST EXPENSIVE MEDICAL ERRORS?" »

The Chicago personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll recently reviewed a report of deficient nursing homes published by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Specifically, CMS's Special Focus Facility (“SFF”) Initiative reported four Illinois nursing homes had been added to the SFF Initiative, including Alden Town Manor Rehab & HCC in Cicero, Illinois, Columbus Manor Res Care Home and Rainbow Beach Care Center, both in Chicago, and Galesburg Terrace in Galesburg, Illinois. SFF Initiative, which has been around since the late 1980s, reports the most current information regarding inspections at nursing homes that have a history of quality issues.

While many nursing homes typically have 6-7 deficiencies per inspection, most nursing homes correct the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time. Nursing homes that do not fix serious problems, may find their participation in Medicare and Medicaid compromised, or worse yet terminated. SFF has reported three Illinois nursing homes that have not improved over time, including Embassy Health Care Center in Wilmington, Illinois (after 48 months of review by SFF), Nathan Health Care Center in East St. Louis, Illinois (10 months), Rockford Nursing & Rehab Center in Rockford, Illinois (10 months).

CMS provides guidance further guidance to families choosing long term care options, including talking to staff, residents and other families and asking for copies of the last and most recent State or CMS evaluation.

Continue reading "CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON DEFICIENT NURSING HOMES" »

The Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll read some disturbing news lately. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Illinois health officials have found same-day surgery centers to pose deadly health risks. Some of the routine culprits include doctors who dangle surgical masks around their necks and leave their hair exposed during surgery. However, Illinois inspectors have identified numerous other short cuts that lead to the spread of dangerous bacteria and viruses, including failures to properly sterilize surgical instruments before and after surgeries.

What is most disturbing is that out of the "21 Illinois surgery centers inspected over the past year, 14 — or two-thirds — were cited for infection-control problems." Since a 2008 hepatitis C outbreak in Las Vegas, which officials believe to be linked to unsafe clinic practices, federal health officials have stepped up inspection guidelines for surgical centers. Still, thirty-six Illinois surgical centers have yet to be inspected under the new guidelines.

What can you do to protect yourself? Always choose accredited surgical centers before undergoing any surgical procedures. You can also contact the Illinois Department of Public Health to find out if a particular surgical center has had problems in the past.

Continue reading "RISK OF INFECTION AT SURGICAL CENTERS" »

Illinois residents can now find out more about the doctors who treat them. In fact, patients have access to some pretty significant background information on doctors, including whether they have ever been fired, convicted of a crime or submitted a malpractice payment anytime in the last five years. As Chicago medical malpractice attorneys, we applaud Governor Pat Quinn for signing the Patients' Right to Know Act, which provides patients the right to investigate the doctors who treat them. According to the Chicago Tribune, doctors have lobbied against the Act for over ten years, but thanks to a Tribune special report, which found "state regulators allowed dangerous doctors, even those convicted of sex crimes, to continue practicing," the Act was finally signed into law.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) will have two months to gather and post doctor information on its website, http://idfpr.com/. Doctors must inform IDFPR if they are convicted of Class A misdemeanors or felonies. However, another law will soon "require prosecutors to inform the state agency when physicians are convicted of sex crimes, forcible felonies and misdemeanor batteries against patients."

If you have suffered a personal injury after undergoing medical treatment, the Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll may be able to help. We are experienced trial attorneys and settlement negotiators. We have recovered million-dollar settlements and verdicts on behalf of our clients in personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits.

Continue reading "CHICAGO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON THE PATIENTS' RIGHT TO KNOW ACT" »

As Chicago accident and personal injury attorneys, the recent ranking of hospitals by U.S. News & World Report (U.S. News), interested us. In fact, those in Chicago and throughout Illinois probably experienced the same discouragement that we did upon reviewing the ranking and discovering that none of Chicago's supposedly top-notch hospitals made the U.S. News Honor Roll.

For the 2011-2012 rankings, out of nearly 5,000 hospitals evaluated, only 17 hospitals or medical centers earned a place on U.S. News' Honor Roll. Those hospitals "demonstrate unusually high expertise across multiple specialties, scoring at or near the top in at least six of 16 specialties." The 16 specialties evaluated ranged from cancer to urology.

What does this mean for those who suffer illness or personal injury in Chicago? Do your homework when possible and find a hospital or doctor that you feel comfortable with to care for you. Once in the hospital, address any concerns with hospital staff immediately. You will always be your own best advocate.

Continue reading "CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON "BEST HOSPITALS" RANKING" »

The Illinois Supreme Court recently reviewed Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI), Civil No. 105.01 (2006), and concluded that it does not accurately state Illinois law. Studt v. Sherman Health Systems, Docket No. 108182 (June 16, 2011). There, plaintiff visited the Sherman Hospital emergency room with abdominal pain. The emergency room doctors failed to diagnose her pain as appendicitis and sent her home. Two days later, the plaintiff's general physician ordered a surgical consult, where it was discovered that plaintiff's appendix ruptured and became gangrene, requiring surgical removal. Thereafter, plaintiff underwent multiple hospitalizations and surgeries due to infections and peritonitis.

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that the hospital was responsible and also vicariously liable (for the alleged professional negligence of its emergency room doctors). In Illinois, institutional negligence (hospital negligence) differs from professional negligence. Institutional negligence may be established via a wide array of evidence due to "the inherent diversity in hospital administration." Studt, citing Advicula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill. 2d 1, 33 (1996). As a result, evidence in institutional negligence cases may include administrative rules, its own bylaws, regulations, and/or internal or external policies and procedures. In professional negligence cases, on the other hand, "plaintiff bears a burden to establish the standard of care through expert witness testimony." Studt, citing Advicula, 176 Ill. 2d at 24. Without expert testimony, courts have concluded that jurors would not have the knowledge necessary to judge the professional's conduct.

Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) incorrectly stated Illinois law on professional negligence as to the evidence the jury may consider in determining whether the doctor complied with the standard of care. Further, it found that IPI Civil No. 105.01 (2006) also failed to accurately state Illinois law as to the standard of care applicable in professional negligence actions because it contained no reference to the professional's knowledge, skill, and care (or ability).

Pertinent to the Studt claim, the Illinois Supreme Court did not find reversal warranted because the Hospital was defending against a professional negligence claim and an institutional negligence claim, plaintiff presented evidence of the standard of care on both theories of recovery though expert testimony, and the jury was adequately educated as to the standard of care of emergency room doctors. However, the Court recognized that had the case been different, serious prejudice could have occurred.

Going forward, jury instructions in this area must be tailored by the trial attorney or the judge presiding over the trial to comply with the Studt case. Many judges in Cook County already have their own version of IPI Civil 105.01 available. Now that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue, victims of a doctor's or hospital's negligence will benefit from this clearer statement of the law.

Continue reading "ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES TYPE OF EVIDENCE, STANDARD OF CARE IN PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE CASES" »

A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine states that at "teaching hospitals responsible for training new doctors, patient death rates increase while efficiency in patient care decreases during the month of July." This phenomenon has been coined the "July Effect." Teaching hospitals, often affiliated with university medical schools, use admitted patients to educate medical students. Typically, medical students, or residents, shadow experienced doctors for an extended period of time depending on their course of study or medical specialty.

It's in July when older residents graduate, and newer residents take their places. The study in the Annals of Internal Medicine noticed that this "changeover can disrupt patient care in hospitals, increasing complications from surgery and boosting medical error rates, particularly as new doctors who are unfamiliar with a hospital's pharmacy system mistakenly prescribe wrong doses of medications." In July, death rates at hospital increase between 8% and 34%.

How can you protect yourself and those you care about from becoming a victim of the July Effect? It is crucial for families and friends of hospital patients to take the initiative to address areas of concern with hospital staff. Sadly, the critically ill are at the mercy of doctors and nurses who must make a better effort to care for patients while training new doctors before more patients experience untimely deaths.

Continue reading "JULY… A MONTH TO AVOID HOSPITALS, IF YOU CAN" »

"[A]s often as 40 times a week in the United States, patients come out of surgery to learn that their doctor operated on the wrong body part, did the wrong procedure or mixed them up with another patient,"

reported the Chicago Sun-Times.

40 times a week! Seriously? Come on! Errors like this, also known as "wrong-site surgeries," are unnecessary and easily preventable. The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare undertook enforcing a universal protocol to prevent wrong-site surgeries nearly ten years ago. The protocol "includes taking simple precautions such as marking the surgical site and taking a timeout before the first incision to make sure the right patient is getting the right procedure."

Why then do innocent patients continue to fall victim to wrong-site surgeries? The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll have learned firsthand that medical care providers perform surgeries on patients with inaccurate or incomplete documentation, while others become distracted in the operating room. Some use the wrong pen to mark an incision site, causing a wrong-site surgery. Unapproved pen marks may wash away before surgery, leaving the surgeon without a precise incision point. Sad, yes! Sad, but true!!

It is vital that surgeons and surgical staff follow standardized safety procedures during each and every surgery.

You may be eligible to file a medical malpractice lawsuit if a health care provider performed a wrong-site surgery on you or someone you love.

Continue reading "WRONG-SITE SURGERIES " »

You may not be aware that Congress has in place a regulatory scheme, which establishes various levels of oversight for medical devices, depending on the risks that the devices present. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 315 (2008). The levels of oversight are broken down into three classes of devices. Class I devices, which include items such as elastic bandages and examination gloves, are subject to the lowest level of oversight. Class II devices, which include powered wheelchairs and surgical drapes, are subject to additional "special controls," such as performance standards and postmarket surveillance measures. Id. Class III devices, which are subject to the highest form of federal oversight, include devices used “in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health." Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 550 (7th Cir. 2010).

Although there are some preemption issues in this area of the law -- meaning, in the simplest form, that federal law takes precedence over state law when it comes to how these devices are regulated -- courts must allow claims to proceed when they are premised on the theory that the manufacturer of the device violated federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated in Riegel: Section “360k [of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] does not prevent a State from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations…." 522 U.S. 312, 330.

This was exactly the case in Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2010), where plaintiff claimed she was injured by a medical device, specifically the Trident hip replacement system (“Trident system”), a Class III medical device. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged defendants manufactured the device in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, doctors implanted the device in plaintiff’s body six days after the FDA informed defendants that a component of the Trident system was “adulterated” and that the companies’ manufacturing process failed to comply with federal standards. Id. at 549.

Once implanted in plaintiff, the Trident system failed, requiring surgical removal and replacement of the product and leading to a host of serious and painful medical problems for the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit under Illinois common law for negligence and strict liability for a defective product. Id.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, holding that the plaintiff’s common law claims were preempted by federal law. Id.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment, finding the District Court erred, and holding that plaintiff stated a legally viable claim based on an alleged violation of federal law. The Court firmly stated:

The central issue in this appeal is whether federal law preempts product liability claims against manufacturers of Class III medical devices where a patient claims that she was harmed by the manufacturer’s violation of federal law. That statement of the issue may be a little startling. The idea that Congress would have granted civil immunity to medical device manufacturers for their violations of federal law that hurt patients is, to say the least, counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, manufacturers in this case and in others have asserted this theory of defense.... [T]he manufacturer's theory tries to stretch the Supreme Court's decisions in this field beyond the boundaries that were made clear in those decisions. Medical device manufacturers who subject their Class III devices to the rigorous premarket approval process are protected by federal law from civil liability so long as they comply with federal law. That protection does not apply where the patient can prove that she was hurt by the manufacturer's violation of federal law.

Id. at 549-550.

Continue reading "CASES DEALING WITH MEDICAL DEVICES" »

Sadly, the answer is yes; and, it happened right here in Chicago. Myxo ETlogix annuloplasty rings - that were different in design from previously approved devices - were implanted in patients at Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH) based on the approval of the doctor and the pharmaceutical company who both stood to profit from the product. Importantly, two critical links in the chain were missing before the device should have been implanted: (1) approval from the FDA and (2) consent from the patient to use an investigational device. As an investigational device that posed a significant risk, the doctor and NMH should have received approval from the FDA and an Internal Review Board (IRB) prior to the implantation of the myxo device for clinical testing. FDA approval is obtained by submitting an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application to the FDA.

Pursuant to FDA regulations, in order to conduct a significant risk device study, a sponsor must: (1) submit a complete IDE application to FDA for review and obtain FDA approval of the IDE; (2) submit the investigational plan and report of prior investigations to the IRB at each institution where the investigation is to be conducted for review and approval; and (3) select qualified investigators, provide them with all necessary information on the investigational plan and report of prior investigations, and obtain signed investigator agreements from them.

The FDA found that Edwards Lifesciences, who manufactured the ring, erred when it failed to seek clearance for the devices because the shapes and materials were different than other rings on the market. The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll and The Law Offices of Newman, Boyer & Statham currently represent a woman who had the ring implanted without knowing it was non-FDA-approved.

Contact the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll today at (312) 676-7222, if you have been injured by a doctor's negligence.

Two headlines pertaining to medical malpractice caught my eye over the past few weeks: (1) Hung-over surgeons more error-prone; and (2) Surgeon operates on the wrong eye of Vancouver boy.

The first article, which appeared in Reuters, discussed a new study that showed surgeons and students who performed simulated surgeries after a night of drinking alcohol were more likely to commit surgical errors.

How much a doctor drinks the day before operating is not regulated. (Yet, Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR 91.17 prohibits pilots or anyone acting as a crew member on a civil aircraft from consuming alcohol 8 hours prior to flying an aircraft). In the reported study, the participants performed surgery on a virtual reality system, not real people thankfully. The results:

At 9 AM, hung-over students made about 19 errors on average, while those who hadn't been drinking made only eight. This difference hadn't been seen before the night out, and faded over the day.

The surgeons also performed worse the day after their night out compared with before, with an increase in errors of about half. Yet only one of them had detectable blood alcohol levels.

The second disturbing article involved a 4-year-old Vancouver boy, whose eye surgeon incorrectly operated on the boy’s left eye, when she should have operated on the boy’s right eye. According to the boy’s parents, the surgeon “said, ‘frankly, I lost sense of direction and didn’t realize I had operated on the wrong eye until I was done operating on the eye.’”

In Illinois, the law currently holds health care providers accountable for injured parties’ medical costs, loss of income and non-economic losses, such as pain and suffering, disability and disfigurement. As Chicago medical malpractice attorneys, the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll has won multiple million-dollar settlements and verdicts on behalf of our clients in medical malpractice suits.

We go to hospitals to get well when we are ill or injured; unfortunately, we all know that hospitals and doctors can actually be the culprits of other potential medical issues that may arise during hospital stays. In fact, Medicare has released its first study on patient safety, detailing the many things that can go wrong for hospital patients, including but not limited to, unnecessary falls, hospital-acquired infections, incompatible blood infusions, bed sores, and other potential medical malpractice issues. Medicare acquired data for the study by reviewing the hospital bills of elderly and disabled patients between October 2008 and June 2010.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

All of Chicago's top medical centers appear on the list of hospitals with safety issues, to one extent or another. For instance, the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center, the University of Chicago Medical Center and Rush University Medical Center all reported higher-than-average numbers of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections associated with catheters. Officials at each medical center questioned the government's method of counting infections while acknowledging mistakes in data they submitted to Medicare.

How can you protect yourself from further illness or injury while treating in a hospital? Be an advocate for yourself. Ask questions. Be proactive. If the treatment that you are receiving in the hospital requires the use of anesthesia or sedation, designate a family member or friend as an advocate. Patient safety issues are a consequence of the breakdown of communication between patient and health care provider.

Continue reading "MEDICARE RELEASES CHILLING PATIENT SAFETY DATA" »

As I have documented over the past few days, demonstrative evidence is no longer limited to hand-drawn models, graphs, charts, or diagrams. Successful trial lawyers now incorporate digital and computer-generated images into their visual strategy when presenting a case to the jury.

A visual strategy is akin to a game plan. For example, when preparing to play a football game, the team’s coach will use the chalkboard/dry-erase board to draw out the plays that he would like the team to make during the game. The trial attorney must develop a similar visual game plan, deciding whether the use of demonstrative evidence is warranted for proof, reinforcement, explanation, or illustration of any points or issues. Likewise, the trial attorney must designate which demonstrative evidence will compliment the testimony of certain witnesses.

A wise trial attorney will take advantage of the wide latitude courts grant them in educating and persuading the jury with the aid of experts and demonstrative evidence. Allow the jurors to think their job is easy because your expert simplified the case with use of demonstrative evidence. Imagination and creativity should not be stifled in preparing for trial. Below are some examples of evidence that could and should be utilized as exhibits during a personal injury trial:

• Blow ups of x-rays
• Life size skeleton or model involving the anatomy
• Charts or graphs
• Computer simulations
• Hardware from surgery
• Tens Unit
• Braces, cane, crutches
• Casts
• Bottles from prescriptions for pain
• Photographs
• Videotapes
• Video recreations of incidents
• Illustrations
• Aerial Photographs

As a personal injury trial lawyer for 20 plus years, I have always been interested in the use and presentation of demonstrative evidence. I know that the future of demonstrative evidence in the courtroom is moving in a digital direction. Demonstrative evidence has historically been an important tool for informing the jury of complex ideas and procedures. As attorneys developed new and creative ways of presenting information, courts have embraced their efforts as is demonstrated in numerous decisions. (See, i.e., "Lights, Camera, Action-Using Videotapes at Trial in Illinois," Vol. 86, January 1998, Illinois Bar Journal). Decisions like Arlton v. Lafayette Retina Clinic, 936 N.E.2d 831 (Nov. 9, 2010)., which I discussed in yesterday's blog, assure me that the justice system is open to accepting creative demonstrative evidence so long as the demonstrative aid is authentic and will assist the jury.

Historically speaking, two cases that I continually favor in support of the use of demonstrative evidence at trial are Van Welden v. Ramsay's Corp., 199 Kan. 417 (Kan. 1967), and Bugno v. M. Sinai Hospital Medical Center, 201 Ill. App. 3d 245 (1st Dist. 1990). When I offer demonstrative evidence -- be it computer-generated simulations or simple diagrams -- I often cite these cases for support.

In Van Welden, plaintiff fell down the stairs at defendant's department store, suffering injuries including a compression fracture of the seventh dorsal vertebra, lacerations of the scalp and other minor lacerations and bruises to the face. At trial, plaintiff's physician testified with the use of an artist's sketch of a thoracic vertebra. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kansas found no error in allowing the physician to use the sketch to illustrate plaintiff's injury to the jury. The Court stated: "If the sketch be a substantially correct reproduction of the injured part of the anatomy it should be admissible within the trial court's discretion." The test as to the admissibility of medical and anatomical charts is their capacity to inform the jury, and where they are accurate and fully explained, they are admissible even though abstract. 199 Kan. 417, 420.

In Illinois, while the admission of demonstrative evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, the demonstrative evidence must help explain some relevant issue in the case. Bugno, 201 Ill. App. 3d 245, 250 (finding that freehand drawings depicting the condition of plaintiff's leg based on descriptions provided by witnesses were properly admitted where they were highly relevant to the issue of causation and necessary to aid the jury in its understanding of the witnesses' testimony). So long as "demonstrative exhibits [are] relevant and actually explanatory, * * * courts have * * * allowed the exhibits regardless of their emotional effects." Id. at 251.

Last November, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Arlton v. Lafayette Retina Clinic, 936 N.E.2d 831 (Nov. 9, 2010). Why is this important to Illinois lawyers and victims of medical malpractice? For personal injuries lawyers everywhere this case provides further support for the use of demonstrative evidence when presenting a client's injury to the jury. Persuasive demonstrative evidence appeals directly to jurors’ life experiences and helps jurors understand potentially complex issues. People grasp and retain ideas better when they are conveyed through images and words. Arming the jury with the appropriate information in the most easily-received form empowers the jury to return a just verdict. As the world outside of the courtroom becomes more and more digitally driven, trial lawyers must find ways to incorporate technology into the presentation of their cases. I think that Arlton is a fantastic case that addresses this ever-evolving issue.

In Arlton, Plaintiff suffered from a condition that caused an abnormal growth of blood vessels near the retina, namely choroidal neovascularization ("CNV"), which required periodic laser eye surgery to cauterize the blood vessels. Plaintiff was first treated for the condition in 1987. In 2002, angiogram photos revealed that plaintiff's condition had worsened. As a result, defendant doctor performed laser photocoagulation surgery on plaintiff's eye. During the surgery, defendant doctor's first laser shot into the eye caused plaintiff to jump; as a result, defendant doctor burned the laser spot within the area of a pre-existing scar, which ultimately caused plaintiff to suffer a post-surgery blind spot.

Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against defendant doctor and his clinic, alleging that he suffered permanent injury to his eye as a result of laser eye surgery. The primary issue at trial centered around the location of the laser spot that caused plaintiff's blind spot. Plaintiff and defendants stipulated to the admission of digital images from angiograms performed before and after the surgery at issue. Each juror was provided a color copy of all of the photos in an exhibit binder. The trial judge, however, sustained defendants' objection to plaintiff's admission of enlarged copies of the angiogram images. The judge also sustained defendants' objection to plaintiff's request to provide the jury with access to the digital information on the previously admitted CD-ROM discs. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Plaintiff subsequently appealed.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objection to the admission of the enlarged photos, stating that there was no evidence that the photos were altered in any way other than to enlarge them. In support, the Court noted that Indiana Evid. R. 1001’s definition of a "duplicate" includes enlargements, and its Rule 1003 allows for the admission of duplicates unless there was a question of authenticity or the duplicates would otherwise be unfair. At trial, plaintiff's expert specifically testified that at least one of the enlargements was an accurate "reflection" of a digital image that had already been admitted into evidence without objection. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found no issues of authenticity or any other reason to deny admission of the enlargements.

Regarding the digital images, the Court also recognized that the trial court abused its discretion by denying them to the jury. To that end, the Court provided two possible suggestions for providing a jury access to digital evidence: (1) transforming the evidence into a medium that is accessible without a computer (such as providing the information in the form of a DVD); or (2) providing the jury with a "clean" computer that contains no other information and which has no ability to access the Internet.

Continue reading "DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES, PART 1 OF 3" »

An interesting investigative piece out of the Boston Globe explains how the constantly-beeping monitors and other devices found in hospitals can negatively affect patients and staff. The article suggests that the incessant beeping of machines can cause “alarm fatigue,” numbing and desensitizing doctors and nurses to warnings and leading them to ignore serious and sometimes fatal medical issues.

The article provided a deadly example:

At one undisclosed US hospital last year, manufacturer Philips Healthcare, based in Andover, found that one of its cardiac monitors blared at least 19 dangerous-arrhythmia alarms over nearly two hours but that staff, for unexplained reasons, temporarily silenced them at the central nursing station without ‘providing therapy warranted for this patient.’ The patient died, according to Philips’s report to federal officials.

The non-for-profit organization ECRI Institute, which assisted the Boston Globe in its research on the issue, attributed over 200 deaths nationwide from 2005 to the middle of 2010 to monitor alarm problems. ECRI also acknowledged that hospitals in fact may underreport problems related to monitor alarms, finding 13 additional incidents in its own database.

How can you protect yourself and those you care about from becoming victim of alarm fatigue? The Boston Globe article advises: “patients and families … [should] ask nurses and doctors to explain what monitors are being used for, what types of alarms could sound, and which alarms they should be concerned about and which are minor.” You should also make sure that alarms are set to an audible decibel. In other words, be proactive.

It is crucial for families and friends of hospital patients to take the initiative to address areas of concern with hospital staff. Sadly, the critically ill are at the mercy of doctors and nurses who must make a better effort to deal with alarm fatigue before more patients experience untimely deaths. Moreover, the manufacturers of these devices must make a better effort to work out the flaws that cause unnecessary beeping and false alarms.

For the last four years, the non-for-profit ECRI Institute, an independent organization that researches the various ways hospitals and health care providers can improve patient care, has compiled a list of the top ten health technology hazards. ECRI Institute creates the list based on "the prevalence and severity of incidents reported to ECRI Institute by healthcare facilities nationwide; information found in the Institute’s medical device problem reporting databases; and the judgment, analysis, and expertise of the organization’s multidisciplinary staff." Sadly, many of these are instances where a patient goes into a hospital for treatment or a routine procedure, and then suffers a disabling or disfiguring injury.

The top ten health technology hazards for 2011 include:

1. Radiation overdose and other dose errors during radiation therapy. Overdoses of radiation therapy or other medication, for that matter, can cause serious and devastating health repercussions, even death.

2. Alarm hazards. Staff often turn down alarms or ignore them due to the many, constant and varied amounts of alarms that sound off in a hospital every second of the day.

3. Cross-contamination from flexible endoscopes.

4. The high radiation dose of CT scans. According to the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, many have become concerned with the increased risk of cancer from CT-related radiation.

5. Data loss, system incompatibilities, and other health IT complications.

6. Luer misconnections of tubes, needles and catheters allowing gases or liquids to be introduced into the wrong lines or via unintended routes.

7. Oversedation during use of patient-controlled painkillers pumps.

8. Needle sticks and other sharps injuries, putting patients at risk for infections.

9. Surgical fires.

10. Defibrillator equipment failures in emergency resuscitation attempts.

Continue reading "2011's TOP TEN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY HAZARDS " »

Last week, the New York Times reported that a Maryland hospital had barred all picture-taking and video-recording in delivery rooms during the birthing process. The policy requires all cell phones in the delivery room to be powered off and permits picture taking only after the baby has been delivered and "the medical team has given permission" to do so.

Understandably, many parents were outraged by the new policy. The hospital, which instituted the policy to promote the health and safety of child and mother, also claimed it had become increasingly concerned with the privacy rights of its staff and their unwillingness to have their photo posted on proud parents' Facebook accounts.

There are no federal or state laws that specifically prohibit the taking of photographs and/or videos in hospital delivery rooms. There also are no national standards on the issue. Hospitals may institute these policies if they wish.

As an Illinois medical malpractice attorney, I know that much of the concern regarding taking photographs and videos in deliver rooms stems from the medical community's concern and paranoia over medical malpractice suits. Often, if there is a problem during delivery, the photographs and videos taken by parents could become important evidence during a malpractice lawsuit. This evidence would inevitably resolve the “he said/she said” disputes, which commonly arise in lawsuits. Although some hospitals and doctors embrace the transparency that comes with recording a birth, others fear that recordings will be used against them. In my opinion, parents should be able to record the birth of their child so long as it doesn't interfere with a safe delivery. A doctor or hospital's fear of a medical malpractice lawsuit is not a good reason for prohibiting recording in the delivery room.

Although hardly mentioned, President Obama indicated during his State of the Union address last week that he is “willing to look at other ideas to bring down [health care] costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year -- medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

What does that mean? To some, it means nothing. To big business, it is a “step in the right direction.” To patients, it can be their worst nightmare. Proposals like across-the-board caps on compensation for patients injured by medical negligence and non-economic damages caps leave injured patients with out recourse at a time when they need it most.

Let’s be clear here. As a personal injury attorney, I am no more a fan of frivolous lawsuits than the President, Republicans or any other prudent-minded attorney. This is something we agree upon; however, tort restrictions or caps on damages will never weed out frivolous suits. In the end, medical malpractice reform will cause the seriously injured to suffer more by removing avenues for legal recovery and limiting accountability for the negligent acts of doctors and hospitals.

Our court system currently possesses the power to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. In Illinois, for example, a plaintiff bringing a medical malpractice action must file a report from a health care professional attesting to the merit of the plaintiff's claims, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-622. The report is generally filed at the time the complaint is filed. If a plaintiff cannot find a health care professional to attest to the merits of the claim, the case will be dismissed.

According to the Center for Justice & Democracy, the probable health care savings-costs related to medical malpractice reform are extremely minimal – no more 0.5 percent savings. Medical negligence kills nearly one hundred thousand people yearly and injures ten times more, costing the economy tens of billions of dollars annually.

When a car accident, construction accident or other incident occurs involving serious injuries, the victims are often brought to the nearest hospital, even if those hospitals are not trauma centers. Trauma patients requiring transfer are supposed to be transferred to facilities with higher levels of trauma care within two hours.

A new study published in the journal, Archives of Surgery, found that 80 percent of transfers in a five-year period were made after the two-hour mark. Delays may result from late diagnosis of injuries and failure to timely find a specialist who was available to treat the patient.

People present to hospitals every day in Chicago and around the world with the expectation of receiving quality care and not suffering complications from medical malpractice at the hands of their doctors, nurses and technicians. Sadly, 98,000 people a year die from medical mistakes. A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that 1.5 percent of Medicare patients are harmed as a result of medical errors and suffer a complication that contributes to their death. As part of the new health care law, programs are being implemented to improve quality of care and reduce health care costs. Some projects focus on assisting primary care physicians to coordinate with the physicians who practice more specialized medicine to ensure that a patient does not receive fragmented medical care.

The HHS report analyzed the records of 780 Medicare patients hospitalized in October 2008. The report analyzed both medical mistakes and unavoidable adverse events. In October of 2008, 134,000 Medicare patients suffered at least one adverse event while hospitalized. Of these events, a whopping 44 percent were preventable.

A plaintiff bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Illinois must file a report from a health care professional attesting to the merit of the plaintiff's claims, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-622. The report is generally filed at the time the complaint is filed; however, there are grounds under which extensions are granted. In Knight v. Van Matra Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al., No. 2-09-1127, September 29, 2010, a plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action and 98 days after the plaintiff filed her complaint, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint because plaintiff failed to file her health care professional's report. A few days later, plaintiff moved for additional time and then filed the report without leave of court.

On February 4, 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that Public Act 94-677, which limited the recovery of noneconomic damages in a medical malpractice action was "invalid and void in its entirety." Thus, the statute reverted to the language it contained prior to the amendment. Not only are the caps on non-economic damages invalid, but also the prohibition of an additional 90-day extension for the filing deadline of a 2-622 health care professional's report.

In Knight, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois, remanded the medical malpractice case back to the trial court to consider whether plaintiff should have extra time to file the health care professional's report that was filed without leave of court and more than 90 days after the complaint was filed.

In my opinion, fairness demands that the plaintiff be allowed to file the health care professional's report. Illinois personal injury attorneys practicing in the medical malpractice area should keep in mind the importance of getting leave of court in the event that additional time is needed to obtain and file a 2-622 report.

As medical malpractice attorneys in Chicago, my firm supports the return of the State of Illinois's online database providing patients with information on their physician's criminal background and medical malpractice history. The State of Illinois previously provided an online resource identifying whether a doctor was convicted of a crime, fired by a hospital or forced to make a medical malpractice payment within the previous five years. The State's Department of Financial and Professional Regulation removed the physician profiles from its website. The only information available now is whether the doctor's have been disciplined by the the department.

A study performed by Catherine DesRoches, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School, shows that 17 percent of doctors surveyed had personal knowledge of an impaired or incompetent physician at work. The study results, which were published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that while two-thirds of the doctors in the study reported their knowledge of the impairment, one-third did not turn in their colleagues.

Certainly, there are many excellent physicians. However, as a medical malpractice attorney in Chicago, I have seen circumstances where doctors cover-up for each other. Personally, I would not want an impaired or incompetent physician assisting me. Patients deserve better.

The State of Illinois has released mortality data for hospitals, which can be found online at the healthcarereportcard.illinois.gov/

While some hospitals were critical of the statistics arguing that the health condition of the patients treated was not considered, the head of patient safety at the Illinois Department of Public Health, said the methodology was developed by the federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality where it underwent significant testing and evaluation.

Patients are nearly 6% more likely to die when they are admitted to a hospital when that hospital is at or near their peak capacity, according to a March issue of Medical Care. Similarly, patients fare better when more nurses are on duty. Sadly, patient risk increases by nearly 8% during weekend admissions and even more (12%) when admission occurs during peak flu system.

Study findings like these should prompt local area hospitals to look at not only the flow of patients, but also at whether hospitals are providing appropriate care during times with high occupancy. Hospitals should also be looking at how to increase patient care during peak flu season and during weekend admissions.

A recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that health-care associated infections, such as pneumonia and sepsis affect 1.7 million hospital patients each year. Nearly 50,000 of those patients die as a result. The researchers of the study, focusing on infections acquired by those patients undergoing elective surgeries, estimated that these infections result in longer hospital stays and cost more than 8 billion each year.

Hospital-acquired infections are typically infections that do not originate from a patient's original admitting diagnosis. Within hours after admission to a hospital, a patient is exposed to the bacteria living in the hospital. As with the prevention of the spread of the common cold and the flu, proper hand-washing and glove-wearing are the two most critical deterrents to spreading hospital-acquired infections. Regardless of whether you are a caregiver in a hospital or just a visitor, it is important to always properly wash your hands. The CDC provides the following guidelines for proper hand-washing:

• Wet your hands with clean running water and apply soap. Use warm water if it is available.
• Rub hands together to make a lather and scrub all surfaces.
• Continue rubbing hands for 15-20 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing "Happy Birthday" twice through to a friend.
• Rinse hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel or air dryer. If possible, use your paper towel to turn off the faucet.
• Always use soap and water if your hands are visibly dirty.

Continue reading "HOSPITAL ACQUIRED INFECTIONS STUDIED" »

There are few things more private than your medical records. Those in the medical field, including hospitals, doctors, dentists and even insurance companies have a duty to protect your confidential medical information. With the trend towards computerizing medical records for efficiency purposes, also comes the ability of thieves and hackers to get at such sensitive information. Currently, in the event of a breach, the keeper of medical records must notify the federal government, but only if that breach affects over 500 patients.

The recent federal stimulus bill passed by the Senate in early February 2010 intends to make billions of dollars available for the computerization of medical files. As with any initiative involving confidential information, the fear exists that such information will end up in the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes. Although computerized records can assist in a patient's ability to receive more comprehensive medical care, computerized records are more susceptible to theft. As a patient, you should inquire with your health care providers about how they are maintaining and storing your medical information. You should always be asked to sign a consent form that conforms with HIPAA Privacy Rules before any medical provider shares your information.

Unfortunately, medical treaters may fail to diagnose a patient’s injuries after an injury-producing event. A patient involved in a major trauma is very likely to have multiple serious injuries. For example, an individual involved in a car crash or a construction site fall may have internal injuries in addition to obvious injuries, such as, broken bones or lacerations. The doctors treating the patient may properly focus on the obvious injuries, but fail to investigate any additional injuries or unforeseen conditions. This failure to diagnose may occur because of a failure to consider differential diagnoses, failure to order proper tests, a language barrier between patient and healthcare provider or the failure to otherwise consider additional injuries when there is a major trauma.

One cause of failure to diagnose injuries in a trauma situation is failure to determine that the injury is present. Injuries are often not visible to the naked eye. In many medical facilities throughout the world, trauma victims are assessed through the use of surveys developed by the American College of Trauma Surgeons in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. The primary survey identifies immediately life-threatening problems. Once those problems are treated, medical treaters use the secondary survey to conduct a detailed examination of the patient results in a complete catalog of their injuries.

According to some researchers, this system does not always work in practice. “It is not uncommon for the secondary survey to be curtailed or hindered by other priorities, with the result that complete catalogue of injuries is not identified at presentation.” Missed injury and the tertiary trauma survey, Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 107-114 C. Thomson, I. Greaves. The tertiary trauma survey, in which formal repeated examination of the patient is undertaken has been suggested as a better alternative to identify injuries not readily identifiable at the initial presentation.

Another cause of failure to diagnose an injury is due to a language barrier. I recently wrote an article about the importance of effective communication between patients and health care providers. Certainly, language barriers can prevent a clear communication between a patient and medical treater. It is a hospital’s duty to provide a translator and under federal law, hospitals are required to do so if they receive federal funding.

Extra steps may be necessary to ensure that trauma patients are properly treated, but improved outcome and prevention of long-term disability or death is worth it.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday, February 4th, that caps on awards in medical malpractice cases violate the Illinois Constitution. This is the third time that the Court has rejected legislatures' attempts to impose such caps.

The case, Lebron v. Gottlieb Hospital target= "_blank", involves a girl who suffered a brain injury during delivery at Gottlieb Hospital. The law that the Court deemed unconstitutional capped the maximum non-economic damages that could be awarded in a medical malpractice case against a single doctor at $500,000. The law also set a $1 million limit on damages against hospitals and staff.

The court was not persuaded by medical malpractice caps in place in other states. Justice Fitzgerald, writing for the court, stated: "That 'everybody is doing it' is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute." Justices Freeman, Kilbride and Burke joined the decision.

We have all heard of the term "defensive driving." It is the concept of being proactive on the roadways to avoid getting into an accident with a negligent driver. For example, if you see a driver paying more attention to the cell phone conversation he is having than the road or a driver is following too closely behind you, you may change lanes or pull over to avoid getting rear-ended. This concept is also applicable to a certain extent to your doctor's visit. CNN has an article containing 5 tips for getting better care from your doctor. The article suggests thinking ahead of time what questions you want to ask and writing the questions down. Also, the article suggests asking when you will start to feel better. By being proactive at the doctor's office, you are putting your health first, which is the most important thing. While many doctors' offices across the U.S. are providing outstanding patient care, some are failing their patients. Be an active part of getting quality health care for yourself!

As a medical malpractice attorney, I appreciated an article recently posted on CNN.com encouraging patients to be proactive when receiving medical treatment in an effort to prevent medical errors. The article highlighted an unfortunate story involving a young pregnant woman who received a CAT scan of her abdomen when she was mistaken for another person with the same first name.

In an effort to reduce medical errors due to performing procedures and tests on the wrong person or body part, it is suggested that you do the following:

1. Identify yourself, your date of birth and the procedure you are getting to every doctor, nurse or technician who treats you.

2. Ask everyone who treats you to "Please check my identification bracelet."

3. Say: "Could you please look at my chart and tell me what procedure it states that I am having."

4. Tell your nurse that you want to mark up your surgical site with the surgeon present because if you mark it outside of the surgeon's presence and the surgeon does not know about the marking, then it may be pointless. Marking the site is an extra precaution to take to ensure that surgery is performed on the correct body part.

5. Speak up and if necessary, be impolite. Patients often nod their head or agree to what the nurses or doctors tell them in an effort to be polite. If something does not seem right, say something.

With the Chicago Marathon closely approaching, many runners are training for the big event. It is scheduled for Sunday, October 11, 2009 and we wish the participants success!

Tragically, two years ago, a 35-year-old Michigan police officer died during an unusually hot and humid Chicago marathon. An autopsy revealed that the officer's heart condition caused his death. Since the effects of marathon running on the heart has become a popular topic among researchers, The New York Times explored the issue in a recent health segment.

The Times article discusses a controversial study published last year in the European Heart Journal. In that study, scientists scanned the hearts of 108 experienced, male distance runners in their fifties, sixties and seventies; all had completed a minimum of five marathons in the prior three years. After studying the scans, the researchers found that more than a third of the men showed evidence of significant calcification or plaque build-up in their heart arteries.

Since the release of that study, researchers worldwide have attempted to clarify the issue. In one recent study, Canadian researchers examined 129 non-elite runners in Winnipeg, testing their blood just before and after running a half or full marathon. When runners reached their finish line, blood tests revealed that most of the half marathoners and even more of the marathoners displayed elevated cardiac troponin, a substance in the blood that usually suggests cardiac injury, and other blood markers of heart damage. When the runners were tested again after an hour, even more showed blood indicators of cardiac damage.

Although running is an excellent way to stay physically healthy, if you have ever experienced any heart problems, you should consult a doctor before attempting long distance or marathon running. If while training for or actually running a marathon you have any heart-related symptoms, such as shortness of breath or chest pains, stop running and see a doctor immediately. We know that heart attacks can and do happen during marathons, and those with a history of heart disease are particularly at risk.

As a medical malpractice attorney in Chicago, I have witnessed the tragic consequences of medical errors. Mayo Clinic researchers have released a new study outlining how different causes of medical errors contribute to mistakes. The researchers distinguish distress and fatigue and recommend that distress (caused by financial woes, family concerns and other elements) should be treated as a separate issue from fatigue during the training of medical residents.

Dr. Colin P. West, a internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota said that fatigue, lower quality of life, burnout, symptoms of depression and other signs of distress, independently led to increased rates of self-reported major medical errors among internal medicine residents.

The report is in the Sept. 23/30, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Continue reading "STUDY SHOWS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSED BY DISTRESS AND FATIGUE" »

Consumer Reports has ranked hospitals across the nation based on patient satisfaction surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008. Twelve Chicago hospitals received ranking below the national average, including: Thorek Memorial Hospital, Mt. Sinai Hospital Medical Center, Sacred Heart Hospital, Provident Hospital Of Chicago, Advocate Trinity Hospital, Norwegian-American Hospital, Holy Cross Hospital, St Bernard Hospital, South Shore Hospital, Roseland Community Hospital, Loretto Hospital and Jackson Park Hospital. Most of these hospitals serve poor areas with limited resources.

The ratings provide a useful resource for anyone who wants information about their local hospital. The Chicago hospitals' low scores are in multiple areas, including staff attentiveness, communication about new medications, room and bathroom cleanliness, quietness, communication with nurses, pain management, and discharge planning. The two areas of greatest concern -- communication about new medications and discharge planning -- are key areas of concern because they directly impact a patient's recovery. Lack of communication about new medications results in drug interaction problems. Ill-planned discharge instructions lead to risk of complications and re-hospitalization.

The Illinois Hospital Association argues that the ratings are misleading since they only focus on patient experiences, not clinical quality care. Nonetheless, the Association says all of the Chicago hospitals on the list have attempted to make patient improvements.

Click here if you would like to see more information on the ranking provided by Consumer Reports for a fee.

The Joint Commission, a health care regulatory group that promotes quality and safety in health care in the United States, has enlisted parents in a national campaign to prevent medical errors in children. The Committee has furnished brochures -- available online, in English and Spanish -- as part of the group's Speak Up campaign.

The campaign's brochures provide parents with questions and answers that can help them navigate many common, yet complex health care situations. Among the topics are:
• Preparing for your child's visit to the doctor's office
• What you should ask the doctor
• How you can help prevent your child from getting an infection
• Taking medicine safely
• Having a blood test, X-ray, MRI or CT scan
• Going to the hospital
• Having a safe operation

The program urges parents and guardians of children to inquiry into the necessity of all tests and treatments for a child's illness or injury. If a parent does not understand what a doctor is saying, tell him or her. By asking questions a parent is helping the doctor understand what information is needed.

The program also recommends that parents remind caregivers to wash or clean their hands before touching children. Hand washing helps prevent infections. Additionally, parents should always pay attention to the care that their child receives, confirming that the child is getting the right treatments and medicines by the right health care professionals. They also encourage parents to ask about the side effects of medicine and the risks of medical tests.

The average total awaiting time in a U.S. Emergency Room in 2008 was 4 hours and 3 minutes. Sadly, it is a 27 minute increase in nationwide average wait time from 2002. What is causing the added wait time and what can be done to prevent such long waits?

First, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians, a January 2009 press release indicated that physicians believe that the recession is the one chief reason for the increase in emergency room visits. Many of these people that were once seen by a primary care physician are now going to the emergency room due to the loss of their health insurance. Unfortunately, this delay in care can end up proving to be a much more serious condition for patients in an already already overburdened emergency room system.

What do you do when you are confronted with a potentially four hour wait? Here are some tips for working with emergency room personnel:

1. Request that the triage nurse do a quick re-assessment of the patient, especially if you believe the patient is getting sicker while awaiting treatment in the emergency room. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel does get the grease, however, make sure that you are not using inappropriate or threatening language. Be respectful.

2. If dealing with the triage nurse, request to speak with the charge nurse or a charge physician if there is a problem.

3. If you cannot speak with a charge nurse or a charge physician, request to speak with the administrator on call.

4. The last resort may be to dial '0' from the emergency room department waiting room phone and request to page the patient advocate or hospital administrator.

Belligerence or request for VIP treatment usually will backfire. Everyone in the emergency room is there because of a sickness or problem. However, make sure that you are adequately observing any changes in the patient’s condition.

Continue reading "AVERAGE E.R. WAITING TIME INCREASED " »

On May 22, 2009, Chicago personal injury attorney, Jeffrey J. Kroll, was a panelist on a program entitled “Key Word Searches: Have We Lost Our Way?” The program was presented by the American Bar Association, Section of Litigation. This is the Third Annual National Institute on e-discovery. The program addressed practical solutions for dealing with Electronically Stored Information.

Jeff addressed recent judicial opinions questioning the practice of searching for ESI based on a unilaterally-creative list of key words. Recent opinions show a change in the way searches are and should be conducted.

The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll has been involved with a number of complex cases involving e-discovery. Many product liability and medical malpractice cases are ripe with e-discovery issues.

The Philadelphia Daily News reports that a jury awarded a 53 year old widow $2.185 million in damages for medical malpractice committed against her late husband in April 2006. Zachary James, the deceased, was taken to a North Philadelphia hospital after experiencing chest, back and leg pains. The ER physician ordered several lab tests, yet many were not performed for over two hours. To complicate matters, the ER physician left to attend a corporate meeting, leaving a doctor serving his first day on the job as the only attending ER physician. After James' X-rays and tests were developed, the ER physician should have reviewed them, but neither attending doctor did.

James died later that night from a dissecting aortic aneurysm. The X-rays and other tests that would have revealed this condition weren't interpreted until the following morning.

The defense argued during the 10-day jury trial that there wasn't enough time to save Mr. James. Plaintiff attorneys for the James family countered that Mr. James was never given the opportunity to survive.

Mr. James' widow, Rosalyn, was quoted as saying, "I know it would never bring him back, but now he's at peace because I fought for him."

My deepest condolences to the James family. I am pleased that the jury listened to all the evidence and found in favor of a man who was never given the chance to live.

Continue reading "UNREAD X-RAY LEADS TO $2.185M MALPRACTICE VERDICT" »

As a medical malpractice attorney in Chicago, I have previously discussed the University of Chicago's Urban Health Initiative. Data (from an 8 month period analyzing 396 patients) provided from the U. of C. to the Chicago Tribune showed that one in three of the patients being redirected from the U. of C. emergency room to Mercy Hospital and Medical Center are poor and uninsured.

Nearly 7 percent of the patients have no health insurance coverage. 25 percent of patients transported by ambulance 5 miles north to Mercy were covered by the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor, which is known for paying hospitals low rates, particularly in Illinois.

During the same eight-month period tracked, 31.3 percent of the patients admitted to U. of C. from its emergency room were covered either by Medicaid or were uninsured.

U. of C. is the state's largest private provider for patients covered by Medicaid and also serves a large number of people with no health coverage.

I understand the need to educate people who do not have true medical emergencies that they should be treated at appropriate facilities, but I remain concerned that individuals who need immediate treatment may get turned away under the U. of C.'s program.

Public health officials from the Chicago Department of Public Health are testing hundreds of patients and staff members at Evanston Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Children's Memorial Hospital after a first-year pediatric resident was found to have tuberculosis (TB). The Public Health Department is contacting anyone who may have had "significant contact" with the resident from November to April 1.

The Department of Public Health calls the situation a "cause for concern" rather than one of alarm.

The resident was working in the infant special care unit at Evanston Hospital, which is part of the Northshore University Health System, from February 11 to March 12. The department is contacting the 80 patients she treated that month and another 30 to 40 health workers. The resident also worked at Northwestern Memorial's Prentice Women's Hospital from November 3 to 21. The department is contacting 17 patients it believes may have been affected. She also worked at Children's Memorial Hospital between November 1 and April 3. In all, 150 patients and 300 staff members may be at risk for exposure, but the possiblity that any patients would have been infected is "highly unlikely" according to a spokewoman from Children's Memorial.

If you have been around someone who has TB disease, you should go to your doctor or your local health department for tests.

The Department of Veteran Affairs has launched an investigation into whether there is a connection between improperly seterilized endoscopy equipment and a veteran's postivie HIV test. In addition to the positive HIV test, sixteen other veterans have tested positive for hepatitis B and hepatitis C at two VA facilities.

The VA has publicly acknowledged that more than 10,000 veterans were possibly exposed to HIV and hepatitis at three VA facilities while undergoing colonoscopies and other procedures with equipment that had not been properly cleaned. The VA is offering free testing for hepatitis B, C and HIV to those veterans. The facilities in question are located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Atlanta, Georgia and Miami, Florida. The VA is reviewing procedures at other facilities and claims to have encountred no additioanl problems. The VA has also brought in additional staff to help with testing and counseling in the affected facilities. The VA has also said it will pay for treatment for the infected vets even if they didn't hepatitis or HIV from the dirty equipment.

Lawmakers are also calling for an investigation into the potential problems of contamination; whether any patient has contracted an infection from unsterilized equipment; and how the government can prevent such problems from happening again.

On February 3, a 78-year old wheelchair-bound man sat for hours within sight of the triage desk at the University of Chicago Medical Center, but no one bothered to log him in or triage him. It wasn't until the man's daughter got the attention of a triage nurse that it was discovered the man was not breathing. Soon thereafter, he was pronounced dead.

The medical center issued a statement after conducting an internal investigation and stated that it had proper polices and procedures in place, but staff members may not have followed the protocol. The statement also mentioned that "appropriate disciplinary actions are being taken." As they should be.

In response to this tragic and despicable episode, Medicare officials are threatening to take away the hospital's certification. University of Chicago Medical Center has publicly acknowledged the warning and has responded that it is already drafting a plan to assure that there will not be another incident like this in the future. The hospital also noted that the threat is "standard procedure" any time an incident like this occurs. It is unfortunate that these incidents happen with such regularity that a "standard procedure" threatening decertification even exists. It is absolutely reprehensible that this man died in the manner in which he did. To be ignored in his moment of need is irresponsible and disgraceful. My heart goes out to this man and his family.

Continue reading "CHICAGO AREA HOSPITAL IN DANGER OF LOSING MEDICARE CERTIFICATION" »

The Medical Device Safety Act, HR 1346/S 540, restores the law that was in effect prior to February of 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the FDA's approval of a medical device warrants immunity for medical device manufacturers. The Supreme Court's decision means that medical device manufacturers are not fully held accountable for producing dangerous and defective products.

I have previously blogged about my concerns over immunity for big business. Immunity removes the right to fully compensate tort victims and it removes the checks and balances system that the civil justice system creates.

The United States Supreme Court held 6-3 today that FDA regulations do not trump state law to the contrary and that state-law tort claims are not preempted by the FDA’s approval of labeling after being informed of the relevant risk.

As previously blogged about, Diana Levine lost her arm due to complications after being given the anti-nausea medication Phenergan, manufactured by pharmaceutical giant, Wyeth, incorrectly. Levine sued Wyeth in a Vermont state court and was awarded over $6 million in a jury trial. This verdict was upheld by both the state appellate and supreme courts. Wyeth then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the drug’s labeling and warnings were FDA-approved and that FDA regulations trump state laws to the contrary.

The Supreme Court ruled against Wyeth today, holding that the FDA's oversight of drug labeling doesn't prevent the filing of state-level consumer liability lawsuits against drug companies. So what does this mean? This is a victory for American consumers. The Supreme Court has allowed consumers to retain their remedy under the law when drug companies fail to provide adequate warnings for the safe use of their drugs. And as Levine's lawyer noted, this decision "reaffirms the important role state law plays in promoting consumer safety and providing compensation for injuries." To read the full court opinion, please click here.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is on the rise among children. MRSA used to be primarily contracted in a hospital setting; however, now its prevalence is on the rise in community-based settings. Nationwide Trends in Pediatric Staphylococcus aureus Head and Neck Infections, a study published in the Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, shows that from January 2001 to December 2006 there was a 16.3 percent increase in the percentage of resistance for all pediatric head and neck S. aureus infections.

Good hygiene helps reduce the spread of infection. Suggestions include:

• Wash hands thoroughly with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

• Cuts and scrapes should be cleaned and covered with a bandage until they heal.

• Avoid contact with other people's wounds.

• Avoid sharing personal items such as towels or, for older teens and adults, razors

Research shows that the number of cases is increasing at alarming rates. Part of the problem is an increased resistance to the antibiotics used to treat MRSA. Doctors are also recognizing and testing for MRSA more often.

The infection usually starts with red bumps resembling pimples. The site can become swollen.

A Department of Justice special court will hand down rulings today in cases asking whether certain vaccines cause autism in children.

Parents in three test cases which were heard in 2007 alleged that exposure to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative which is found in some some vaccines, combined with the MMR (measels, mumps, rubella) vaccine caused autism in their children. The government defended by aruging that the parents' claims were not supported by "good science." Presently, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Institute of Medicine have found no credible link between vaccinations and autism.

Today's ruling will affect only families that claim MMR vaccines and thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to cause autism. Families who have claimed that thimerosal-containing vaccines alone or that MMR vaccines alone can cause autism will be unaffected by today's decision.

Since 2001, thousands of parents with autistic children have filed petitions seeking compensation with Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at the Department of Health and Human Services. By mid-2008, more than 5,300 cases were filed in the program, 5,000 of which await adjudication.

The University of Chicago (U of C) is in the midst of a major restructuring that includes a plan for changing how it admits emergency room patients. Along with 450 layoffs, the emergency room may decline to accept every illness and injury under its new Urban Health Initiative plan The decision involves a new version of patient triage, essentially weeding out the individuals who could be treated elsewhere.

Costs are the driving force behind the change. According to the medical center, 40% of the 80,000 patients who go to its emergency room every year do not need to be there. The medical center says that these patients could be treated at community hospitals (whose costs are 30 to 40 percent lower than the U of C). These visits cost the hospital tens of millions of dollars a year. Additionally, the hospital has seen a rising number of uninsured patients and those covered by Medicaid.

I see the value in a plan for individuals to seek treatment at a facility that is appropriate for the level of their injury. Obviously, not every cut calls for emergency room treatment. However, the concern is that patients may not get the care that they need. It is concerning to think that people will be turned away. "This is tricky," said Jim Unland, president of The Health Capital Group, a consulting firm based in Chicago. "If patients really need to be in an ER and the U of C is turning them away, I have a problem with that."

Continue reading "UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO BUDGET CUTS: IS TURNING AWAY PATIENTS FROM THE ER DOING NO HARM?" »

Government advisers are recommending a ban on Darvon, a painkiller that has been on the market for fifty years. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel voted 14-12 last Friday to recommend withdrawing Darvon after a hearing on its risks and benefits.

Darvon, which is mainly marketed as Darvocet, is one of the top 25 most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. The drug was first approved in 1957 when there were few alternatives for pain except aspirin and powerful narcotics.

At least one consumer group, Public Citizen, has petitioned the FDA to ban Darvon because the drug offers weak pain relief and poses an overdose risk, with the potential to be used in suicides.

According to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, when surgical teams performed a simple checklist prior to surgery, patient morality rates were cut nearly in half and complications fell by more than a third.

The study involved 7,688 patients in 8 hospitals around the globe and reported that death rates declined from 1.5% before the checklist was instituted to 0.8% afterwards. Serious complications fell from 11% to 7%.

The checklist was comprised of nineteen tasks to be performed throughout the surgery - seven before anesthetizing the patient, seven just before the first incision, and five before the patient leaves the operating room. Basic safety tasks, such as whether enough blood was available in case of bleeding, made up another six items on the checklist.

Doctors disagree on what the results of this study mean. Some are skeptical and characterize the behavioral change as "trivial," while others think that the net effect makes for more effective teamwork which can help save lives. Whether the changes can be sustained over time, however, is another question. A phenomenon known as the "Hawthorne effect" may be largely responsible for the checklist's success. The Hawthorne effect was named for a series of experiments designed to determine how to increase productivity in a factory in Chicago. All of the tactics implemented improved worker output during the experiment, but researchers realized that the effect they were really measuring was a boost in motivation among workers who knew they were being watched. With this most recent surgery checklist, however, researchers checked whether teams behaved differently when the researchers were present and when they were not and luckily found no difference.

As a result of the study findings, the U.K's national Health Service sent out an alert to all of its hospitals, calling on them to implement the surgical checklist. Five U.S. states (New York, Washington, North Carolina, South Carolina and Indiana) have endorsed it and plan to require hospitals to use it. We will hopefully see Illinois follow suit in the near future.

A new study suggests that doctors don't always report incompetent or impaired colleagues, even though almost all think they should. The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is believed to be the first of its kind. Researchers evaluated the extent to which doctors support and adhere to professional standards. More than 3,500 doctors were surveyed for the study.

Of the 1,662 doctors who responded, 96% said physicians should always report colleagues who are impaired, incompetent, or make a medical mistake. However, of those who had direct knowledge of peer incompetence within the past three years, only 55% made a report.

Cardiologists, pediatricians, family practitioners, surgeons, internists, and anesthesiologists were among the specialists surveyed. Those least likely to report a fellow doctor for incompetence were cardiologists and practitioners. According to the CEO of the American College of Cardiology, Jack Lewin, cardiologists may be more apt to deal with problems within their practice since they tend to practice in groups. He also said many doctors may avoid reporting colleagues for fear of being sued.

Within the legal world, this environment may contribute to the significant difficulty finding physicians who are willing to testify against their peers in a court of law. If they won't report them to the appropriate medical oversight agencies, testifying against them in a public forum is even more unlikely.

There is no question that there needs to be some kind of whistleblower protection for doctors so that they no longer fear reporting colleagues. There needs to be accountability for doctors who make medical mistakes. If they won't report each other, who will report them?

Continue reading "DOCTORS DON'T ALWAYS REPORT THEIR INCOMPETENT PEERS" »

Two recent studies show that many patients are scheduling when their babies will be born, through elective induction of labor or early planned cesarean section, increasing the risk of medical complications to mother and baby. Induction is the artificial start of labor through the use of medications. A recent study looking at 17,000 induced Scottish births revealed that more than 25% were elective, showing no apparent medical reason. However, such unnatural initiation of labor has risks and should be reserved where there is a true need to deliver early or on a date certain. Risks of induction of labor include an increased need for cesarean delivery, increased risk of infection, prolonged labor and hospitalization, and increased chance of the newborn requiring additional medical treatment. There are medical reasons where inducing labor is recommended for the safety of mom and/or baby. However, without a medical indication, any benefit of delivering on a certain date is outweighed by the risks inherent with unnaturally starting labor. Induction of labor should be reserved for situations of necessity, not convenience.

Another rush to delivery relates to planned, repeat cesarean sections. A recent study found they were being performed too early. The U.S. study found that 36% of planned cesarean births were performed before 39 weeks gestation. Such early, planned deliveries are most likely being driven by convenience. However, like induction, research reveals risks associated with rushing to delivery without a medical need. Specifically, babies born before 39 weeks "are at increased risk for birth-related health problems." The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) recommends that planned cesarean sections should not be performed before 39 weeks absent a medical need, unless there is evidence that the baby's lungs are sufficiently mature. As the author of the editorial accompanying the study noted, "many doctors and their patients are running a yellow light if not a red light" when electing to deliver before 39 weeks. Rather, the "window of safety" is now considered smaller, with the optimal time for planned C-section to be within a week of the due date.

Just last week the ECRI Institute published its annual top ten major health technology hazards that should be on every hospital's list of safety concerns. The list is based on the Institute's experience in investigating and consulting on device-related incidents, as well as on information found in the Institute's medical device problem reporting databases and in other problem reporting databases.

The top ten hazards include the following:
1. ALARM HAZARDS: Clinical alarms can be instrumental in preventing patient injury or death, but if the alarm conditions aren't effectively communicated, patients are at risk. The ECRI Institute placed alarm hazards as the number one hazard because alarm issues are among the problems most frequently reported to the Institute. The variety of affected equipment is considerable - reports involve patient monitoring equipment, ventilators, dialysis units and other devices.

2. NEEDLE STICKS & OTHER SHARPS INJURIES: Consequences from getting stuck can range from serious cuts to exposure to HIV or Hepatis B or C.

3. AIR EMBOLISM FROM CONTRAST MEDIA INJECTORS: The x-ray imaging of blood vessels requires that contrast media be injected into the patient's blood vessels. To improve the control and precision of injection, power contrast media injectors have increasingly replaced handheld syringes in recent years. Unfortuantely, injecting contrast media into the blood vessels creates the risk of injecting air, which may potentially result in a fatal embolism.

4. RETAINED DEVICES & UNRETRIEVED FRAGMENTS: The FDA and ECRI Institute receive reorts of foreign bodies left inside patients following treatment. Retained devices refers to an entire device being left behind in a patient's body (such as a sponge or clamp). Unretrieved device fragments refers to situations in which a protion of device breaks away from the whole and remins inside the patient. Retention of these objects can sometimes lead to serious infection or damage to the surrounding tissue.

5. SURGICAL FIRES: Most surgical fires can be avoided as long as surgical staff are trained to recognize and control the three elements that combine to cause fires: ignition source, oxygen, and fuel.

6. ANESTHESIA HAZARDS DUE TO INADEQUATE PRE-USE INSPECTION: Inspection of anesthesia equipment is often inconsistent and incomplete. Hospital staff sometimes conduct pre-use checks using obsolete procedures or procedures designed for models other than the one being used. Staff may also skip a protion of the inspection, which leaves the safety of the anesthesia system in question and increases the risk of patient injury or death.

7. MISLEADING DISPLAYS: The sole fucntion of displays, which are often built into a variety of medical devices to convey information, is to inform the user. However, some displays are ambiguous or counterintuitive. While they may function as designed, these displays present information in ways that invite misinterpretation.

8. CT RADIATION DOSE: CT is thought to be responsible for about 6,000 additional cancers a year, roughtly half of them fatal.

9. MR IMAGING BURNS: Heating during an MR scan can ocur, so it's importatnt that patients tell the MR technologist to signal if they feel undue heat during the scan.

10. FIBEROPTIC LIGHT-SOURCE BURNS: Fiberoptice light sources are designed to illuminate treatment sites through a number of devices. There are two burn hazards in particular that are commonly reported - burns from the light itself and burns from heated cable connections.

In an effort to prevent these accidents, the ECRI Institute includes a number of recommended tips for hospital staff. For you and your family, consider this top ten list the best reasons to do your best to stay out of the hospital!

Continue reading "TOP TEN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY HAZARDS" »

According to a new study which will be published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, at least 2 million older Americans are taking a combination of medications or supplements that can be a risky mix. The study found that one in ten older men are taking potentially harmful combination. The study notes that while the results aren't always or even necessarily disastrous, older people are more vulnerable to side effects and drug-to-drug interactions.

The study notes three commonly used and risky combinations:
* Lisinopril, a blood pressure medication, taken in conjunction with potassium. The combination of these two drugs can cause abnormal heart rhythms.
* Prescription cholesterol drugs ("statins") taken in conjunction with over-the-counter niacin, a type of vitamin B that also lowers cholesterol. This combination can increase the risk of muscle damage.
* Aspirin taking in conjunction with over-the-counter ginkgo supplements. The combination of these two over-the-counter remedies increases the chances for excess bleeding.

Experts advise that you should ask your doctor about any side effects of prescription drugs and inform your doctor before taking other medicines. Similarly, doctors should closely monitor what their patients are taking and advise their patients on potential interactions. Taking multiple medications, despite possible bad interactiosn, isn't necessarily a bad idea as long as patients are in close contact with their doctor.

Continue reading "ALERT YOUR DOCTOR TO ALL MEDICATIONS" »

Celebrity Dennis Quaid and his wife, Kimberly, have accepted a $750,000 settlement from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Quaid's twin babies, Zoe and Thomas, were being treated at Cedars-Sinai in November 2007 for staph infections when an employee accidentally administered dosages of heparin, a blood thinner, that were 1,000 times the recommended amounts for newborns. Thankfully, both children fully recovered. The California Department of Public Health later fined Cedars-Sinai $25,000 for multiple failures to adhere to established policies and procedures for safe medication use.

The Quaids remain involved with a lawsuit against Baxter Healthcare Corporation, the manufacturer of heparin, alleging negligently labled medication bottles. The settlement with Cedars-Sinai has no effect on this pending lawsuit.

Continue reading "DENNIS QUAID ACCEPTS A SETTLEMENT FROM L.A. HOSPITAL" »

Bedside manner is important to patients. You want your doctor to care about you and your medical needs and to understand how you feel, especially in the event that you have a potentially fatal disease. On prime-time medical television shows, such as, Grey's Anatomy and ER, the doctors are often deeply affected by the diagnoses they are making and they "put themselves in the shoes" of their patients. In reality, there is only a 10 percent chance that a patient with a deadly disease will get an empathetic response from a doctor.

In a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine named, "Missed Opportunities for Interval Empathy in Lung Cancer Communication" by Dr. Diane S. Morse and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center, the researchers analyzed twenty recorded and transcribed consultations between lung cancer patients and nine physicians. Of the 384 opportunities to provide empathy, physicians responded with empathy 10 percent of the time.

Surgical fires in the operating room affect between 550 and 650 patients a year. Twenty to thirty of these victims will suffer serious, disfiguring burns while one or two of these patients will die. This information comes from the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System, which is collecting this data for the first time ever.

These types of medical errors are almost always preventable. What needs to occur is better training and communication. The nation’s doctors, nurses and others in the operating room need to be trained in basic steps to keep fires from happening and hold surgical fire drills to make sure the appropriate steps are undertaken. Fewer than half of the hospitals in the United States conduct operating room drills to prevent and control fires.

The chief focus of this training should be between the surgeon and the anaesthesiologist. Common sense tells us that the three primary elements needed to ignite a fire in an operating room are heat, air and fuel. With seventy percent of the surgical fires occurring due to electrical surgical tools known as Bovies, a device that uses a high-frequency electric current to cut tissue or stop bleeding, the communication between the surgeon and anaesthesiologist is of the utmost importance.

Some have taken steps to prevent surgical fires, including discontinuing oxygen face masks, lowering oxygen levels and requiring staff to implement checklists for the prevention of steps before the procedures are actually undertaken. This is a favorable step in preventing an operating room mishap.

Continue reading "OPERATING ROOM FIRES ON THE RISE " »

On October 2, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a mother whose fifteen-year-old son died of a drug overdose can pursue a wrongful death lawsuit alleging wilful and wanton misconduct by paramedics from the City of Park Ridge. Jo Ann Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge, Docket No. 104935. The trial and appellate courts had ruled that the City of Park Ridge was shielded from liability based on the State’s Tort Immunity Law for Municipalities. The Illinois Supreme Court determined that based on the facts this case, the lawsuit could proceed under a less restrictive law covering emergency medical services. The Illinois Supreme Court noted that the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act, 210 ILCS 50/3.150(a) applied to the death of the young boy and not the absolute immunity that the City of Park Ridge claimed under the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101.

This ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court, although based on the particular facts of this case, will allow lawsuits to proceed against paramedics where there are situations, like here, when they fail to assess or examine a person appropriately. This lawsuit is favorable to consumers, however, it is on a very fact-sensitive basis. Most municipalities will claim that they are immune from lawsuits based on the Tort Immunity Act. Of course, each case needs to be evaluated based on its particular facts.

Continue reading "A WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT AGAINST PARAMEDICS ALLOWED TO PROCEED" »

The average time that patients wait in a hospital emergency room has grown from 38 minutes to almost an hour over the course of the last decade. The increase in visits made to the U.S. emergency rooms is 32% over the last ten years. Unfortunately, the number of hospital emergency departments have dropped. Obviously, with the number of emergency room visits increasing and the number of emergency departments decreasing, this spells a recipe for disaster for patients.

This is troubling news for consumers. This clearly identifies that people in need of medical care are being delayed, including people suffering from heart disease, heart attacks or other life threatening situations that require immediate care. Fifty six minutes can, literally, be a life and death situation for someone in the emergency room. These types of delays will inevitably expose hospitals and their emergency rooms to litigation in the future.

Coincidentally, the findings also demonstrated that summer and winter were the busiest seasons in the emergency rooms and the early evening, around 7:00 p.m., tended to be the busiest time of the day.

Continue reading "WAIT TIME IN EMERGENCY ROOM ON RISE" »

This fall, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1294 . Diana Levine was using a drug company’s anti-nausea drug (Phenergan) which resulted in serious complications and, ultimately, the amputation of her arm. A Vermont jury awarded her $6.7 million dollars, concluded that the drug manufacturer had failed to warn of the risks associated with the drug. Wyeth is contending that the drug met FDA labeling requirements and should face no liability under state law. The drug company is arguing that the Federal Drug Administration’s authority to approve drug labeling pre-empt’s state laws governing products liability.

First and foremost, allowing the preemption argument would eliminate a significant incentive for the drug company to ensure that its drug labels reflect accurate and up to date information. It would all but eliminate any type of failure to warn product liability litigation against the drug companies.

As one reporter noted "The FDA does not have the ability at this time to oversee in a comprehensive fashion everything it regulates.” If the FDA’s position is adopted by the Supreme Court, it would eliminate any incentive for the drug company to ensure that its drug labels reflect accurate and up to date information. Who gets hurt? The answer is: the consumers. Without such lawsuits, regulators and the public may never hear of evidence that the drug manufacturers knowingly marketed products that were unsafe or untested . . . until it is too late and another senseless death or catastrophic injury occurs.

Continue reading "ARE PATIENT’S RIGHTS AGAINST DRUG COMPANIES IN JEOPARDY?" »

It seems like everywhere you go you hear people complain that there are too many lawsuits and that lawyers are running doctors out of practice. That is the perception that the insurance industry is trying to manifest. The fact is, however, that the Illinois tort system does NOT appear to be the cause of the undisputed rise in doctor’s liability insurance premiums. According to an Illinois State Bar Association-commissioned study by Neil Vidmar, a professor at Duke University Law School, the data show no upward trends in filings overall or in filings per 100 treating physicians from 1994 through 2004. In fact, medical malpractice filings from 2000 through 2004 were substantially lower than in 1994 and 1995. Significantly, while there was a modest increase in medical malpractice case filings between 1996 and 2004, when adjusted for the growth in physicians who treat patients, there is no evidence of a medical malpractice claims increase.

Continue reading "MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN ILLINOIS" »

As a medical malpractice attorney in Chicago, it was not surprising to hear that medication errors are among the most common causes of medical mistakes, harming at least 1.5 million people every year states a July 2006 report from the Institute of Medicine. Now, for the first time ever, the mortality rates of Illinois hospitals are available to the general public from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) .

This is good news for Chicagoland residents as they can now review hospital mortality rates for heart attacks, heart failures and pneumonia. This type of information allows patients to make educated decisions when seeking quality healthcare. As a consumer, I support the government’s efforts to provide us with more healthcare information. It was also refreshing to see that several area hospitals appeared on multiple “lowest” mortality rates. Unfortunately, three Illinois hospitals had mortality rates for pneumonia which were higher than the national average. Arguably, some of these needless deaths resulted from substandard medical care.

Continue reading "MORTALITY RATES FOR CHICAGOLAND HOSPITALS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC" »