Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyers Blog

Published on: March 19, 2009

Richardson Death Sheds Light On The Reality Of Brain Injuries

Yesterday 45 year-old actress Natasha Richardson died tragically after she sustained a brain injury in what has been reported as a minor fall on a Quebec ski slope. It has been reported in some media outlets that her brain become swollen after she sustained a shearing injury caused by whiplash type forces during her fall down.

While her autopsy has not been made public and we have no direct knowledge of the facts surrounding her death, the fact that what at first seemed to be a relatively minor injury resulted in tragedy is not an unfamiliar circumstance. We have represented many brain injured clients who have suffered their injuries as a result of what at first seemed like mundane every day trauma.

In 2005 Goldberg & Goldberg, LLC hired a world renowned expert on vestibular function to measure shearing forces on the brain and theorize on how they translate to brain injuries.. Our expert’s reseach compared the relatively mundane forces that the brain experiences daily during activities of normal living to excessive forces on the brain that occur in activities like roller coaster riding or piloting a jet fighter. What we learned was extraordinary. Force on the brain cannot be measured on a linear axis. The head and brain moves rotationally on a 360 degress plane. The body cannot compensate for some of these more unusual head movements that at first glance seem ordinary. As a result tremendous shearing forces can injury the brain. This research has really helped us learn and understand the mechanisms of head injuries.

Published on: March 18, 2009

The Jury On Facebook

By Ian R. Alexander

There is little doubt that technology has changed the way we communicate with each other. In the past several years social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter have allowed ordinary citizens to connect with one another in extraordinary ways. Trial Lawyers have always been concerned with influence outside information might have on jurors who are actively deliberating important matters in trial courts. At the intersection of the courtroom and technology we are confronted with an Interesting phenomenon. Facebook musings and tweets are now coming to you straight from inside the jury room.

In Philadelphia a juror on a major capitol murder case announced to Facebook that everyone “should stay tuned for a big announcement” before a verdict was announced in a trial that lasted more then five months. This is not an isolated incident. Apparently people are tweeting and facebooking live from the courthouse everyday.

Technology is a part of everyone’s life. People feel compelled to share the most intimate details of their personal lives with people they hardly know over the internet. It should come as no suprise that jurors are sharing the details of the courtroom online. The question for judges and lawyers is how do we deal with this. We live in interesting times.

Published on: March 18, 2009

Obama Names New 7th Circuit Judge

By Ian R. Alexander

President Obama has nominated Indiana judge, David F. Hamilton, to an opening on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This is our new presidents first appointment to the bench. Hamilton is currently a federal district judge in Indianapolis. He previously served as counsel to U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) when Bayh was governor of Indiana.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court that has jurisdiction over appeals of matters that occur in the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The court is located in The Everett Dirkson Federal Building and is composed of eleven judges. The current Chief Judge is Frank H. Easterbrook who was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan.

Hamilton’s nomination was praised by consumer advocates. “David Hamilton is an ideal choice for this seat,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. “Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a willingness to put principle ahead of politics and bring an open mind to every case.”

Published on: March 17, 2009

Chicago Medical Malpractice – Wrongful Death Damages

By Ian R. Alexander

Survivors of a victim of a wrongful death that occured before May 31, 2007 in Illinois were limited under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act to recover only pecuniary loses completely discounting the survivors grief from consideration. Pecunary loss includes the loss of benefit of the decedent’s love, affection, care, attention, companionship, guidance and protection. Now an amendment to the act allows the recovery of grief, sorrow and mental suffering of the survivors of a wrongful death.

Grief, sorrow and mental suffering have long been recognized in medicine as scientifically based components of the anguish associated with the loss of a loved one. The law now more accurately reflects the actual loses sustained by the survivors of a wrongful death.

Published on: March 16, 2009

Kentucky Jury Awards $2.5 Million

By Ian R. Alexander

A Kentucky jury awarded a married couple $2.5 million dollars when their medical malpractice lawsuit went to verdict last week.

In 2001, Sophia Savage underwent a hysterectomy at a Kentucky hospital. During the surgery her doctors left behind a sponge which was not discovered until 2005. Doctors discovered the sponge after she complained of pain.

The sponge lodged itself in her lower intestine, requiring her surgeon to remove 49 centimeters of her bowel when the sponge was removed.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 6, 2009

Doctors Silencing Patients: Is This A Disturbing New Trend?

By Ian R. Alexander

Websites like Angie’s List offer online reviews on all types of service providers, including doctors. It is undeniable that the internet provides a broad forum for public discussion, good and bad, that is very powerful. If a search engine like Google gets a hold of negative information, even if it is untrue, it is next to impossible to have that information removed from the internet. Nevertheless, the internet has made individual consumers a powerful force in the marketplace, through the power of the keyboard and mouse.

Doctors, concerned about the adverse effect of negative online publicity, have now taken to the practice of requiring patients to sign agreements not to post online performance reviews of their physicians. An online company owned by physicians is charging doctors $1500 to learn how to implement this strategy into their practice.

Why the Taliban-style approach to information management? Doctors are panicked by the prosepect of litigation. Are these Draconian attempts to stifle free speech even enforceable? Doubtful, but still unresolved. Luckily, we still have the something called the First Ammendment.

Published on: March 5, 2009

Further Evidence That Tort Reform Does Not Work

By Goldberg & Goldberg

Here in Illinois the legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2005. The MMRA caps damages and contains other relief that benefits nobody but the state’s insurance companies.

In neighboring Indiana they have tort reform also. Claimants are required to present their cases to a medical review board composed of “independent” doctors. These doctors pass judgement on the merits of a case before a plaintiff can file suit. The cost in terms of time and money is an onerous one for litigants who have been legitimately injured by a physician or hospital.

Case in point, the estate of an Indiana woman received an award from an Indiana Malpractice review panel that has taken almost 5 years to reach a decision in his case. The matter involves Indiana doctor Mark Weinberger who gained noteriety several years ago when he fled the country to avoid his creditors and malpractice claims. The victory is bittersweet in that Indiana law has allowed bankers to get to Dr. Mark Weinberger’s assets before his patient, who will now have to wage another legal battle in hope of receiving a judgment capped by tort reform laws at $1.25 million.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 2, 2009

Saying Sorry

By Goldberg & Goldberg

Often times when we meet with new clients in our Chicago office they tell us that they are most upset about the fact that no one has ever said they are sorry after a tragic event occurs. Lawyers and insurance companies have for years advised their doctor clients to deny and defend. The rationale behind this behavior is an attempt to foil these patients from filing claims or costly lawsuits. This behavior is contrary to what most of us learn at an early age, taking responsibility for ones actions and showing empathy is better than running away from the truth.

Malcolm Gladstone in his book Blink acknowledged this behavior and cited an interesting study that showed that when a doctor apologized for a mistake his patients were less likely to pursue legal action. Gladstone makes a very important point. People just dont sue doctors that they like. He cites work by medical researcher Wendy Levinson who recorded hundreds of conversations between a group of physicians and their patients. Roughly half of the doctors had never been sued. The other half had been sued at least twice, and Levinson found that just on the basis of those conversations, she could find clear differences between the two groups. The surgeons who had never been sued spent more than three minutes longer with each patient than those who had been sued did (18.3 minutes versus 15 minutes). They were more likely to make “orienting” comments, such as “First I’ll examine you, and then we will talk the problem over” or “I will leave time for your questions”–which help patients get a sense of what the visit is supposed to accomplish and when they ought to ask questions. They were more likely to engage in active listening, saying such things as “Go on, tell me more about that,” and they were far more likely to laugh and be funny during the visit. Interestingly, there was no difference in the amount or quality of information they gave their patients; they didn’t provide more details about medication or the patient’s condition. The difference was entirely in how they talked to their patients.

Thirty-five states have passed laws making expressions of apology within the first month-or-so after an incident occurs inadmissable in a civil lawsuit for malpractice. With apology legislation mistakes have now become teaching opportunities as opposed to adversarial situations. This allows patients to understand the situation, find answers and assure that justice is served.

Published on: March 2, 2009

The Malpractice Crisis

By Goldberg & Goldberg

As Chicago Medical Malpractice trial lawyers we are often confronted by people that cite the Medical Malpractice crisis in Chicago, Illinois and nationwide as the primary reason for escalating health care costs. People believe that medical malpractice lawsuits have resulted in escalating health insurance premiums due to an increase in lawsuit payouts by doctors and their insurance companies. This is a fiction advanced by Illinois insurance companies in the hopes of generating support for self serving caps on damages awards that do nothing except help protect profits for big business.

The truth behind the facts cited by the insurance industry and physicians is startling when the facts are actually exposed. Medical Malpractice claims in Chicago and throughout Illinois have been decreasing over the past five years. According to public data filed by ISMIE, the states largest malpractice insurer, In 2004, ISMIE paid 10 percent less in total claims than it did in 2003. The average amount ISMIE paid on a claim in 2004 was 20 percent less than in 2003 and less than the average amount in 2002. In 2004, the difference between the amount of premium dollars taken in and the amount paid out in claims was about $270 million. That means Illinois Physicians paid the insurance company $270 million dollars more in 2004 that was necessary to cover claims expenses. Even counting ISMIE’s overhead and other expenses that amount equals a staggering profit for the insurance company.

Caps on damages, the remedy contained in the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2005, are championed by supporters as the way to lower doctor’s premiums and return these savings to the patient. This has not been the case in other states where this type of tort reform legislation has been the law. California is the best proof of why caps on damages don’t lower premiums, while insurance reform does. In 1986, after a decade of caps on damages, California was once again mired in an insurance crisis, with medical malpractice premiums rising at a rate of 26 percent annually. Malpractice premiums increased 120% during the first 12 years after the enactment of the MICRA cap. Proposition 103, a ballot initiative passed by California voters in 1988, enacted the strongest insurance rate regulation in the nation. This law resulted in a rate freeze, a rate rollback, allowed doctors and consumer groups to appeal rate approval and enacted stringent regulation that reduced premiums in all lines of insurance.
Even if caps did lower premiums, ISMIE has said that a cap on damages would at best lower premiums 20 percent several years from now. But reducing the premiums 20 percent would not even reduce them to the level they were in 2002 before the huge rate increase in 2003 that supposedly caused the “crisis.”

Continue reading →

Published on: February 27, 2009

Big Pharma Conceals Connection Between Seroquel and Diabetes

By Goldberg & Goldberg

Bloomberg News is reporting that drug maker, AstraZeneca has concealed unfavorable studies linking the prescription drug Seroquel to Diabetes. Emails turned over as part of litigation related to the drug Seroquel have revealed that AstraZeneca “buried” studies with bad outcomes.

More than 15,000 people have filed lawsuits claiming the drug maker failed to warn its users of the connection between the antipsychotic drug and diabetes. These lawsuits also claim that AstraZeneca promoted off label uses for the drug beyond the purpose for which the drug was approved by the FDA.

The first Seroquel trial is set to begin in April in Deleware state court.