Recently in Medical Malpractice Category

Pro sport physicians claim that fear of malpractice suits make it harder for them to practice medicine.

Former Chicago Bears running back Merril Hoge was awarded a $1.55 million jury verdict after suing Bears team physician Dr. John Munsell, according to the New York Times. He suffered a concussion, as is common in pro football, but blamed the doctor for mistreatment that led to more serious injuries.

Merril Hoge's Chicago accident attorney may have done wonders for his client, but critics say an uptick in malpractice suits are driving qualified physicians away from the once-prestigious job.

In fact, a whole slew of concussion-related lawsuits are being filed against team doctors of professional football teams. In many of the cases, though, the doctors claim they often warn against playing in games or practicing until after symptoms have cleared.

The Sherman Hospital in Elgin, along with a doctor, and a nurse midwife's employer, will pay a $9.5 million settlement to end a lawsuit linked to the 1996 birth of a boy who developed cerebral palsy, the Chicago Tribune reported. The settlement reportedly was reached through the alternative dispute resolution format known as mediation.

Retired Cook County Judge and mediator Daniel Localla told reporters he agreed to the settlement on April 15:

"I thought it was a good settlement for both sides. There was a lot of money at stake but at the same time, the jury could have found the hospital not guilty."

The possibility of medical malpractice causing serious, irreversible injuries of a newborn child is every new parent's worst nightmare. That nightmare became a reality for the Gurnee-based Arroyo family in 2003, whose son became a quadriplegic as a result of medical malpractice during his delivery, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. Stories of medical malpractice like this one makes any parent worry about their own children's safety.

Seven difficult years and countless court proceedings later, the Arroyos have been awarded $22.6 million dollars by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve; on top of a $6.5 million dollar settlement reached with the hospital in 2009.

In the unfortunate event of a serious injury or illness, it's always nice to hear the doctor's diagnosis and a full explanation of the various options for treatment. It's also the law. Understanding what's going on and giving doctors the green light for treatment is called "informed consent," as explained by FindLaw:

The information must be in plain language terms that can readily be understood and in sufficient amounts such that a patient is able to make an "informed" decision about his or her health care.

But if a physician performs a procedure, prescribes drugs, or otherwise practices without informed consent from the patient, he or she can be sued for malpractice or even charged with a criminal offense. Often such situations are charged as "battery," since technically the plaintiff has been touched in an unauthorized way. 

After being hit with nearly 50 medical malpractice lawsuits claiming botched Lasik eye surgeries, the Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulation banned Dr. Nicholas Caro from performing the corrective eye surgery in the state, the Chicago Tribune reports. Lasik changes the shape of the eye to improve the vision of nearsighted individuals, as explained by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Tribune reported on the flood of lawsuits against Dr. Caro in July. Nicholas Pucek's allegedly botched procedure by Dr. Caro left him with even worse vision than before the surgery, but he received a settlement in excess of $800,000 with the help of an Illinois injury attorney.  

Mr. Pucek was reluctant to give too many details to reporters due to the terms of the settlement, but had this to say:

"Ten years later I still have headaches when I read and I'm not able to do some of the things I was able to do prior to the Lasik surgery."

In a ruling that likely will please most Illinois injury attorneys, the state Supreme Court struck down an Illinois medical malpractice law that caps damages at $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million in cases against hospitals, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Attorneys, employers, health care industry executives and other interested parties had been eagerly anticipating the ruling, in which state Justices decided that the 2005 law violates the separation of powers (PDF, Illinois Supreme Court).  

Other states, including California, passed similar laws capping malpractice lawsuit damages several years ago. But Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald, writing for the majority, dismissed precedent from other states in his written opinion:

"That 'everybody is doing it' is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute."

A medical malpractice lawsuit against Little Company of Mary Hospital on behalf of deceased West Lawn resident Patricia Quirk was dismissed in return for a $7.5 million settlement (Sun-Times). Quirk died of a perforated bowel in 2004, which the suit claimed was due to a dangerously high dose of radiation.

Surviving husband Thomas Quirk would rather have his wife back, but the multimillion-dollar settlement is a Cook County record for a wrongful death suit of an adult with no minor children, the plaintiff's attorney told reporters.

It's tempting to just blame the astounding year-over-year increases in the cost of health care (and by extension, health insurance) on medical malpractice lawyers. After all, the high cost of physicians' malpractice insurance policies is based on the likelihood of legal action by injured patients.

Many Chicagoans no doubt have heard impassioned calls for tort reform within the larger context of health care reform, which would make it more difficult to file such suits.

Supporters of tort reform, usually the same politicians, radio personalities, columnists and others who staunchly oppose current health care reform efforts, have a point.

But does this perspective hold water?

We live in a society where just about everyone takes at least one prescription medication, often for conditions that could have been prevented through different lifestyle choices. It's probably no coincidence that we're regularly bombarded with flashy pharmaceutical ads on television, but America's obsession with prescriptions (The Medical News) may be a bigger concern than illicit drugs.

But when a cocktail of potentially dangerous drugs is prescribed by a doctor and dispensed by a pharmacist, who's to blame? 

Pharmaceutical heavyweight AstraZeneca did nothing illegal by paying Chicago-based psychiatrist Dr. Michael Reinstein $490,000 (Tribune) over 10 years to promote its wildly successful antipsychotic drug Seroquel, but it certainly raises some ethical eyebrows. He not only promoted the wonder drug but also conducted research on thousands of mentally ill patients in nursing homes throughout the Chicago area.

But other physicians, along with some patients, started questioning his application of the drug and some of his claims. Other patients and employees at the nursing homes Dr. Reinstein frequented suspected he was not paying attention to their side effects.

He even told one patient, who sought treatment after suffering a nervous breakdown, that Seroquel would help her lose weight. South Side resident Chanile Hayes was 140 pounds at the time, but she more than doubled her weight after two years of taking the drug. Now she is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against AstraZeneca for allegedly concealing the drug's links to weight gain and even diabetes, with a similar suit filed in Orlando, Fla.