R. v. Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital

On April 8, 2003, Plaintiff underwent a radical open anterior and posterior slovenectomy for a rare knee disease. She underwent the surgery at VHS Subsidiary Number 3, Inc. d/b/a Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital. The surgery was performed by the attending physician, who was not an employee of VHS Subsidiary Number 3, Inc. d/b/a Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital. The Plaintiff and her expert did not contend that the attending was liable for compartment syndrome, which was a risk of the procedure. Upon examination immediately following surgery, Plaintiff had no complications and a normal neurovascular status. Into the night of April 8, 2003 and morning of April 9, 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly complained of pain below her knee and in her foot and had an abnormal neurovascular status. In response to her complaints, she was given repeated doses of pain medication and her dosage of medication was increased. Moreover, two resident physicians were contacted by the nursing staff but did not come into the hospital to examine Plaintiff. Attending Physician was never contacted about Plaintiff’s complaints or abnormal neurovascular status. Upon examination by the attending physician, at around 6:30 AM, Plaintiff was diagnosed to have compartment syndrome. Shortly thereafter, the attending physician performed a fasciotomy surgery to treat the compartment syndrome by relieving the pressure caused by the compartment syndrome. In the weeks following the initial fasciotomy surgery, Plaintiff required several debridements due to necrotic muscle and tissue below her knee. As a result of the debridements and prolonged compartment syndrome, Plaintiff lost approximately 90% of the muscle in her lower extremity, has foot drop and severe nerve dysfunction.

The Plaintiff claimed that the nurses and resident physicians failed to adequately recognize the significance of Plaintiff’s condition and communicate her condition to the attending physician. Plaintiff further claimed that this lack of recognition and communication prevented a timely diagnose and treatment of the compartment syndrome which resulted in Plaintiff;s extensive muscle and tissue death in her lower extremity.

Jury Verdict: $14,891,123.02

Last Offer: $2,500,000.00

R. v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc.

On December 22, 1999, United/Goedecke Services, Inc. was lifting a 25 foot I-bar utilizing a hoist called a tugger when the 25 foot I-bar fell 110 feet, striking and killing R. R. was the signalman, directing a 25 foot I-bar up the tugger bay. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to more securely attach the I-bar as it was lifted up the tugger bay. The defendant claimed that R. never should have been in the tugger bay, under a load, while it was being lifted and should have used a radio next to the tugger operator and outside the bay as a safer, more effective means of communicating. They also claimed R. adjusted the sling, altering the cinch point which was responsible for it falling upon him.

Jury Verdict: $14,230,000.00

Reduced 35% to: $9,250,000.00

Offer prior to Trial: $1,500,000.00

Offer after Closing Argument: $2,500,000.00

R. v. Seadog Ventures, Inc., et al.

On October 12, 1997, R. was run over by a commercial boat named the Sea Dog, near Oak Street Beach in Chicago, Illinois. It was almost six weeks after the swimming season was over and the beaches were closed.

The plaintiffs argued the vessel came too close to shore, failed to keep a proper look-out and that the defendant failed to properly train its captains in the rules of the U.S. Coast Guard as well as its own rules.

The defense argued that with the swimming season over and the Chicago beaches had been closed for almost six weeks it was unforeseeable that there would be a swimmer in the water over fifty yards from shore, with a 60 degree water temperature, three to five foot waves and a small craft advisory. A Chicago Park District rule prohibits swimming over 50 yards off shore.

Prior to the trial commencing the defendants offered $3,000,000.00. During jury selection the defendants offered $5,000,0000.00. It was suggested the offer would never exceed that amount which was equal to the largest amount ever awarded for a below the knee amputation. After opening statements and after three witnesses testified for the plaintiffs the defendants increased their offer to $6,500,000.00. This was the figure the trial judge recommended to settle the case. These offers were rejected by the plaintiffs.

Jury Verdict: $13,500,000.00

Reduced 20%: $10,800,000.00

P. v. NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.

The defendants allegedly hyperstimulated a pregnant woman’s uterus with labor-inducing medication and failed to recognize signs and symptoms of fetal distress, causing the woman’s newborn girl to suffer brain damage due to an inadequate flow of oxygen and blood to the brain, resulting in cerebral palsy.

This medical malpractice case involved the failure to test for tuberculosis.

This medical malpractice cause involved the failure to diagnose Compartment Syndrome.

This case involved the failure to diagnose bradycardia of an in-P., a term mother, was inadequately monitored by hospital personnel during her labor and delivery course and bradycardia in her baby was not timely detected. The delay in delivery of her daughter resulted in her suffering permanent severe choreoathetoid cerebral palsy.

S. v. Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center, et al.

As a result of a shooting, S., a minor, sustained a puncture to his aorta, mesenteric vein as well as the colon. He walked as far as he could on to Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center property. S. was within fifty (50) feet of the Ravenswood Hospital door, when security of Ravenswood Hospital was notified of his need of assistance. A nurse employed by Ravenswood Hospital opted to leave Christopher untreated, as their policy was not to go outside the hospital building to assist the injured. He was left to bleed from these injuries for approximately 25 minutes and after he had been transported to the Emergency Room by the police officers he had a barely palpable pulse. Within two minutes of arriving in the Emergency Room he arrested.

This is the record settlement in Illinois for the wrongful death of a minor involving hospital negligence.

C. v. Victory Memorial Hospital, et al.

This case settled for a Lake County record of $12,250,000.00 prior to closing argument before Judge Terrence Brady on Friday evening after the jury instruction conference.

On March 29, 1996, C. paged her obstetrician complaining of a splitting headache at 4:00 p.m. He told her to go the emergency room. She and her husband arrived at 4:45 p.m. and saw the emergency room physician at 5:15 p.m. He diagnosed preeclampsia and spoke to the obstetrician between 5:25 and 5:50 p.m. The emergency room physician testified she needed an anti-hypertensive for preeclampsia with hypertension but the obstetrician told him to send her to Labor & Delivery and he would call in his orders. The obstetrician ordered over the phone magnesium sulfate at 5:50 p.m. which is a prophylactic for seizures and reduces blood pressure transiently but did not order hydralazine, an anti-hypertensive. According to one of the plaintiffs’ expert, C. hemorrhaged into her brain between 6:00 to 6:20 p.m. when she started to become less coherent. In addition to suffering from preeclampsia with hypertension C. had HELLP syndrome which made her blood difficult to clot. According to another expert it was negligent not to give C. an anti-hypertensive in the E.R. The baby, Shane, was born healthy, without any medical problems.

O. v. Illinois Masonic Medical Center

In February 1997, O., following the birth of her daughter, was diagnosed with post-partum cardiomyopat­hy, a condition which could result in blood clot formation in the heart leading to embolic stroke(s). O. was provided Coumadin, a blood thinner, as her ejection fraction was less than 35%. The Defendants were responsible for blood work monitoring (INR assessment) and management of Coumadin. On August 20, 1997, O. suffered a stroke from a hemorrhagic bleed. Plaintiffs alleged that O. was over anti-coagulated (her INR was 3.8 after the bleed) and argued that the standard of care required lesser levels of anticoagulati­on (INR 2 to 3) than the range established by the defendants (INR 2.5 to 3.5). O.’s hemorrhagic stroke caused left-sided hemipares­is. The defense contended, because of an earlier presumed embolic attack in May, the defendant physicians were permitted by the standard of care to have a higher INR than the standard 2 to 3, to prevent another emboli. Additionally, they contended in Europe the INR is typically as high as 5.