Illinois Surgeon Not Responsible For Forgotten Sponge
A recent Illinois Appellate Court granted a surgeon's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice lawsuit when it found that the surgeon was not responsible for a sponge that was left in a patient after performing a surgery. Two months after the procedure was performed the patient underwent an additional procedure, at which time the surgical sponge was discovered. Forsberg v. Edward Hospital and Health Services, No. 2-08-0243 (April 8).
The patient sued both the surgeon individually and the hospital where the procedure was performed. However, after the hospital settled out of court the surgeon requested summary judgment based on his opinion that he had satisfied the standard of care by relying on information he received from the nurses. After a surgical procedure the circulating nurse and scrub nurse are responsible for accounting for all surgical materials. In this case they had told the surgeon that the sponges were all accounted for, at which point the surgeon proceeded to stitch the patient up.
Typically the plaintiff in an Illinois medical malpractice case has the burden to prove that the defendant doctor breached the standard of care, which is usually done by providing expert testimony. However, in Illinois expert testimony is not required to establish the relevant standard of care “where the common knowledge of laymen is sufficient to recognize or infer negligence.” Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill.2d 249 (1978). In the present case the court held that medical expert testimony was not necessary because it is common knowledge that sponges should not be left behind in a patient after a surgery.
Continue reading "Illinois Surgeon Not Responsible For Forgotten Sponge" »
While the man was working for the IDOT the incident actually occurred in Indiana, just over the Illinois-Indian border. Because the injury took place in Indiana the defendant attorneys asked the 
Ms. Strong filed a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit against various physicians whom she alleged caused her injuries and resulting amputations. The physicians all seemed to agree that there were profound medical errors that caused Ms. Strong's injuries, but apportioned blame on each other.
Under the old requirement, any cause of action against the CTA had to submit a written notice to the CTA within six months of the relevant incident that advised the CTA of a potential cause of action. Failure to provide this notice barred the case from being brought. The formal notice required very specific facts regarding the action and essentially preserved the case for a later filing. 
Since 2007 
Starting in the 1990s insurance companies began taking advantage of baby boomers by scooping up thousands of individual long-term care insurance policies. It seems that the expectation by the insurance companies was that the buyers would eventually give up paying the annual premiums and close out the files by taking the collected premium. 
However, a recent settlement in a 
In order to increase the safety of its highways 
The lawsuit against Tyson alleged that the company had inflated the weight of its poultry products between 1997 and 2003. The claimants alleged that Tyson participated in a process of chilling the chickens which resulted in the absorption and retention of water under the poultry's skin and muscle tissues and thereby increased the bird's weight. 
I remember the first conversation I had with the decedent's husband, which took place shortly after her sudden death. During that conversation we discussed whether or not an autopsy should have been ordered. In my opinion whenever the cause of death seems unclear or suspicious it is wise to have an autopsy performed. However, in this case the woman's surviving family members opted not to get an autopsy done. 
Chicago and Illinois residents have reported symptoms of adverse affects from taking Hydroxycut, which range from stomach and abdominal pain, excessive fatigue, recurring headaches, excessive weakness, vomiting, loss of appetite, to kidney failure and liver damage severe enough to require a liver transplant. 
