 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||
Recent Cases, Speeches and Articles |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
September 2011 Cunningham Meyer & Vedrine partners to moderate panels at CBA Medical Litigation Summit 2011 Along with other leaders in the medical malpractice arena, CMV partners William F. Cunningham and Michael R. Slovis will participate as moderators in the three-day educational program in Napa, California, September 11 -14, 2011. Bringing together insurers, judges, plaintiff counsel and defense attorneys at one summit conference under the mantle of the Chicago Bar Association, topics are planned to be timely and practical in their application to all attendees. William F. Cunningham will moderate a panel on Avoiding Expert Witness Traps at Trial. With both plaintiff and defense attorneys from notable Chicago firms and the Honorable Thomas Hogan as panelists, Mr. Cunningham will have an opportunity to preside over a lively exchange of techniques and experiences. Michael R. Slovis will moderate a panel on Handling the Effects of Popular Media and Social Media on a Jury. With Facebook, Twitter and other electronic media in the legal news daily, Mr. Slovis will preside over a distinguished five person panel that includes a representative from the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Honorable Clare McWilliams along with a social media researcher and plaintiff and defense counsel. The sharing of ideas from five different facets of the topic should be revealing to all. August 2011 Scott Herbert and Sarah Rodak successfully defended a hospital in a medical negligence lawsuit in Cook County. Plaintiff alleged that the hospital, through its nursing staff, was negligent in the care of her sacral pressure ulcer, allowing it to increase in size leading to pain and permanent disfigurement. After the plaintiff rested, the Judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the hospital. July 2011 William F. Cunningham to speak at ACI 10th Annual Advanced Forum on Obstetric Malpractice at the Union League in Philadelphia presented by the American Conference Institute" Click for complete article May 2011 Mark Meyer and Michael Compton successfully defended a general surgeon and hospital in a medical negligence lawsuit in Lee County, Illinois. Plaintiff alleged that his wife's death was a result of peritonitis and could have been avoided had a CT of the abdomen been performed following complaints of post-operative pain from a recent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The defense presented evidence that the patient was thoroughly examined post-operatively and a CT was not necessary. The defense further contended there was no evidence of peritonitis on the post-mortem examination. The Plaintiff asked for $1.25 million dollars, after approximately 2 hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. May 2011 William Cunningham and Kathleen Vece successfully defended a general surgeon in a case in Kane County. The case involved a middle-aged woman who had a laproscopic hernia repair surgery in August 2004 after having undergone several prior abdominal surgeries. The hernia surgery required extensive lysis, or cutting, of adhesions. After the surgery, the plaintiff remained in the hospital. On the third post-operative day, CMV's client and a partner of the initial surgeon took over the care of the plaintiff. Based on a few abnormal, but not alarming symptoms, he ordered labs, a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis, a CT scan of the chest and a Doppler Ultrasound of the legs. The CT revealed no evidence of a bowel leak. The labs were unremarkable. The Doppler showed no DVT and the CT scan of the chest showed no evidence of pulmonary embolism. Two days after that, five days post-operatively, the defendant doctor ordered another CT scan of the abdomen, which revealed a definite leak in the bowel. The doctor immediately took the patient to surgery, watched her and performed several other surgeries over the next few weeks and eventually transferred her to Loyola University Medical Center for wound closure. It was argued at trial that the doctor's persistence and good surgical judgment saved the plaintiff's life. At trial, the plaintiff alleged the initial surgeon, also a defendant, caused a tear in the bowel that was half the circumference of the intestine. It was also alleged that the other follow-up physician, CMV's client, was responsible for a two day delay in the diagnosis. There was a joint defense presented. By utilizing an I-Pad, the defense was able to show the CT scans from August 20th and August 22nd and clearly display to the jury that there was no leak until August 22nd when the plaintiff was taken back to surgery. The plaintiff asked for approximately $2.0 million at trial. After less than an hour deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. April 2011 David Burtker and Marni Slavick successfully defended an anesthesiologist in a wrongful death claim against one of the preeminent plaintiff's law firms in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff's allegation was that the patient postoperatively was prematurely extubated, resulting in an immediate decrease of oxygen saturation, cardiac arrest and death. It was the plaintiff's contention that there was no documentation of any extubation criteria noted by the defendant in any hospital record, and that the outcome was evidence of failing to secure, or failing to recognize that appropriate extubation criteria had not been met by the patient. After plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to award an amount in the millions of dollars, the jury after 4 hours of deliberation returned a verdict in favor of the defendant anesthesiologist. January 2011 Robert Larsen and Kathleen Vece successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon in Cook County. The case involved a teenage girl born with bilateral club feet and in need of a final corrective surgery on her right foot called a mid-foot osteotomy. The Defendants were the orthopedic surgeon that performed the osteotomy and the podiatrist that performed toe tendon lengthening during the procedure. Three days post-operatively, the Plaintiff had some duskiness at the tips of her three middle toes. The Defendants addressed this issue by removing two of the toe pins, applying heating packs to the Plaintiff’s foot and casting the right foot for stabilization. The Plaintiff was discharged home and seen four days later for follow up. At that time, the duskiness had moved up the Plaintiff’s three toes and began appearing on her first big toe. She was transferred to Loyola University Medical Center, but eventually had her first four toes and part of the ball of her foot amputated. At trial the Plaintiff’s liability expert opined that the Defendant orthopedic surgeon should have removed the pins placed in the mid-foot, because the surgery had corrected a cavus deformity that was stretching the lateral plantar artery and restricting blood flow to the Plaintiff’s toes. Through cross-examination it was shown that the plaintiff did not, in fact, have a cavus deformity and there was, therefore, no stretching of the plantar artery. Further, the Plaintiff’s expert admitted that he had never seen or read about any case where the mid-foot pins had been removed in a situation similar to this and the circulation to the toes was restored. The Plaintiff asked for approximately 3.8 million dollars in damages. The jury deliberated for approximately one hour before returning a verdict for the Defendants. November 2010 Mark Meyer and Michael Compton successfully defended a hospital and one of its nurses in a medical negligence lawsuit in Winnebago County, Illinois. Plaintiffs alleged that their child’s birth injuries and death were a result of a failure to timely diagnose an evolving placental abruption. After a two week trial, the jury deliberated for four hours before returning a verdict in favor of the Hospital, Nurse, and attending Obstetrician. The plaintiff asked for $6,750,000. November 2010 Michael Slovis and Kipp Cornell successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon in a three week trial in Markham, IL. Plaintiff alleged that the surgeon was negligent for failing to assess the diabetic patient’s perfusion issue which led to an inadequate amputation and revision of the foot. Plaintiff asked for in excess of $3 million at the close of the evidence. September 2010 Bill Cunningham and Barbara Prohaska obtained summary judgment and final dismissal of a sixteen count complaint on behalf of its clients that included a local Hospital, its CEO, and several individual members of its Medical Executive Committee. The sixteen count complaint was premised upon corporate liability and sought a declaratory judgment and monetary damages premised upon allegations of breach of contract, tortious interference of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, negligence, libel, slander, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy, among others. The defenses raised by the Defendants based on the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, the Illinois Hospital Licensing Act, and Illinois statutes served as a basis for the Court’s ruling in favor of Defendants. CMV partners Bill Cunningham and Barbara Prohaska represent the Defendants in the pending appeal taken by the plaintiff. August 2010 Mark Meyer and Michael Compton successfully defended a family practitioner and his practice in a medical negligence lawsuit in DuPage County, Illinois. In February of 2006, plaintiff (age 37) developed a ganglion cyst on her right wrist. After discussing several treatment methods, Plaintiff elected to have the cyst aspirated followed by injection of a steroid. Approximately 30 minutes later Plaintiff developed numbness, followed by pain, in and around the hand, as well as a loss of color. Plaintiff was seen in the Emergency Room and evaluated by a hand surgeon and then had an angiogram performed, Plaintiff had developed severe clotting in the right hand and wrist. Plaintiff alleged that in addition to losing strength in her hand she experiences chronic pain, tingling in her fingers and cold sensitivity as a result of the complication. The treating physicians and Plaintiff’s retained experts opined that the physician injured the radial artery with the needle while performing the procedure. Additionally, Plaintiff’s internal medicine expert testified that it was a deviation from the standard of care for a family practitioner to perform a procedure of this nature. The defense of the case was complicated by that fact that treating physicians testified that the radial artery had been pierced by the needle. The defense presented an expert vascular surgeon, from Northwestern University who opined that the radial artery had not been pierced by the needle and that the injuries were due to vasospasm as a reaction to the steroid that was injected near the artery. Additionally, the defense presented an expert in family medicine who testified that this procedure was within the skill and training of a family practitioner and it was within the standard of care to perform such a procedure. After an eight day trial, the jury deliberated for seven hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant physician and his practice.August 2010 William Cunningham and Scott Herbert successfully defended two Obstetrician/Gynecologists and their practice in a medical negligence lawsuit in DuPage County, Illinois. In August of 2004, plaintiff, then age 30, delivered her third child. 12 days later, she began having heavy vaginal bleeding and was sent to the ER where she was evaluated by one of the Defendants. Based on his examination, as well as the results of an ultrasound, he thought that plaintiff’s post partum hemorrhage was likely due to retained products of conception (pieces of placental tissue still attached to the uterine wall). Therefore, he took her to the operating room for a suction dilatation and curettage (D&C). In addition, he treated her with two different medications that help the uterus contract in an effort to stop the bleeding. When the D&C and medications did not stop or slow the bleeding, he asked his senior partner for a second opinion. Both Defendants then performed exploratory surgery in an effort to identify the source of the bleeding. However, they found that there was not one source and that the bleeding in the uterus was diffuse. Based on the amount of blood plaintiff had already lost, approximately one third to one half of total blood volume, and the rate at which she was bleeding, the Defendants performed a total abdominal hysterectomy to stop the bleeding. Plaintiff alleged that in addition to being unable to have any more children, as a result of the hysterectomy, she experiences severe pelvic pain on a daily basis. Based on her complaints of pain, she was seen at the Mayo Clinic where she had surgery to remove scar tissue. The defense of the case was complicated by the fact that a subsequent treating Ob/Gyn from a prominent University Hospital in Chicago, who regularly appears in the media and on shows like Oprah Winfrey, testified that both Defendants deviated from the standard of care by not try other methods to save the uterus before performing a hysterectomy including, other medications, a uterine artery embolization, uterine packing, compression sutures or a uterine artery ligation and that any of these methods likely would have avoided the need to perform the hysterectomy. Her testimony and criticisms were almost identical to those of Plaintiff’s retained expert, an Ob/Gyn from Manhattan. Further, both experts opined that plaintiff’s chronic pelvic pain was likely due to scar tissue from the hysterectomy. The defense presented two experts, an Ob/Gyn from a University Hospital in Chicago, who opined that the Defendants acted appropriately in performing the hysterectomy when they did, as they saved the plaintiff’s life and an anesthesiologist, who testified that the plaintiff’s blood loss was significant and that she was at risk for going into shock or DIC when the hysterectomy was performed. After a two week trial, the jury deliberated for less than four hours before returning a verdict in favor of the Ob/Gyns and their practice. The plaintiff asked for $3,500,000. February 2010 Robert Larsen and Kathleen Vece defended an internal medicine physician in Cook County and successfully limited his exposure to within his policy limits and drastically lower than the plaintiff’s demand. The plaintiff demanded the policy limits of both individual doctors sued, which totalled $3 million dollars. The defendants were represented by the same insurance company, and a combined total of $1.5 million was offered on their behalf to settle, with an indication of up to $2 million. The plaintiff declined the defendants’ offer. The case was tried with less than ideal circumstances as the two doctors simply had conflicting recollections as to pertinent conversations. A united causation defense was presented by the defendants at trial effectively lowering the cost of the case, which involved the death of a 48 year old man. Nevertheless, the verdict came in against both doctors. The verdict against both doctors was $1,259,050, with $759,050 awarded for pecuniary damages and $500,000 awarded for loss of society to the surviving spouse. In his closing, plaintiff’s counsel asked for an award of $7 million for loss of society. Prior to the trial the defendant hospital settled out of the case for $650,000 creating an offset for the individual doctors. Therefore, after trying to settle the case for up to $2 million dollars and being refused, the defense was able to substantially reduce the exposure to only half of the $609,050.00 collectable verdict. November 2009 William Cunningham and Beth Szerlong successfully defended two pathologists in a medical negligence lawsuit in DuPage County, Illinois. The care and treatment at issue took place in July of 1999. The Plaintiff presented with a three month history of a non-healing tongue ulcer. She also had a history of smoking a pack per day for approximately 25 years. Her physician subsequently performed an excisional biopsy and one of the defendant pathologists interpreted a frozen section of the ulcer intraoperatively. After reviewing the frozen section the Defendant advised the physician that the diagnosis favored squamous cell carcinoma. However, after the biopsy was completed, the Defendant reviewed the complete sample that was submitted and found no evidence of cancer. He then had his colleague review the slides as a second opinion. Both pathologists agreed that there was evidence of squamous cell carcinoma on the frozen section slides and, therefore, they rendered a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma. Following this diagnosis, Plaintiff underwent radiation therapy and experienced side effects from that treatment. After the radiation therapy, one of the Plaintiff's treating physicians sent out the pathology slides from the biopsy, for review by his own pathologist, at a local university hospital. That pathologist disagreed with the diagnosis of cancer made by the Defendants. The specimens were then sent to a specialist in oral pathology of the tongue, who also disagreed with the diagnosis of cancer. Plaintiff contented that due to the Defendants' professional negligence, she underwent debilitating radiation therapy that left her with permanent injuries to her ability to taste, swallow and eat normally. In addition, she claimed a variety of other physical and psychological injuries. The Defense argued that the review and interpretation of the pathology slides by the Defendants was reasonable and that proper procedure was followed. Additionally, the defense contended that the diagnosis of cancer was the correct diagnosis. After a two week trial, the jury deliberated for approximately five hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant pathologists. November, 2009 William Cunningham and Scott Herbert successfully defended two general surgeons in a wrongful death medical negligence lawsuit in DuPage County, Illinois. The care and treatment at issue took place in July of 1999. Plaintiff's decedent was a 38 year old woman with a rare disease, Zollinger Ellison Syndrome, that caused ulcers in her dudodenum. After one of the ulcers healed, it caused a stricture in her small intestine that needed to be corrected surgically. Five days after the corrective surgery was performed by the defendant surgeons, Plaintiff's decedent died from a massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Plaintiff's expert testified that the PE was from a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that broke off from the deep veins in one of her legs and traveled to her lungs. The surgeons ordered that SCDs (sequential compression device) and TED hose be used for 5 days post-operatively in order to prevent a DVT. They did not order anticoagulation medication, such as heparin, as it was contraindicated due to the fact that Plaintiff's decedent had an epidural for post-operative pain management, as well as her history of ulcerative disease. Two days after surgery, a former partner of the defendant surgeons ordered that the SCDs should be discontinued. Although one of the defendant surgeons testified that he gave a verbal order to a nurse to follow his original order instead, no such verbal order was ever recorded in the chart. In addition, even though the surgeons had ordered that they wanted the patient to ambulate four times a day, the nurses' charting showed that she was unable to ambulate at certain times post-operatively because her legs were numb from the epidural. Plaintiff's expert, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, opined that the surgeons were negligent for failing to write an order to keep the SCDs on after their partner discontinued them and for failing to have the epidural removed and start the patient on heparin on post-operative day two when she was having trouble ambulating. The defense presented three experts, a local general surgeon, an anesthesiologist/pain specialist and an OB/Gyn from the University of North Carolina, who has written extensively on the use of DVT prophylaxis, all of whom opined that the care and treatment was appropriate and within the standard of care and that whether to remove an epidural is a decision that is ultimately made by the pain specialists not the general surgeons. After a two week trial, the jury deliberated for four and a half hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant surgeons, as well as the co-defendant gastroenterologist. September, 2009 Kevin Vedrine and Kathleen Vece successfully defended an otolaryngologist in a medical malpractice case in Grundy County, Illinois. The defendant otolaryngologist physician excised a cyst, called a mucocele, from the plaintiff's lower left lip after the plaintiff complained about the cyst getting in the way when he would eat. Afterwards, the plaintiff made complaints that the lower left side of his lip, where the cyst was removed, sagged and liquids would escape from the corner of his mouth when he drank. The defendant recommended another surgery to repair the problem, but the plaintiff decided to see a different otolaryngologist and have a different procedure. After the second surgery the plaintiff still claimed to have a sag in his lower left lip, problems with drooling, numbness and pain. The plaintiff contended that the defendant took out too much tissue from the plaintiff's lip during the first surgery. The defense refuted that too much tissue was taken out and contended that the deficits the plaintiff complained of were a natural and probable consequence of having a large mucocele removed. The trial lasted four days and resulted in a not guilty verdict. No offer was made on behalf of the defendant. At trial the plaintiff's counsel requested $357,000. May, 2009 Michael Slovis and Marni Slavick successfully defended an orthopedic hand surgeon in a medical negligence lawsuit in DuPage County. The Defendant surgeon provided care to the plaintiff after the plaintiff suffered a fracture of the scaphoid bone. Plaintiff alleged that the hand surgeon failed to immobilize the wrist post-operatively, failed to promptly recognize signs of a post-operative infection and failed to properly treat the post-operative complications; plaintiff alleged that this led to progression of an underlying bone infection. The defense contended that all of the care provided by the orthopedic surgeon was proper and that there was never a post-operative infection based on the negative cultures obtained once the wrist was re-explored six months after the surgery at issue. Moreover, the defense contended that the plaintiff simply suffered from tenosynovitis, a condition which the hand surgeon promptly diagnosed and properly treated throughout the post-operative period. The trial, which lasted seven court days, resulted in a verdict in favor of the orthopedic hand surgeon. No offer was made on behalf of the Defendant. The jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict. March, 2009 Kevin Vedrine and Christopher Solfa successfully defended an emergency medicine physician in a medical negligence lawsuit in Grundy County, Illinois. The Defendant emergency medicine physician provided care to the plaintiff's decedent for complaints of difficulty in breathing and pain upon inhalation. Plaintiff alleged that, due to the complaints of the decedent, the emergency medicine physician was negligent for failing to order a BMP, a CBC, for failing to perform an EKG and failing to follow a hospital policy as it relates to chest pain protocol. The plaintiff's decedent passed away as a result of a myocardial infarction eight days later. The defense contended that at the time the plaintiff's decedent was seen by the Defendant physician, his symptoms were not cardiac in origin and, instead, were pleuritic in nature. The pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that the myocardial infarction, that caused the plaintiff's decedent's death, occurred 24 to 72 hours prior to the decedent's passing. The trial, which lasted six court days, resulted in a not guilty verdict. No offer was made on behalf of the emergency medicine physician. Plaintiff's counsel requested an award of $1.2 million. March, 2009 William Cunningham and Bethann Szerlong successfully defended a cardiologist in a medical negligence lawsuit in Kane County Illinois. The defendant cardiologist provided care to the plaintiff for complaints of chest pain after a referral from her primary care practitioner. Plaintiff alleged that due to her history of chest pain he was negligent in failing to evaluate her history, failing to perform an EKG and failing to admit the plaintiff for angiography. The plaintiff passed away as a result of a cardiac related condition 22 months later. The defense was supported by experts from Houston in cardiac imaging and cardiac pathology. The defense theory was that at the time she was seen by our cardiologist, her symptoms were not cardiac in origin based on a negative myoview image study and that the scars found in her heart tissue at autopsy were not present 22 months earlier when seen by our client. There were three other defendants. All were found not guilty as well. Our cardiologist was generally regarded as the target. The plaintiff had been offered close to $1 million to settle but would not give a demand. The trial, which lasted four weeks, resulted in a verdict in favor of all defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel requested an award of $10 million.
February, 2009 David Burtker and Peter Strauss secured a defense verdict in a obstetrical medical negligence matter heard in Cook County, Illinois involving the death of a 33 day old neonate born at 25 weeks gestation. Plaintiff alleged that during a routine office visit, she advised the Defendant obstetrician that she was having contractions and that the Defendant took no action to confirm whether the contractions were true labor. Instead, plaintiff was advised she was having Braxton Hicks contractions. The Defendant denied that the plaintiff ever complained of contractions during the office visit. The Plaintiff gave birth via caesarian section the morning after the office visit. The trial, which lasted 8 days, resulted in a verdict for the defendant obstetrician after only an hour and a half of deliberations. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $1,600,000. No offer was ever made by the defendant.
December, 2008 David Burtker and Allison Alban successfully defended an anesthesiologist in a medical negligence lawsuit in Cook County Illinois. The defendant anesthesiologist provided care to the 81 year old plaintiff both prior to and during cataract surgery. The plaintiff alleged that due to her history of a prior ischemic stroke, the defendant was negligent for failing to check certain blood tests within three days of the cataract surgery. Post-operatively, plaintiff sustained a central retinal artery occlusion as a result of a retrobulbar hemorrhage. After deliberating for approximately one hour, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both Mr. Burtker’s client, as well as the co-defendant ophthalmologist.
October, 2008
September, 2008 David Burtker and Marni Slavick successfully defended an obstetrician/gynecologist in a multi-party birth trauma medical negligence case spanning 4 weeks. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to recognize fetal distress and for failing to perform a timely a cesarean section, resulting in the child having severe spastic quadriplegia and cognitive deficits. After the plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $40 million, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $25 million against the co-defendant family practice physician's improper use of operative vaginal delivery techniques. Mr. Burtker’s client, as well as the hospital, were found not liable in this complex, high profile litigation matter in Cook County, Illinois. |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|