Medical Malpractice

Published on: August 13, 2024

Joint Commission Data Indicates that 2023 Sentinel Events Approached 2022’s Record High

treatment-4099432_640-e1721672084835 Sentinel events are significant medical mistakes that affect patient safety and result in severe temporary harm, permanent harm, or death. The data compiled by the Joint Commission for 2023 found that sentinel events were close to 2022’s record high. In 2023, there were 1411 reported and reviewed events. Of these, eighteen percent led to patient death. Fifty-seven percent led to severe temporary harm. Eight percent resulted in permanent harm. Twelve percent of these patients had to stay for an extended period in the hospital and go through more treatment. If you or a loved one experienced a sentinel event, you may be entitled to compensation. The experienced Chicago-based medical malpractice lawyers of Moll Law Group may be able to represent you.

Call Moll Law Group for a Consultation

Most sentinel events are preventable. They can be the result of miscommunications, teamwork failures, and failure to adhere to standard policies and procedures. As in the previous 5 years, the 2023 data revealed that the most frequent sentinel events during 2023 were falls. They comprised 48% of all the sentinel events the Joint Commission reviewed. They were up 6 percentage points from falls in 2022. And in 2019, by contrast, patient falls only made up 18% of the sentinel events.

Other sentinel events included wrong-site surgery, wrong procedures, wrong patients operated upon, foreign objects left behind during procedures, sexual assaults, rapes, assaults, homicides, treatment delays, suicide, fire, burns, mismanagement of medications, self-harm, and perinatal events. Wrong surgeries (all three types of wrong surgeries) constituted 8% of sentinel events for 2023, as did two other categories, foreign objects left behind in the patient and crimes like rape, sexual assault, assault and homicide. Most of these 1358 events were voluntarily self-reported to the Joint Commission, either by a certified or accredited entity. The rest of the 53 sentinel events were reported by patients, anonymous sources or employees of the providers.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 19, 2023

“Born Free: Birth in America” Investigates the Uptick in Maternal Mortality

By Moll Law Group

baby-1531059_1280-1024x576 The new feature length documentary “Born Free: Birth in America” is a 95-minute investigation into maternal mortality in the United States, and why it’s increasingly dangerous for mothers to give birth in this country. The movie was made by Paula James-Martinez, a British journalist who became a mother in 2018. It was released on May 14, Mother’s Day, of this year. For the documentary, Ms. James-Martinez went cross-country with an all-female crew to figure out why the United States is the most expensive and dangerous developed country in which to give birth. If your loved one died while giving birth and you suspect professional negligence, call the seasoned Chicago-based medical malpractice attorneys of Moll Law Group. We represent clients around the country and billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Whether You Have Grounds to Sue

Maternal mortality is defined to include any deaths during pregnancy or deaths that occur within a year after giving birth. Common causes of maternal mortality include excessive bleeding, infection, drug overdose, and suicide.

“Born Free” includes testimony from a wide range of parents who suffered birth trauma. One of the women went through an episiotomy, which results in the vagina being cut to be wider for childbirth, against her will. A Black man whose wife bled to death after a c-section delivery was interviewed; he filed a civil rights lawsuit against the hospital alleging discrimination in treating his wife. Ms. Martinez’s goal was to get the mortality information in front of those who might otherwise not have access and give them a way to advocate for themselves.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 29, 2023

Around 800,000 Deaths and Permanent disability Cases Are from Diagnostic Errors

By Moll Law Group

medical-563427_640-300x200 CNN covered a recent report that found hundreds of thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities are the result of misdiagnosis of disease and other conditions. Every year, around 371,000 people pass away, while 420,000 find themselves permanently disabled with loss of limbs of organs, brain damage, blindness or metastasized cancer. If you were injured by burning hot food, consult the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Discuss Your Claim with Moll Law Group

Researchers gathered data from other studies to figure out how often medical conditions were not diagnosed or misdiagnosed and how that resulted in permanent disability or death. The researchers concluded that patients still should not panic because there is less than a 0.1% chance of significant harms related to misdiagnosis. Around 40% of the significant harms relate to diagnosing five relatively common diseases: lung cancer, venous thromboembolism, pneumonia, sepsis, and stroke. Stroke is misdiagnosed far more than average and gets missed in around 18% of 950,000 cases each year, which results in 94,000 permanent disabilities or deaths in a year. Spinal abscesses are misdiagnosed over 60% of the time, which leads to about 5000 significant harms each year.

The researchers believe that the study’s findings can help determine which areas should be prioritized for interventions. Heart attacks are often diagnosed successfully, but it took a decade of intense effort to address the problem of misdiagnosis and to fund that problem. Researchers think this is a model for how to address misdiagnosis of other conditions.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 7, 2018

The Debate Over a Controversial “Clot-Busting” Stroke Medication

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: Victor Moussa / Shutterstock.com

A stroke is essentially a “brain attack” that – like a heart attack – occurs when the blood flow to a portion of the brain is cut off. Strokes are the fifth-leading cause of death in the United States, with about 800,000 people suffering from a stroke each year. It is also estimated that approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented, and even those that are not prevented may be able to have their harmful effects reduced. However, an Illinois medical malpractice case can arise when a stroke is not promptly and competently addressed.

One of the ways that doctors treat a stroke in hopes of reducing its long-term effects is through medication. If medication can be provided to the patient soon enough after the stroke begins, blood may be able to be restored to the brain, reducing the chance of permanent disability or death.

Over the past few years, there has been a vigorous debate over the use of one stroke medication in particular, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA). According to those in favor of TPA, the drug acts as a clot-buster, opening blocked blood vessels and allowing blood to return to the brain. A recent news article discusses TPA, as well as the fact that despite having been around for over 20 years, it is still not commonly used to treat stroke victims.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 2, 2018

Protecting Against the Risks Associated with Breast Implant Surgery

By Moll Law Group

Photo Credit: nimon / Shutterstock.com

Breast augmentation, or augmentation mammoplasty, has been the most common elective cosmetic surgery in the United States for over a decade. Last year alone, there were over 300,000 breast augmentation surgeries performed across the United States. This figure represents a 3% increase from the year before, and a 41% increase from the number of similar surgeries performed in 2000.

The science behind breast augmentation surgery is sound, and the FDA has approved cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. However, the popularity of the surgery has resulted in a situation in which medical providers rush to fill the perceived demand, often overlooking critical safety protocols along the way. Indeed, the FDA estimates that approximately 1% of all patients undergoing a breast augmentation surgery will experience some form of complication or adverse medical event. These may include:

Continue reading →

Published on: April 12, 2017

After Daughter’s Overdose, Mother’s Case Against Doctor Dismissed for Failure to File Required Affidavit

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a mother sued her daughter’s doctor after her daughter overdosed on a combination of prescription and non-prescription pills. The daughter died on May 18, 2013 after she took a lethal combination of pills. On May 15, 2015, the mother filed the claim against her daughter’s doctor, alleging that the doctor negligently prescribed her daughter a combination of opiates and sedatives, causing her death. The claim was filed three days before the claim’s two-year statute of limitations expired.

The doctor argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the woman failed to file a certificate of merit along with the complaint. State law requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice claims to file a certificate of merit at the time the complaint is filed. The certificate of merit has to state that the attorney or the plaintiff certifies that the person has consulted with a qualified health care provider, and the health care provider described the standard of care required, indicated that it was reasonably likely that the plaintiff would be able to show the defendant failed to meet that standard, and indicated that it was reasonably likely that the plaintiff would be able to show that the defendant’s failure to meet the standard caused the plaintiff’s injury. Since the mother did not file the certificate of merit at the time she filed the complaint, the mother subsequently filed a motion to amend the complaint to add a certificate of merit. However, the trial court rejected her motion and dismissed the case.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 11, 2016

Man Injured While Being Moved by Hospital Staff Has Lawsuit Blocked Due to Statute of Limitations

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a plaintiff who was receiving treatment at a hospital was injured as he was being moved on a gurney within the hospital by medical personnel. While the plaintiff was being transferred, the gurney tipped over, and he suffered fractures as a result. The plaintiff filed a claim against the hospital. The complaint was filed more than a year but less than two years after the injury.

In the plaintiff’s jurisdiction, general negligence cases were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, whereas medical malpractice cases were subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The defendants argued that the claim was filed too late, since there was a one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

After the case was decided, the state’s supreme court then decided that in negligence cases involving the use of medical equipment, a specific section of the state’s code applied. The case was reconsidered in light of the supreme court’s holding. The court found that since in this case the negligence was related to the plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and treatment, the negligence occurred “in the rendering of professional services,” and his case was subject to the one-year statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 14, 2016

Illinois Extends Potential Statute of Limitations in Wrongful Death and Survival Act Claims

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a 90-year-old woman was admitted to a hospital in 2009. During her stay at the hospital, the woman suffered several complications, and she died within weeks of her arrival. The woman’s son requested her medical records, and he received them almost one year after her death. A little over one year after receiving the records, the son obtained a professional opinion that the woman’s doctors were negligent in treating her. One month after obtaining that opinion, the son filed a complaint against his mother’s two doctors, who cared for her during her hospital stay.

Almost two years after filing the initial lawsuit, the son had a doctor review his mother’s CT scans that were taken during her stay at the hospital. The son had received this information when he requested his mother’s original medical files. The doctor provided an opinion stating that the radiologist, who had read the CT scans while his mother was staying at the hospital, had failed to identify a collection of fluid in her brain. The reviewing doctor also believed that the radiologist’s failure to identify the fluid caused or contributed to the mother’s death. After receiving the second opinion, the son filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the radiologist under Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/1) and Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6).

The radiologist argued that the case was time-barred because the case was filed more than two years after the mother’s death, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations. The radiologist also argued that the “discovery rule” did not apply in the son’s wrongful death and survival act case. The radiologist also claimed that even if the discovery rule applied, the case was still untimely because the son had enough information to determine whether or not to file more than two years before he filed his complaint.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 5, 2016

State Court Adopts Continuing Course of Treatment Doctrine, Potentially Extending Statute of Limitations in Some Medical Malpractice Cases

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, a Massachusetts court issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case adopting the continuing course of treatment doctrine. The continuing course of treatment doctrine acts to toll the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases while the defendant is still providing medical care for the plaintiff. Thus, if the doctrine is applied, only once the defendant stops providing medical care will the statute of limitations begin. In the case, Parr v. Rosenthal, the court ultimately adopted the doctrine but declined to apply it in the specific facts presented in the plaintiffs’ case.

The Facts

The plaintiffs’ son was born with an unexplained lump on the back of his leg. After several years of unsuccessful diagnosis attempts, the plaintiffs found a group of doctors who were able to identify the lump as a desmoid tumor. While the tumor was identified, none of the doctors treating the boy was familiar with how to treat a desmoid tumor. The treating physicians referred the parents to the defendant, who was another doctor in the group who had not yet met with their son. After discussing the procedure with the boy’s parents, it was agreed that the defendant would perform an emerging procedure called radio frequency ablation.

Unfortunately, the boy was badly burned by the defendant during the procedure, and the procedure could not be completed. The original group of doctors continued to care for the boy, but the defendant provided no follow-up care. Eventually, the boy’s leg needed to be amputated due to the worsening condition of the burn. Several years later, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendant, naming only him and none of the doctors in his practice group.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 21, 2016

Woman Allowed to Present Expert from Mexico in U.S. Medical Malpractice Case

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, a woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after she was treated for a condition known as thoracic outlet syndrome. The illness caused her extreme pain around her shoulder and in her arm and also caused her numbness, swelling, and weakness. As a result, she was treated by a doctor who performed a surgery to try to ease the pain by removing one of her ribs. However, the woman suffered severe symptoms after the surgery, including pain whenever she moved her arm and difficulty swallowing food. The woman then sued the doctor for malpractice.

The defendant presented an expert who said that the doctor performed the surgery correctly and provided proper post-operative care. The expert also said that the woman’s symptoms after the surgery were a result of her original illness. To rebut this, the woman presented her own expert, who was a doctor in Mexico. The doctor had examined her about one year before she sought treatment from the defendant. Her expert stated that the defendant had destabilized the woman’s right sternoclavicular joint during the surgery or had disrupted the ligaments that hold it in place.

The defendant objected to the plaintiff’s expert witness, arguing that he was not familiar with the “standard of care” in the United States. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. However, a court of appeals found that her expert witness, who was licensed to practice medicine in Mexico, was qualified to give an opinion in this case. Importantly, the defendant doctor did not suggest that the standard of care in Mexico was different from the standard of care in the United States. In addition, the Mexican doctor had performed over 500 orthopedic surgeries and around 10 to 12 thoracic outlet syndrome surgeries. He also personally examined the woman before and after her surgery. Thus, the court found that he was qualified to give his opinion, and the jurors were free to give it as much weight as they determined was appropriate.

Continue reading →