Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

The Food and Drug Administration says, “an organ transplant drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb improves kidney function, but the agency has concerns about potentially fatal side effects.” (AP Washington, 2/25). Although Bristol has asked the FDA to approve its drug Belatacept for patients undergoing a kidney transplant, the FDA is concerned that the drug suppresses the body's immune system to avoid organ rejection.

In online documentation, the FDA noted that although more patients taking Belatacept had a higher two year survival rate than those taking other drugs, it also noticed higher rates of severe kidney rejection and neurological disease.

As the next step, the FDA wants its outside advisers to vote on the drug's safety and effectiveness, which is set to occur next week. As a medical malpractice lawyer in Chicago, I have seen many incidents of fatal side effects, and am hopeful the FDA will act quickly and decisively in determining the safety of Belatacept.

As a medial malpractice and products liability attorney, I am pleased with the FDA’s latest action targeting major drug companies. These companies may billions off patients, and all too often, fail to adequately disclose serious risks.

In a recent agreement with government regulators, “Amgen and Johnson & Johnson will do more to publicize the safety risks of their anemia drugs for cancer patients” (AP for FindLaw, 2/16). The plan developed in concert the Food and Drug Administration targets risk management and is the latest government action aimed at the drug makers. The plan applies to Amgen's Aranesp and Epogen and Johnson & Johnson's Procrit.

As part of the deal, “Amgen and J&J will be required to register each cancer doctor who prescribes their drugs and document that they have discussed the drugs' risks before prescribing them to patients. The three medicines within the plan are huge moneymakers for the respective companies because of their success and reputation regarding reducing the need for blood transfusions, however, recent studies have indicated the drugs can also cause tumor growth.

In the wake of the recent Illinois Supreme Court decision striking down medical malpractice damage caps as unconstitutional, the Illinois Trial Lawyer Association released a report dispelling the medical malpractice myths. (February 2010).

In 2005, the Illinois Legislature enacted arbitrary caps on medical malpractice non-economic damages. Under this regulatory scheme, victims of medical malpractice could only sue doctors for $500,000 and hospitals for $1 Million. Perhaps to someone who has been fortunate not to experienced such devastation, this money sounds like a lot, but arbitrary damage caps are unfair especially to victims of catastrophic mistakes. Although proponents of the damage caps argue that “skyrocketing” verdicts are driving doctors out of Illinois and raising healthcare costs for patients. However, empirical data speaks to an alternative source of the problem: insurance companies.

Court records show that since the 2005 law, both medical malpractice claims and verdicts have remained stable. Even insurance company’s regulatory filings “show that since 2000, both frequency and severity of malpractice claims and payouts have been stable, or even decreasing.” However, during that same period of time, insurance companies have increased insurance premiums paid by doctors, thus increasing healthcare costs for patients, and allowing themselves to enjoy large profits. Therefore, the root of the health care cost problem is insurance companies, not high medical malpractice verdicts. Empirical data supports this conclusion.

Moreover, the proper and most effective way to lessen medical malpractice litigation is to improve patient safety, not to impose arbitrary damage caps on those who have already been injured by medical negligence. Not only is this not fair, it’s not a way to solve the problem, but is only a way to prevent victims from obtaining just compensation.

As a trial lawyer in Chicagoland, I fully support this report. Medical malpractice damage caps are arbitrary and fundamental unfair, fortunately the Illinois Supreme Court reached the same conclusion.

As a personal injury attorney in Chicago, who has seen the effects of radiation gone bad, I fully support the FDA in their new initiative to rein in radiation overdoses.
In response to a problem that has becoming increasingly apparent for decades, “the Food and Drug Administration is working with doctors and medical manufacturers to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical scans.” (2/9 Washington, AP).

The FDA says it will soon require manufacturers of CT scanners and other imaging machines to include safety controls that prevent patients from receiving excessive radiation doses. This initiative is part of a multifaceted scheme to reduce radiation-based injuries.

One study discovered that “the average American's total radiation exposure has nearly doubled since 1980, largely because of CT scans, according to recent studies.” Whereas medical radiation used to account for one-sixth of the population’s total exposure, it now accounts for more than half.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin posted a recent trial success of Hurley, McKenna, & Mertz regarding a major birth injury case (2/4). Attorneys Christopher T. Hurley and Mark R. McKenna were able to obtain a $9 million verdict for our client, “a disabled 20-year-old man whose mother claimed her son sustained severe brain damage and spastic quadriplegia as the result of an injury during his birth at Cook County Hospital.”

Amelia Saragosa visited the Cook County hospital’s emergency room with labor pains on January 21, 1990. Shortly thereafter, an amniotomy, which is an “intentional rupture of the fetal membranes,” was performed causing the umbilical cord to become trapped. The child, who was the plaintiff in this case, was deprived of blood flow and oxygen as a result, making an emergency Caesarean section a necessity. 41 minutes passed between the time when the need for an emergency C-section was apparent and the procedure was performed.

As trial lawyers, we have both experience and success with similar and equally as saddening medical malpractice cases. We have tried cases involving amniotomy, cord prolapse, brain injury, cerebral palsy, and other birth injuries.

The Chicago Tribune (1/26, Jackson and Marks) reports, “Authorities have investigated at least 86 cases of sexual violence against elderly and disabled residents of Chicago nursing homes since July 2007, but only one of those cases resulted in an arrest.” Furthermore, of Chicago’s nursing home facilities, government records show that sexual violence incidents were reported in more than a quarter of elder care facilities.

Further research suggests that although Illinois Law requires nursing homes to notify police immediately after receiving any reports of sexual violence, no reports were filed in at least 9 cases, and in other cases, reports were filed months later. Perhaps surprisingly, almost all of the 86 cases involved residents attacking other residents, and very few involved employees or visitors. A potential culprit is the fact that several Illinois nursing homes are relied upon to house younger psychiatric patients with known violent tendencies.

Most nursing homes in the Chicago area with a recorded incident had substandard staffing levels, a key indicator of patient safety. The most discouraging discovery regarding nursing home sexual violence is that fact that of 86 known incidents, only one perpetrator was arrested. Furthermore, there is every indication that more incidents of sexual violence occurred that went unrecorded.

Hurley, McKenna, & Mertz has dealt with several nursing home cases, some of which have involved sexual violence, others have involved abuse and neglect. As a Chicago attorney, I am very concerned that we will not get a handle on this serious issue until nursing homes are staffed more satisfactorily and law enforcement takes these cases more seriously, as a single arrest for 86 known cases is appalling.