Babel and Ambrose Secure Defense Verdict in Cook County

Babel and Ambrose Secure Defense Verdict in Cook County

September 5, 2023

HPS Attorneys Sabina Babel and Gina Ambrose successfully defended a Chicagoland hospital group and family medicine physician against negligence and wrongful death claims.

In 2015, the patient presented to her family medicine physician for a pre-operative evaluation to undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion later that month. The patient had a known history of two underlying autoimmune diseases. The patient had no complaints, her physical examination was normal, her vitals were normal, and her EKG was ordered and determined to be within normal limits. The physician ordered a set of labs, which returned the next day with an elevated white blood cell count. The elevated white blood cell count was thought to be due to the patient’s history of elevated white blood cell levels secondary to her underlying autoimmune diseases. The family medicine physician indicated that the examination and the labs were okay for the patient to undergo surgery. Thereafter, the surgeon performing the procedure, the surgeon’s physician assistant, and the anesthesiologist all agreed with the family medicine physician that it was appropriate for the patient to undergo surgery. The surgery proceeded with no complications and the patient was discharged home. Three days after discharge, the patient began to experience some shortness of breath and nausea, among other symptoms. The family contacted the surgeon’s physician assistant who prescribed the anti-nausea medication. The patient at that time reported no shortness of breath. Despite the medication, the patient was still experiencing some symptoms the next day. The day after that, the patient had worsening shortness of breath and coded at home. Emergency services were called and the patient was taken to a hospital. She was diagnosed with a large bilateral pulmonary embolism that ultimately led to her death. 

At trial, Plaintiff argued that the patient had many underlying factors that increased her chances for clotting, including her age, weight, and underlying autoimmune diseases. Plaintiff mainly claimed that the family medicine physician was negligent in allowing the patient to proceed to surgery on birth control pills, which increased her risk for clotting and was the only modifiable factor that could decrease the risk. Plaintiff further maintained that all the subsequent treaters relied on the family medicine physician’s judgment for allowing the patient to proceed to surgery on birth control pills. The Defense argued that it was appropriate for the patient to proceed on birth control pills and though there is an increased risk in clotting, the risk is so small that it is not medically significant enough to mandate the discontinuation of the pills. All of the patient’s subsequent treaters were aware of her age, weight, underlying medical conditions, and the medications she was on and all decided to proceed with surgery as planned. The Defense showed that there were no written consensus guidelines that indicate the birth control pills should be stopped. The Defense also demonstrated that it is impossible to state that the birth control pills were the risk factor that caused the clotting for the pulmonary embolism and explained that a pulmonary embolism can be unprovoked and can happen to anyone. 

Plaintiff asked the jury for a verdict in excess of $15 million for grief and sorrow of the decedent’s family, as well as for loss of services. The jury deliberated for 48 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the Defendants.

Disclaimer: This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide general information on legal matters. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Readers should seek specific legal and/or medical advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Marilee Clausing. This post constitutes a form of attorney advertising as defined by some state bar associations.