Michael F. Compton – Recent Cases & News
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.
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.
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.