Illinois Police Lieutenant Wins Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Following Leg Amputation

When it comes to unexpected medical procedures, few experiences are as harrowing and life-altering as enduring the amputation of a limb – especially when the procedure could have been avoided but for the negligence of the treating physician.

Following a recent medical malpractice trial before a Winnebago County, Illinois jury, one victim of this sort of gross negligence is set to receive a verdict of $3.63 million – a record for amputation cases in the jurisdiction.

After just a five-hour deliberation, jurors returned with a verdict in favor of the victim – holding the doctor and his employer, Surgical Associates of Northern Illinois, liable for the victim’s unfortunate loss of his leg. The defendants, who have not indicated intent to appeal the verdict, were performing surgeries, medical procedures, and emergency medical interventions for patients at the Rockford Memorial Hospital when the event occurred. The hospital was not named or implicated in the medical malpractice lawsuit.

Details of leg amputation

In August, 2010, the plaintiff – who was 65 years old at the time – presented at Rockford Memorial Hospital complaining of dizziness, fatigue, and upper-gastrointestinal bleeding. He was admitted to the facility, and was deemed to have just 41 percent blood flow in his left leg. After two days, the plaintiff was placed with an “Unna Boot,” which is a special dressing containing zinc oxide, which is wrapped tightly around the appendage for purposes of providing compression therapy to patients experiencing insufficient blood flow. The boot is commonly used in patients with ulcers in the leg, and is frequently prescribed for patients experience diabetes-induced high blood pressure.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff – who remained bound by the Unna Boot for five consecutive days – actually experienced the opposite effect and development necrotic tissue in the areas subjected to the wrapping.  Not long after, the area became so infected, the patient required a below-the-knee amputation, which was later extended to an above-the-knee amputation.

According to counsel for the plaintiff, but for the placement of the Unna Boot – which was clearly inappropriate in the case of this patient – other treatment options could have not only alleviated his symptoms but would have prevented the resulting necropsy and subsequent leg amputation.

Details of medical malpractice claims 

Medical malpractice is a sub-set of negligence law, and essentially asserts that but for the doctor’s action or inaction, the resulting injury would not have occurred. Proving the causation element in a medical malpractice claim often proves difficult, as there are many potential superseding medical events that could also give rise to the patient’s injuries – and jurors must be able to precisely pinpoint that it was the doctor’s action or inaction that resulted in the issue.

Also common in a medical malpractice lawsuit is testimony from experts in the field, both in favor of and in opposition to the plaintiff’s position. Essentially, medical experts are hired by both sides to help determine what is “reasonable” given the exact situation faced by the medical professional on trial. In general, experts provide their opinions as to whether the doctor’s course of action (or inaction) followed generally accepted medical standards in the present-day industry.

In the case of the wrongfully-amputated leg, jurors undoubtedly concluded that placement of the Unna Boot, along with the other factors attributed to doctor negligence during the period in question, caused the plaintiff’s resulting infection and ultimate leg amputation.

Resources Resources