Page 16 - Anatomy of a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

SVMIC Anatomy of a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

the labeling. The patient, who had returned home to

Chicago, was informed that she did not have cancer. The
patient continued to be seen by her Chicago physicians who

did not immediately follow up on the pathologist’s

interpretation. The patient was eventually diagnosed with
cervical cancer and ultimately died, leaving a husband and

two small children as survivors.

A lawsuit was filed in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), initially
against only the Chicago doctors. However, during the

course of the litigation, the Tennessee pathologist’s
erroneous interpretation was discovered, and the lawsuit

was amended to add him as a defendant in the Chicago

litigation. This is a significant point and demonstrates the
dangers of practicing in a state different from the one in

which you are located. Although the pathologist could have
reasonably expected to be sued in southern Illinois where his

group contracted to provide services, he never expected to

be sued in Chicago which is located in the northern part of
the state. How did this happen?

Generally, courts have the discretionary power to

consolidate cases to be heard in a single trial if they raise
common questions of fact or issues of law. As a matter of

convenience and judicial economy, two lawsuits based upon
the same occurrence (same underlying facts) and/or alleged

underlying basis for the plaintiff’s claimed injuries cannot

proceed in two separate courts and those two actions will be
consolidated. That is what happened in this case. The trial

court judge in the Chicago case consolidated the two
malpractice actions and allowed the pathologist to be sued

Page | 16