| Surgery consent forms (PDF files, Adobe
Acrobat Reader required)
Consent to Operation - The
first two lines of handwritten text in section 1 list the
specific procedures to be performed. "Removal bilateral
breast implants, Replacing bilateral saline implants."
The last two lines are a list of risks written by Dr. Kagan.
This document says nothing about the Benelli procedure.
Breast Implant Patient Review
and Advisory - This form lists the risks that Shellie
and Dr. Kagan discussed. Shellie signed it as she was wheeled
into the operating room. The illegible writing you see is
by Dr. Kagan. This document also says nothing about the Benelli
procedure. However, Dr. Kagan testified that it gave him permission
to do the Benelli.
| According to the Chicago
Clerk of Court, as of December 2005, Dr. Robert
S. Kagan has been sued EIGHT times for medical
malpractice. Dr. Kagan has been represented in
most of these lawsuits by the same attorneys. |
|
Facts Regarding Shellie's Case and Medical
Malpractice in General
| |
On Thursday, December
18, 2003 Jay Deratany filed a Multi-million dollar lawsuit
against me for the publishing of this website and $9,000.00
for expenses he claimed I owed him from the medical malpractice
trial. It should be noted that the First Amendment belongs
to those that can buy it. There is no such thing as freedom
of speech if you say something that someone else with
power and money doesn't want you to say even when you
have every right to say what you said, unless you have
the money to pay for the fight. Mr. Deratany also wrote
a very derogatory website about me www.shelliebeverlin.com
(currently offline). |
| |
Mr. Deratany also
filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against my estranged
husband even after Mr. Deratany called him to threaten
him with the lawsuit and my husband explained to Mr.
Deratany that we were separated and that he had no involvement
in the writing or publishing of my site. A substantial
amount of money was spent defending my husband. The case
was dismissed on jurisdictional issues. Mr. Deratany
then filed the suit again in Federal Court. My husband
was once again forced to retain counsel. Mr. Dertany
shortly thereafter voluntarily withdrew the suit stating
to my husband’s attorney that he will be refiling it.
To date he has not done so. |
| |
The trial
date was set for October 2, 2006 to defend myself and
this website against the lawsuit that Mr. Deratany
filed against me in December of 2003. I want to thank
everyone for their support and prayers. You all really
helped me get through this most trying time. I arrived
in Chicago on Thursday, September 28, 2006 along with
my witnesses. We met with my attorney to prepare for
trial. Preparation went on through the weekend.
I arrived at the Daley Center on October 2, 2006 with my attorney and witnesses.
We then reported to the assignment courtroom (that is a courtroom in which all
the pending cases are assigned to a judge to hear them). Neither Mr. Deratany
nor his attorney were present. Our case was called, we advised the court that
the plaintiff was not present and in spite of that fact, we were assigned to
a judge. We then proceeded to the assigned judge's courtroom. My attorney and
a representative from the court from which we were assigned began trying to contact
Mr. Deratany's attorney. I sat in the hallway of the court and sobbed; I had
waited for almost three years for my day in court, I spent a great deal of money
in defending my website over those three years, and I was ready to go to trial.
Why wasn't Mr. Deratany or his attorney there? We then heard from Mr. Deratany's
attorney who stated that he thought the trial date was October 3, 2006. My group
headed back to my attorney's office to wait to hear back from Mr.Deratany's attorney
as he needed to talk to his client.
Mr. Deratany's attorney called my attorney and suggested both sides drop their
claims. I initially said absolutely not. After several calls being exchanged
between the two attorneys, Mr. Deratany's attorney came over to my attorney's
office to meet in the conference room and discuss the issues in person. After
lengthy negotiations both sides agreed to dismiss their claims.
On October 3, 2006 the Honorable Judge Maureen Durkin Roy signed the Agreed Orders
dismissing Mr. Deratany's lawsuit with prejudice and my counter-claims without
prejudice as was mutually agreed upon by all parties involved on October 2, 2006. |
| |
On November 1,
2006 Jay Paul Deratany filed a motion for the Court to
Vacate the Court's Order of October 3, 2006 granting
our mutual dismissal of the Deratany lawsuit and my
counter claims. This motion was later withdrawn by
Jay Paul Deratany. |
| |
On September 27,
2007 I re-filed my counterclaims against Jay Paul Deratany
his former partner Terrence Carden III, and their current/former
(?) paralegal. Due to the way the previous lawsuit was
dismissed I am now the plaintiff. I did this only after
very careful consideration over a very long period of
time. Always think long and hard before filing a lawsuit,
as it is a difficult process to go through no matter
which side of the lawsuit that you are on. Unfortunately
I felt that I had no choice other than to re-file my
claims due to the ongoing problems I am having as a result
of the actions of the members of this law firm.
|
| |
One
in five Americans has suffered a serious medical or
prescription
error, as reported by the Harvard Medical Practice Study
1990. In the event that you are injured or suffer medical
abuse or medical malpractice you are protected and the
doctor will be exposed and punished, right? WRONG! Each
state
has a "regulatory board," and each state handles differently
how they investigate and discipline doctors. The Illinois
Department of Professional Regulations (IDPR) licenses
and monitors doctors who work in the state of Illinois.
In 1999 the IDPR ranked 41 out of 50 in disciplining
doctors.
According to Families
Advocating Injury Reduction (FAIR), an Illinois
consumer protection agency, the the Illinois Department
of Professional
Regulation has failed in its
legislative duties to investigate medical abuses and
to protect the citizens of this state. They are guilty
of
selective enforcement and of refusing to investigate
physicians. They are not protecting the citizens which
they serve
to protect, but are more interested in protecting the
doctors which they license. I am in total agreement with
FAIR's assessment of the Illinois Department of Professional
Regulation. I phoned the Illinois Department of Professional
Regulation to file a complaint against Dr. Kagan for
performing a surgery
on me that I did not consent to. I spoke to the chief
medical investigator, William Shlifka, who refused to
take my complaint. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Shlifka himself
was charged with a crime and plead guilty. His employment
ended with the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation.
Emmons Russell replaced Mr. Shlifka as chief medical
investigator. Mr. Russell, a former
cop
who served eight months of a two-year prison sentence
for perjury and tavern shakedowns in 1973. Are these
the
sort of people that should be investigating matters of
such great importance? The honesty and integrity of these
investigators are crucial to insure the safety and well-being
of the citizens of that state from dangerous doctors.
How does your state stack up? Find out through the Federation
of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. |
| |
According to abcnews.com,
of the 621,000 licensed doctors in this country, the state
boards in 1998 disciplined 4,520. That is only about three-quarters
of 1 percent. |
| |
Many doctors who get in trouble in one state simply
resume practice somewhere else, even though the main
purpose of the National Practitioner Data Bank is to
prevent questionable physicians from moving state to
state. By law, the National Practitioner Data Bank is
kept secret, with only hospital administrators and licensing
boards given access.
The Courant's (www.ctnow.com)
analysis found that 1,079 physicians who lost their
medical license in one state during the last 10 years
retained a license in at least one other state. "The
data bank is a joke," said Hartley Hampton, a Houston
trial lawyer who has sued several notorious Texas doctors.
"The hospitals have access to it, and are fully aware
of these guys' records, and yet they continue to extend
privileges." Courant's
(www.ctnow.com).
|
| |
According to www.abcnews.com,
another problem can be lack of hospital discipline.
Hospitals
are supposed to take their own disciplinary action when
warranted and inform the state medical board so it can
impose further discipline or monitor the doctor. In some
cases, a hospital will simply let the offending physician
quietly leave without any disciplinary action and without
notifying the state medical board. In the hospital setting,
it is of course doctors policing doctors. The federal
government keeps a comprehensive list of doctors who
have
been sanctioned by state licensing boards, as well as
medical malpractice payouts. |
| |
A sensible person
might call the state regulating agency to check their
prospective physician's record. In doing so, if the person
at the agency responds to the inquiry by saying "no discipline,
no complaints" a reasonable person might believe that
their prospective doctor has a clean record. WRONG!! The
agency will not tell you if the department has simply
received complaints from patients about a doctor,or if
it is in the process of an investigation. You will only
learn of complaints against doctors when the doctor has
been found guilty. According to a 1996 Chicago Magazine
article, "Bad Medicine," a phone call was placed to IDPR
inquiring as to complaints against Illinois physician
Dr. Bruce Vest. The IDPR employee responded "no discipline,
no complaints," in spite of the fact that they had been
fielding complaints about Vest since 1987 and at least
18 patients have testified to its investigators against
Vest. |
| |
Selecting the right attorney is very important. If
you make the wrong choice and your lawyer fails you,
your chances of recourse against your lawyer are just
as poor as with your doctor. Only a minute percentage
of American lawyers formally charged after a complaint
are disciplined under the super secret processes followed
in each state. The disciplinary boards are composed
of lawyers, of course.
According to the American Bar Association, in 1996 of
the 118,891 complaints to state disciplinary boards
in that year, formal charges were initiated against
only 2,504. Out of the 118,891 complaints filed, only
1.57 percent of the lawyers were suspended or disbarred.
Experts say most lawyers found guilty of wrongdoing,
even committing serious felonies, usually escape with
suspension or even verbal reprimands and restitution
of some sort. Source: Frank J. Murray, "Practitioners
Almost Bulletproof When it Comes to Client Complaints,"
Washington Times, July 20, 2000.
|
| |
|
|
