$7.25M Cook County Verdict in C-Section Hysterectomy Case

A Cook County jury returned a $7.25 million verdict against five physicians and a registered nurse affiliated with University of Illinois Hospital, finding that errors during a cesarean delivery and post-operative management caused catastrophic injuries to a 32-year-old patient and ended her ability to have more children. The April 20 verdict allocates $6.75 million to Haylie Carlson and $500,000 to her husband, Philip Griffin, after roughly six hours of deliberation. The hospital itself was not tried as a defendant. The case centers on alleged surgical injuries during a C-section, a shift change that plaintiffs argued disrupted continuity of care, and a claimed failure to recognize and respond to ongoing hemorrhage that ultimately required removal of Carlson’s reproductive organs.

Delivery, Surgical Injuries, and the Shift Change

According to the complaint, Carlson underwent a C-section on Oct. 20, 2019, with attending obstetrician Dr. Monique Sutherland and resident obstetrician Dr. Joanna Izewski performing the procedure. Plaintiffs alleged that during the surgery the team accidentally cut uterine blood vessels as well as the left ureter and bladder dome. The pleadings also described a mid-procedure shift change around 7 a.m., when members of the surgical and anesthesia teams, including anesthesiologist Dr. Anya Raskin and anesthesia resident Dr. Brian Huntington, were relieved.

Obstetrician surgeon Dr. Gian Diaz Rodriguez assumed responsibility for closing the surgery, with registered nurse Iesha Waters serving as scrub nurse, according to court filings. The lawsuit alleges the outgoing clinicians did not adequately communicate the extent of intraoperative damage to the incoming team. Post-surgery, Rodriguez documented that Sutherland reported an “extension of the hysterotomy on the left side that was easily repaired,” but plaintiffs contended the underlying vascular injuries were not identified before closure, setting the stage for continued bleeding and progressive clinical deterioration.

Postoperative Monitoring and Alleged Failure to Escalate Care

The claims emphasize the period after surgery, alleging that clear indicators of severe hemorrhage were missed or minimized for hours. Waters, who was alleged to have served as bedside nurse following the operation, documented “heavy clotting,” but the complaint asserts she did not initiate a “Red Alert,” described in the pleadings as a hospital protocol designed to mobilize rapid response to obstetric emergencies such as major bleeding. Plaintiffs argued that the failure to escalate concerns and summon additional resources delayed diagnosis and treatment at a critical time.

As alleged, the delay resulted in worsening hemorrhage that could not be controlled with conservative measures, culminating in a hysterectomy and removal of Carlson’s ovaries and cervix. Carlson reportedly remained hospitalized until Oct. 28, 2019. The injuries, as framed in the case, extended beyond acute blood loss and surgical repair to the permanent loss of fertility, a damages theory that often turns on whether earlier recognition of bleeding and prompt intervention would have reduced the need for definitive organ removal. Broader implications are likely to focus on handoff practices and adherence to escalation protocols in high-risk obstetric settings.

Verdict, Damages, and the Effect of a High-Low Agreement

The jury awarded a combined $7.25 million, with $6.75 million designated for Carlson and $500,000 for Griffin, reflecting both individual injury claims and spousal damages. The verdict was described as the largest award for a hysterectomy case in the Cook County Circuit Court, exceeding a reported prior benchmark of $5 million set in 2009. While large verdicts in obstetric malpractice can be driven by medical complexity and the permanence of reproductive harm, they also frequently reflect how jurors evaluate communication failures and postoperative vigilance in the immediate hours after delivery.

Defense counsel Sherri Arrigo of Donohue Brown Smyth LLC indicated the verdict is subject to a high-low agreement, a pre-verdict arrangement that sets a minimum recovery and caps the maximum amount defendants must pay regardless of the jury’s number. The plaintiffs were represented by Clifford Law Offices, according to court filings. Because high-low terms can materially change the collectible amount, post-trial focus typically shifts to implementing the agreement, addressing any remaining motions, and ensuring that judgment mechanics align with the negotiated cap and floor.