STATE AGENCY SLOW TO DISCIPLINE DOCTOR - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

In the Sunday Chicago Tribune , Deborah Shelton has a great article about how the Illinois agency responsible for disciplining doctors is not aggressive enough. The agency in question, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation[IDFPR] oversees a number of professions, including the practice of medicine. The article focused on one doctor in particular – Nicholas Caro, M.D., a Chicagoland ophthalmologist[eye doctor]. The article explained that since the early 1990’s, Caro has been sued nearly 50 times, with 29 of the lawsuits filed in the last decade.
Caro is affiliated the St. George Corrective Vision Center on West Peterson Avenue in Chicago, where he serves as the medical director. Specifically, Caro does Lasik surgery, a cosmetic surgical procedure where a laser is used to change the shape of the cornea, or covering located at the front of the eye. According to the article, Caro has performed 25,000 eye procedures in the last 25 years.
The chief medical prosecutor for the IDFPR, Lisa Stephens, recommended in an original complaint in March, 2008 that Caro’s medical license be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined. She further noted that Caro had “…committed acts and/or omissions which constitute gross negligence in the practice of medicine.” The complaint was amended in July and October to include the specifics from additional cases. Yet the IDFPR has yet to take any action against Caro. In fact, no hearing date has been set. Daniel Bluthardt, Director of the Department’s Division of Professional Regulation declined comment, but did note that “It’s not unusual for a case, from start to finish, to take as long as two years to resolve.” That may be. But Caro’s situation might call for a little more urgency. The guy has been sued for malpractice nearly 50 times.
When reached to comment on the article, Caro noted that a lot of doctors get sued, and indicated that other doctors who perform Lasik procedures have similar problems. Shelton checked with the Ophthalmologic Mutual Insurance Company which insures nearly one third of ophthalmologists currently practicing in the United States. She noted that 75% of ophthalmologists who have been practicing 25 years, have been sued – but not with the same frequency as Caro. Of that 75% most have 3 or less malpractice suits against them.
In fact, as noted in the article, Caro’s practice also attracted the attention of the federal government, back in 1997. At that time the Food and Drug Administration[FDA] said his clinic was using unapproved laser equipment in treating certain vision problems. The FDA removed the equipment from the practice. At the time the agency noted that “Such unapproved lasers pose a risk to patients because their use could potentially cause serious eye injury. The manufacturers and eye clinics had ignored prior warnings from FDA.”
The folks at the IDFPR by and large do good work. But there is no excuse for letting this particular case just churn through the system like any other case. Push this case to the front of the line and take whatever action may be appropriate with respect to Dr. Caro.

By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
German Conglomerate makes a bid to end Roundup litigation 
By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
By Mark Loftus February 3, 2026
THE ILLINOIS GENDER VIOLENCE ACT - IN A NUTSHELL Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (GVA) 740 IlCS 82/1, victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other forms of gender related violence can bring civil actions against perpetrators even when criminal charges are not filed. The GVA defines two of the four acts of “gender violence” - though the definitions are a bit convoluted: One or or more acts of violence of physical aggression satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s sex; A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois, whether or nor the act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution or conviction. Under the Illinois Criminal Code, a person commits a battery when he or she knowingly, without legal justification, causes bodily harm or makes insulting/provoking physical contact with another individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3. The Criminal Code requires physical contact. AND EMPLOYERS MAY NOW FACE LIABILITY In July, 2023 an amendment made it explicit that the GVA does extend to the workplace. As set forth in the Act, an employer is liable for gender-related violence in the workplace by an employee when the interaction arises out of and in the course of employment. Liability will only arise however, if the (1) the employee was directly performing his or her duties and the violence was the proximate cause of the injury or (2) while the agent of the employer was directly involved in the gender-related violence and the performance of the work was the proximate cause of the injury. Liability will only extend to the the employer however if it can be shown that (1) the employer failed to supervise, train or monitor the offending employee or 2) the employer failed to investigate and respond to reports directly provided to appropriate management personnel. Damages under the Act may include injunctive relief, and actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. And importantly, the GVA is a fee-shifting statute - so a successful plaintiff may seek to recover attorneys fees. So, in cases of sexual harassment, may a plaintiff, include a count for damages under the GVA? The answer is an unqualified yes. And the contact need not be excessive or dramatic or prolonged - so long as there was no consent nor any justification for the physical contact. In fact, the Act notes that a legitimate threat that the harasser will commit an nonconsensual act is sufficient.
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.