The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about April 21, 2006, plaintiff was seen in the emergency department at Universal Medical Center. At that time, he was assessed as having gangrene of the right foot, diabetes mellitus, and sepsis. The plan was to admit plaintiff under the services of his attending physician, Mary Smith, M.D., and to have plaintiff seen by surgeon, Paul Woo, M.D. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Thereafter, on April 21, 2006, a physical examination performed by Dr.. Woo revealed that plaintiff’s right foot had no palpable pulsation on either of the dorsalis pedis, nor the posterior tibial artery. At that time, Dr. Woo’s impression was gangrene of the right foot, and he recommended non-invasive studies of the arteries of the right lower extremity. Accordingly, on April 22, 2006, right lower extremity radiological studies revealed no significant stenosis and no occlusion, and that plaintiff’s right foot gangrene was due to small vessel disease.
Also on April 22, 2006, plaintiff was seen in consultation by vascular surgeon, Richard Brown, M.D. At that time, Dr. Brown discovered that plaintiff had developed an exudate from blistering of the right lateral foot. His toes had become cold and gangrenous with severe pain. Dr. Brown believed plaintiff required some amputation and tissue loss, although because of the triphasic pulses that he had, he suggested that plaintiff undergo an arteriogram as well as skin oxygen saturation studies in order to determine whether any portion of the leg could be preserved.