Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On April 22, 2004, plaintiff Bill Fleese went to defendant San Jose hospital (“HOSPITAL”) to have blood drawn for both a total and a free Prostate-Specific Antigen (“PSA”) test. On April 30, 2004, plaintiff met with defendant Doctor for a Digital Rectal Examination (“DRE”) and a total and free PSA tests review and evaluation for the first time. Plaintiff was a patient of Mitchell Jensen, M.D., a general practitioner, and Jensen had referred plaintiff to DOCTOR, a urologist. DOCTOR stated that plaintiff had a “strong family history of prostate cancer.” He stated in his April 30, 2004 Notes Report: “Bill Fleese is a 62-year-old gentleman who comes in because of a family history of prostate cancer and a PSA and prostate check.” Jensen had previously ordered the two total PSA tests and the free PSA test conducted from the blood drawn from plaintiff on April 22, 2004. The report indicated that on April 22, 2004, plaintiff had a 2.7 ng/ml total PSA and a 21 percent free PSA.
Plaintiff telephoned DOCTOR’s office on April 28 or April 29, 2004 to confirm that DOCTOR had the total and free PSA tests results from the blood drawn on April 22, 2004, and plaintiff received confirmation from DOCTOR’s assistant that DOCTOR had received the April 23, 2004 report with the total and free PSA test results.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
At the April 30, 2004 DRE session, DOCTOR informed plaintiff that his total PSA test result from the April 22, 2004 blood draw was 2.7 and the free PSA test result was 26 percent, and that the April 22, 2004 free PSA test result of 26 percent had stayed at the same level as plaintiff’s October 30, 2002 test result of 26 percent. As stated in the April 23, 2004 report, plaintiff’s total PSA was tested at 2.7 on April 22, 2004, but plaintiff’s free PSA was tested at 21 percent on April 22, 2004, and DOCTOR, on or after April 22, 2004, never informed plaintiff that his free PSA was 21 percent on April 22, 2004 or the fact that it had dropped from 26 percent on October 30, 2002.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.