Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court. 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 area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial 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 case and its proceedings.)
Although the second stage of reconstructive surgery was scheduled, Serri elected to forego its completion and had the expert amputate the right middle finger at the level of the proximal interphalangeal joint, located at the middle of his finger on Jan. 11, 2007. The expert testified that Serri’s decision was motivated by a desire to return to work sooner, that Serri felt rehabilitation would take too long and was not guaranteed. Serri testified that he decided on amputation because he felt the two-stage procedure was experimental and that the expert had given him a poor prognosis even if he completed reconstructive surgery.
Serri thereafter returned to work, but developed left shoulder pain that he claimed was the consequence of overuse caused by compensating for the amputated finger, aggravating underlying degenerative shoulder disease. He underwent shoulder surgery on Sept. 8, 2008, performed by his expert in orthopedic surgery, who opined that the predominant problem accounting for the symptoms was joint arthritis. The expert also found calcium pyrophosphate disease, or pseudo-gout, which he thought could have been a contributing factor accounting for the symptoms. Serri did not return to his job and claimed that he was unable to do similar duties.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
At trial, the plaintiff orthopedic hand surgery expert testified that Stevens must have lacerated both flexor tendons with surgical scissors. The expert opined that Stevens inserted the scissors beyond the A1 pulley, which was released as part of the procedure into the distal edge of the A2 pulley, and underneath both tendons, substantially cutting both tendons at that point. The expert testified that his opinion was based on the fact that Serri did not have ruptured tendons before the trigger finger procedure and developed the ruptures sometime after the procedure. The expert also testified that if Serri did notify Stevens of redness and swelling on April 28, then Stevens was required to see Serri and place him on rest to prevent the ruptures.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.