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.)
As instructed, on January 12, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for another follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee and left heel pain. Dr. Hall windowed the heel of the cast to relieve pressure and decrease plaintiff’s pain. Dr. Hall discussed the possibility of a lateral release of the patella with scope. He explained the risks and benefits of the procedure to plaintiff.
Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a pre-operative evaluation at which time she reported pain in her left knee. She was able to perform an SLR but there was maltracking of the patella. Dr. Hall and plaintiff discussed the risks and benefits of an arthroscopy and lateral release with possible medial repair. The arthroscopy with lateral release of plaintiffs left patella was performed on January 27, 2008. The scope showed maltracking and subluxing laterally. In addition, flexion was limited. The lateral release was performed and improved the position and tracking of the patella significantly with 90 to 95 degrees of flexion achieved.
On February 5, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain in her left knee but reported that it felt stronger. She was able to perform a SLR with little assistance. The knee was placed in an extension splint. X-rays taken on this date do not show any complications with the tibial and femoral components.
For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a follow-up visit on February 18, 2008. Plaintiff complained of left knee pain and reported that she had begun physical therapy. Plaintiff’s quadriceps strength was good. The extensor splint was continued.
On March 4, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain and stiffness, especially in the mornings. Plaintiffs quadriceps were bulking up and she could do a SLR and had 70 degrees of flexion. These were both good signs. An extensor splint was re-applied.
On March 15, 2008, plaintiff next presented to Dr.Lee, another orthopedist atUniversal Medical Clinic, for a consultation. Dr.Lee noted a palpable gap in the medial retinaculum and lateral subluxation of the patella with an impression of medical retinacular dehiscence. Dr.Lee indicated she felt a gap in the tissue on the inside edge of the patella, consistent with the lateral tracking she could visualize. Dr.Lee noted that plaintiff would likely require a medial retinacular repair and possibly a VMO enhancement to improve her function and stabilize the knee. However, in line with Dr. Hall’s conservative approach, Dr.Lee recommended exercise and strengthening of the tissue. Plaintiff stated she wanted to continue her care with Dr. Hall. (See Part 4 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.