Breast Impants Fail So Sacramento Woman Sues For Malpractice, Part 5 of 6

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Four of the twenty-one paragraphs in the declaration set forth Dr. Black’s background and the records he reviewed. The next thirteen paragraphs dryly recite passages from the medical records which show that some truly awful things occurred to plaintiff immediately following the breast augmentation surgery:

* Her right breast started lactating;
* As of June 14, 2005 (nine weeks following the surgery) plaintiff had been suffering breast pain and lactation for seven weeks;
* Plaintiff had an adverse reaction to a medication intended to dry up the milk production and ended up in the emergency room;
* The implants had to be removed on June 27, 2005, and during that procedure Dr. Lee found 500 cc of milk in the right breast and 350 cc in the left;
* The breast fluid was found to contain staphylococcus;
* In early July, Dr. Lee removed the drains because they were no longer draining, yet on July 11 plaintiff was found to still have milk drainage;
* Plaintiff consulted with another physician on July 15, who found possible infection which he aspirated, with immediate relief;
* Plaintiff nevertheless was seen in the emergency room soon after, running a fever of 104, and milk continued to drain;
* Another surgery was required on July 18, during which more milk was found in each breast, and scar tissue was found;

* On August 19, it was found that one of the drains placed by Dr. Lee had fallen out;

* Dr. Lee told plaintiff she may need scar revision surgery, at least partially because of the milk.

Finally, in his last two paragraphs, Dr. Black blandly recites that Dr. Lee met the standard of care, and caused no injury to plaintiff.

Dr. Black does not discuss the fact that, immediately following the surgery performed by defendants, and obviously as a result of that surgery, plaintiff suffered from pain, infections and lactation, and underwent additional surgical procedures. Surely Dr. Black does not believe that these are normal results of properly performed medical care.

A declaration which consists of recitation of medical records followed by opinions has no value where there is nothing to connect the opinions with the recited facts. Dr. Black’s declaration is squarely within this category, and cannot support a motion for summary judgment. The motion must be denied. (See Part 6 of 6.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information