Medical Malpractice

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Takes To Trial After Elderly Patient Dies, Part 5 of 5

June 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Defendant: Death.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Defendant: Plaintiffs did not claim any economic damages. Plaintiffs’ attorney argued for approximately $1.7 million for loss of comfort, society, companionship, etc.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Defendant: Plaintiffs demanded $1 million from all defendants. Defendants offered, pursuant to CCP § 998, a waiver of costs in exchange for a dismissal.

COMMENTS

According to Defendant: Judge granted a nonsuit to all defendants on the “Elder Abuse” cause of action after plaintiffs rested. However, he did allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint to conform to proof to allege “medical battery” against Dr. Haim only. However, he also ruled that he would not allow an allegation of entitlement to punitive damages. The patient’s grandson, son of plaintiff Sasha Jimerson, was his caregiver. He was being paid by “In Home Social Services” for the care and often would leave decedent for days on “paydays.” There had been multiple visits to the home by Adult Protective Services (“APS”), but no charges were brought. Dr. Reason became aware (after the patient’s admission to ABC) of the investigation and was interviewed by detectives before the patient died. The patient’s entire family, including Sasha Jimerson, was implicated. After the patient died, APS declared the death a coroner’s case and advised Dr. Reason not to sign a death certificate or otherwise indicate a cause of death in the hospital chart. After autopsy, the coroner declared the death a “homicide” and opined that, although the patient died from complications of hip surgery, that would not have occurred had he not been abused by his caregiver.

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

Wrongful Death Claim Against Hospital After Elderly Patient Dies, Part 4 of 5

May 25, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Haim adamantly denied he ever promised the patient he would walk again. Instead, he documented that the surgery was for relief of pain, which was likely going to continue without repair of the hip. On the afternoon of February 17, 2007, he noted the hematologist had ordered the patient to have nothing by mouth after midnight and that his blood should be typed and cross-matched for two units of blood for typical replacement after surgery. He interpreted these orders as “clearance” for the surgery. He hoped to improve the patient’s quality of life by eliminating pain during movement. He operates very frequently on Sundays on elective cases.

The nurse obtaining the written consent, who was training at the time, said she would have been physically accompanied by her charge nurse when she obtained the patient’s written consent, and neither would have obtained it if they had any doubt of the patient’s competency. The family is noted to be in the patient’s room that afternoon, and she would have documented any objection to the surgery.

Both doctors denied the patient was bleeding to death. There was no significant surgical wound bleeding noted, and his anemia was corrected by transfusions. Other areas, such as the GI-tract, were evaluated for bleeding, and nothing significant was found.

With regard to negligence, defendants’ expert testified that Dr. Reason complied with the standard of care in all respects. The “possible dementia” was in the differential diagnosis at admission but was transient and likely due to dehydration, infection, and hypoxia. With regard to causation, he testified that the patient died of complications of multi-organ failure but not due to bleeding. Instead, his kidneys began failing (prior to surgery) after a consultant ordered a CT of the neck with contrast to rule out an airway obstruction.

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

Elderly Patient Dies In Hospital After Bleeding To Death Post-Surgery, Part 3 of 5

May 18, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs Sasha Jimerson and Sam Watson Jr. alleged that the patient clearly was demented and could not legally consent to the surgery. The surgery was unnecessary in an 89 year old with multiple medical problems and exposed him to a high risk of complication. The consent obtained on February 17, 2007 was invalid because of dementia. All of the defendants should have made the diagnosis of dementia or should have had a neurologist consult on the patient prior to surgery.

Plaintiffs also alleged that the patient was never “cleared” for surgery by Dr. Reason and, therefore, Dr. Haim acted prematurely. After surgery, the patient essentially bled to death, most likely from undocumented and persistent bleeding from the surgical incision, and defendants failed to control the bleeding, which led to underperfusion of the patient’s vital organs, ultimately causing his death.

Plaintiffs’ expert had no criticism of the surgery itself. Instead, he believed the consent was invalid due to the patient’s mental condition. He was critical of Dr. Haim for not correcting the post-operative hemorrhaging.

Plaintiffs’ expert criticized everyone for obtaining consent from a person clearly incompetent to give consent. The daughter’s concerns were well taken, and, at a minimum, Dr. Reason and Dr. Haim should have consulted with hospital administration and a neurologist for assistance. Although he acknowledged that Dr. Reason did not clear the patient for surgery, which he commended, he did criticize his “quarterbacking” of the post-operative care with regard to the bleeding, which he should have diagnosed and corrected. Finally, he criticized Dr. Reason for “covering up” for Dr. Haim in his dictated death summary, as it says that there was an intensive discussion with the family before the surgery went forward, which clearly was not true.

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

Family Claims Medical Malpractice In Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Part 2 of 5

May 11, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

From admission to Saturday, February 17, 2007, the patient’s conditions were stabilized. That morning, Dr. Reason postponed the surgery for that day because the patient had a high white blood cell count and asked the hematologist following the patient to decide whether this finding should further postpone the surgery. Dr. Haim testified that later that day, although no consultant specifically wrote “cleared for surgery,” the orders and notes of the hematologist and cardiologist clearly indicated to him that the patient could have the surgery the following morning, Sunday, February 18, 2007.

A nurse presented the written consent to the patient late in the afternoon of February 17 and testified that if she had had any suspicion that the patient was mentally incompetent or otherwise did not know what he was signing, she would have consulted with her charge nurse and most likely Dr. Haim. However, since that did not happen, she presumed she had no such suspicion. Dr. Reason was not aware of the plan for surgery in the morning.

The surgery went forward on Sunday morning, February 18, 2007, and no intra-operative complications arose. The patient’s blood loss of about 500 cc was “normal” for such a surgery. Over the next few days, the patient did reasonably well. However, on February 22, 2007, he developed low blood pressure and a high heart rate and was transferred to the ICU. His blood studies showed a significant anemia, suggesting blood loss from somewhere.

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

Sacramento Medical Malpractice Suit Brought After Woman Claims Failure To Monitor

May 9, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(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.)

INJURIES: Stevenson alleged anoxic brain injury resulting in some worsening of pre-existing memory and cognitive problems, including “flooding syndrome” or being overwhelmed and frustrated after becoming engaged in discussions or activities. She was in a rehab facility for a couple months and fell once or twice while there.

Facts:

On March 10, 2005, plaintiff Marla Stevenson, 56, a former licensed vocational nurse, was admitted to Sacramento Medical Center for repair of a broken Parkla. She was already being treated with methadone, 720 milligrams a day, for chronic pain related to spinal stenosis. After the knee surgery, she was moved to the regular floor. About 3.5 hours later, she experienced cardiopulmonary arrest of unknown length and cause. She was revived, but had an anoxic brain injury.

Stevenson sued the medical center; its owner; and her doctor, family practitioner Anthony Kerry, for medical malpractice. Kerry settled before trial for an undisclosed amount.

Stevenson charged that the medical center defendants should have had her on electronic monitoring, given the amount of pain medication she was on and given that, in the recovery room, heart arrhythmias were recorded. Also, the surgeon ordered post-recovery oxygen, and he and the ER doctor ordered a preoperative EKG, but neither order was followed.

Stevenson also claimed that the recovery room staff failed to pass information to the floor nurses.

The medical center defendants contended that monitoring is a physician’s decision and could have been ordered by a physician, that the arrhythmias were benign bigeminy, that a recorded ventricular fibrillation was misread by the monitor equipment, and that each arrhythmia was reported to Stevenson’s physicians.

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

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Is Brought After Elderly Family Member Dies in Hospital, Part 1 of 5

May 4, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Defendant: On February 12, 2007, at approximately 11:00 p.m., decedent Sam Watson, 89 years old, was admitted by paramedics to the ER of defendant ABC Hospital (“ABC”) after he called 911. The paramedics reported to the ER physician that they had found decedent in his apartment amidst conditions that suggested elder abuse by his caretaker.

Although the patient’s only recorded complaint was being hungry, upon examination he was found to be dehydrated, malnourished, over-anticoagulated on Coumadin, and to have an apparent old fracture of his right hip. He also had pneumonia, hypoxia, and was “possibly demented.” Because his primary care physician, Dr. Park, was not on staff at ABC and could not be reached, he was admitted to the service of internist Sal Reason, M.D., who was on call to the ER. Dr. Reason had no prior relationship with the patient.
A plan for stabilization of the various conditions was established by Dr. Reason, who called in various consultants for assistance. Among the consultants was defendant Pat Haim, M.D., an orthopedist, to consult on the obviously fractured leg. In his history and physical note, Dr. Reason also indicated, among other conditions, “possible dementia.”

Dr. Haim saw the patient on February 13, 2007, and by then both a plane x-ray and a CT of the right hip demonstrated an old, complete intertrochanteric fracture of the right hip, with about 3 inches of displacement of the femoral shaft. Dr. Haim recommended a right hemiarthroplasty (partial artificial hip replacement) to be done after the patient’s condition was sufficiently stabilized for surgery.

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

Veteran Loses 90% of Eyesight In San Jose Hospital Study, Part 2 of 2

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

William claimed that the hospital’s optometry department first diagnosed him as a “glaucoma suspect” in August 2004, but he received no treatment for onset glaucoma during the next four and a half years, despite subsequent visits and assessments that he was at risk for the disease. William subsequently became legally blind. He contended that the hospital should have treated him accordingly.

William further contended that the hospital’s optometrists had not followed an internal policy that required all patients with glaucoma to have their treatment overseen and reviewed by an ophthalmologist and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist for his care.

The defense argued that William’s private internist should have been aware of his eye condition and need for treatment, and should have referred him for such treatment. The defendant also denied that William’s early symptoms were in fact indicative of glaucoma, and contended that he received proper VA medical care for treatment of his eyes.

Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the defendant served subpoenas upon every one of William’s private health care providers for purposes of filing potential third party complaints, but records disclosed no outside visits to any private optometrists or ophthalmologists, as William’s eye care was provided exclusively at the Palo Alto VA.

William also claimed he suffered anxiety and depression, though he still has some quality of life.

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

Sacramento Woman Claims Medical Malpractice After Surgical Complications

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(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.)

INJURIES: Melon had multiple lengthy admissions to the UC Davis Medical Center. She was treated for sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, malnutrition, a duodenal fistula and an enterocutaneous fistula. During one admission, she was treated with pressors to maintain her blood pressure and this treatment caused an amputation of the toes on her left foot and a partial amputation of the right foot. The enterocutaneous fistula healed and the duodenal was closed during a procedure in October 2007. Melon remained severely de-conditioned and she developed contractures of the AcHaimes tendons.

Facts:

On Aug. 23, 2005, plaintiff Karen Melon, 26, unemployed, underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by general surgeon Jeffrey R. Jemming. The following day, Melon had signs of sepsis and evidence of a bile leak. General surgeon Jerry Aaron, who was Jemming’s partner, performed an exploratory laparotomy. He found and repaired a perforation on the anterior aspect of the first part of the duodenum.

Melon’s condition initially improved, but then worsened on Aug. 29. There was increasing drainage from a drain Aaron had placed. On Sept. 1, Jemming performed an exploratory laparotomy with Aaron assisting. Jemming performed a Kocher maneuver and found a perforation on the posterior aspect of the second part of the duodenum. He resected a portion of the duodenum and performed a primary anastomosis.

Melon’s post-operative course was complicated by sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and adult respiratory distress syndrome. She was intubated and put on a ventilator. On Sept. 18, she was transferred to the UC Davis Medical Center.

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

San Francisco Hospital Performs Negligent Treatment Causing Permanent Brain Damage

May 2, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

INJURIES: Clemmens sustained traumatic encephalopathy and required eight months of hospitalization. He now has significant cognitive deficits and general difficulty performing the tasks of every day life. He is unable to return to work.

Facts:

On Sept. 26, 2007, plaintiff Nathan Clemmens, 53, a sales manager for Oasis, fainted while at San Francisco International Airport, hitting his head on the floor and becoming dazed. He was rushed via ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital, where a CT scan revealed a small subarachnoid hemorrhage and an EKG revealed a heart attack. A subsequent angiography showed an occluded right coronary artery.

The plaintiff was hemodynamically stable, but cardiologists at the hospital decided to perform angioplasty and place a stent. Following the administration of anticoagulant agents, Clemmens developed massive bleeding in the brain in the form of bilateral frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhages. He survived, but sustained permanent brain damage.

Via his wife, Clemmens sued the hospital’s operator, The Regents of the University of California, for medical malpractice. Clemmens’s counsel claimed that given knowledge of the plaintiff’s head injury, the stenting procedure was contraindicated and an unacceptable risk. The lawyer claimed that the danger from the plaintiff’s clogged coronary artery was not life threatening.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Brought Against Hospital After Study Goes Wrong, Part 1 of 2

April 25, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

INJURIES: William claimed that between 2004, when he first presented with glaucoma symptoms, and 2009, when he was diagnosed with glaucoma, he suffered the loss of more than 90 percent of his visual fields, progressive optic nerve damage and continuing damage to nerve fibers, as well as continuing and progressive “cupping” of his optic nerves. He claimed that the negligent treatment proximately caused a need for invasive glaucoma surgery in both eyes, with the left one needing further surgical revisions, and that this has caused him to be rendered legally blind. He said he has almost no peripheral vision left, but he does have remaining visual acuity (i.e., he is able to see straight ahead). He can also read, watch television and see his wife, children and grandchildren.