Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

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.)

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s last settlement demand of $650,000 was met with defendants’ final pre-trial offer of $30,000.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s experts testified that the defendant skilled nursing facility recklessly delayed obtaining treatment for decedent’s fractured hip for over 8 days and recklessly failed to prevent decedent from developing a severe pressure sore. The testimony was that both the delay and the pressure sore were substantial factors in causing decedent’s death. Defendants’ experts testified that the skilled nursing facility complied with the standard of care and that its conduct did not cause decedent’s death.

COMMENTS

According to Plaintiff: The complaint was filed on October 6, 2006. The jury was individually polled on their finding of liability, with a result of a 12-0 unanimous verdict in favor of liability in the total amount of $1,100,000. The jury was also individually polled on their finding of punitive damages, with a result of a 12-0 unanimous verdict in favor of punitive damages in the total amount of $28,000,000. The Sacramento Bee reported this case to be the largest plaintiff’s injury verdict in Sacramento history.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

At 32 weeks, the perinatologist interpreted the ultrasound as showing calcifications in the liver, intrauterine growth retardation and polyhydramnios. An amniocentesis confirmed the presence of chickenpox viral DNA in the amniotic fluid, with no other abnormalities shown on the ultrasound or amniocetesis. At 36 weeks, the second obstetrician delivered the baby via Caesarean section.

The baby had significant neurological abnormalities.

The plaintiff and her fiancé sued the first obstetrician, the second obstetrician, the perinatologist and the genetics counselor for medical malpractice.

Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the second obstetrician should have vaccinated the plaintiff mother before she became pregnant; the second obstetrician should have administered VZIG after exposure to the chickenpox virus; and the defendants should have recommended amniocentesis and discovered signs of congenital varicella on ultrasound before 26 weeks gestation.

The defense contended that the vaccination had been recommended to the plaintiffs; that VZIG was not proven to protect fetuses from congenital chicken pox; and that the plaintiffs had the option of having amniocentesis, and that ultrasound abnormalities did not show up until 32 weeks gestation.

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

Continue Reading ›

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: Kirk now lives in San Jose and claimed the delayed diagnosis and treatment of his glaucoma caused legal blindness in his right eye and loss of 15 percent of vision in his left eye.

Facts:

In early 2009, L.T. Kirk Jr., 68, who served in a U.S. Air Force special unit that maintained fighter jets flown in the Korean War, was one of eight eye patients receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration hospital in Palo Alto, when he was contacted by VA Palo Alto Health Care System and informed that he received improper care that may have caused some vision loss, which could have been prevented.

Kirk filed an Administrative Tort Claim, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, against the United States government, which owns and manages the hospital, for medical malpractice – negligent treatment and failure to diagnose or consult.

Kirk subsequently became legally blind in his right eye and suffered vision loss in his left, as well. He contended that the hospital failed to treat him for his glaucoma for several years, and also contended that there was an internal breakdown at the VA Hospital arising out of the VA’s failure to follow its own policy that all glaucoma patients seen in the optometry department must be referred to the ophthalmology department for care and treatment by medical doctors, and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist or medical doctor for his care.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: Decedent Fernanda Trenton was 78 years old at the time of her admission to defendant Sacramento Hospital on March 1, 2005. Plaintiff’s Alzheimer’s disease led her to wander and have episodes of incontinence. After the death of decedent’s husband, decedent’s daughter, plaintiff Emily Prillmer, concluded that her mother would be safest in an Alzheimer’s wing of a skilled nursing facility. Prillmer arranged for her mother’s admission to Sacramento Hospital on March 1, 2005.

Prillmer claimed that, from March 1, 2005 to September 2, 2005, decedent was fully ambulatory without any assistive devices. She further claimed that, as a result of Sacramento Hospital’s failure to devise and implement an effective plan of care to address Trenton’s fall risk, Trenton suffered five falls at the facility. On September 2, 2005, Trenton fell to the ground and immediately exhibited signs and symptoms of a hip fracture. She never walked again.

Eight days later, Trenton was diagnosed with a hip fracture, and a bedsore was discovered. Although she underwent surgery for the fracture, Trenton died a few weeks later due to an infection from the bedsore.

Prillmer brought an action against Sacramento Hospital and its parent company. Plaintiff Prillmer alleged that defendants recklessly delayed assessing and treating Trenton’s fractured hip and recklessly failed to prevent Trenton’s bedsore. These failures, Prillmer contended, were the consequence of extreme under-staffing at the nursing home and they caused her mother’s death.

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

Continue Reading ›

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: The baby was born with severe neurological abnormalities, including an absent gag reflex with repeated aspiration, microgastria and severe reflux, partial aplasia of one leg, oral aversion, episodic apnea to the point of loss of consciousness, periodic repeated vomiting spells which required permanent tracheostomy, round-the-clock oxygen therapy and feeding only by gastrostomy or jejunostomy tubes. The infant requires round-the-clock care.

Facts:

In spring 2007, the plaintiff, a 33-year-old woman who planned on having children, presented to an obstetrician. The plaintiff was found to lack immunity to chickenpox, though she was not vaccinated against it. Roughly three months later, she became pregnant. Thirteen weeks into her pregnancy, she was visited by her mother who had active shingles, the same virus as chickenpox. The plaintiff was sent immediately by her internist to a second obstetrician for treatment with anti-chickenpox immune globulin (VZIG). The second obstetrician did not administer the treatment. About three weeks later, the plaintiff broke out in classic chickenpox and recovered fully with antibiotics. She then followed up with a perinatologist to determine if the fetus had contracted congenital chickenpox.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiff sued defendant for nursing negligence, contending that the nurse did not appropriately assess plaintiff’s fall risk, given that she had a history of a prior fall, rheumatoid arthritis, lower extremity weakness, balance and mobility problems, as well as multiple other underlying health conditions, and that the nurse did not implement the proper fall precautions, which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff contended that the standard of care required the nurse to either give plaintiff a bed pan or stand with plaintiff, next to her, while she used the bedside commode. It was below the standard of care for the nurse to have left plaintiff on the commode by herself.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff’s fall risk was appropriately assessed and the nurse instituted appropriate fall-risk precautions, which included assistance with transitions and ambulation.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Defendant: Left tibia fracture; surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Defendant: Not reported.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Defendant: Not reported.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

According to Defendant: Plaintiff’s nursing expert, Elaine Karen, R.N., testified that defendant’s nurses negligently performed the fall-risk assessment of plaintiff and that the standard of care required a nurse to be in the room while plaintiff used the bedside commode, given her history of mobility problems, including balance problems and lower extremity weakness.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

The plaintiffs’ orthopedic surgery expert testified that the strong statistical probability was that some additional improper movement at the hospital (before surgery) caused the spinal cord injury, and if Katlyn had movement of her legs when she arrived at the hospital she should have continued to have that movement if the appropriate precautions were taken. The expert added that a verbal order was insufficient, and that regardless, there was no proper documentation by the nurses that there even was a voiced request for lumbar or thoracic spinal precautions when Melon removed the cervical spinal precautions in the emergency room.

Melon countered that he provided appropriate care at all times, that Katlyn’s injuries at L2-3 and T-10 were caused solely by the automobile accident, and that nothing could have been done to Katlyn at the hospital that could have prevented her paraplegia. Melon further contended that he gave verbal orders to put spinal precautions in place, and that it was custom and practice for the trauma team to do so in situations like Katlyn’s.
The defense’s trauma surgery expert claimed that the medical record did not document any improper movements in the hospital, and that a verbal order, as testified to by Melon, would be sufficient to comply with the standard of care for a trauma surgeon.

The neuroradiology expert for the defense opined the subsequent imaging (there was no MRI done before the abdominal surgery) supported his opinion that the spinal injuries occurred in the auto accident.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that during the 13 minutes following the intubation and during the prolonged CPR process, Vasquez experienced a severe anoxic insult to his brain and never regained consciousness.

The plaintiffs contended that the original intubation was placed esophageally, not tracheally, and that the hospital’s claim that Vasquez was saturating in the 90s and then suddenly became bradycardic was untrue, and physiologically impossible. Counsel noted that there were no oxygen saturation (SpO2) values recorded in the chart. The lawyer contended that the hospital’s failure to monitor Vasquez following intubation allowed his oxygen saturations to progressively drop to the point where he could no longer sustain cardiac function and went into cardiac and respiratory arrest.

The lawyer further contended that following the cardiac and respiratory arrest, the hospital failed to attempt to re-intubate Vasquez and instead tried to ventilate him via bag valve mask ventilation. Counsel asserted that, had respondents appropriately monitored Vasquez following intubation, it would have become evident that he was not properly intubated long before he went into respiratory and cardiac arrest, and that the delay in re-intubating Vasquez further contributed to his anoxic brain injury.

The hospital responded that the ER doctors’ post-intubation examination confirmed tracheal placement of the endotracheal tube. Although the medical record did not contain any recordation of oxygen saturation following the intubation, the defense insisted that Vasquez’s oxygen saturations were in excess of 90 and remained so following intubation.

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

Continue Reading ›

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.)

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Defendant: Plaintiff claimed she had part of her tongue removed, changes in taste, feeling, and range of motion of her tongue. She also claimed that, as a result of developing cancer, rather than having a pre-malignant lesion removed earlier, she was at risk for developing more pre-cancerous lesions.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Defendant: Plaintiff asked for special damages consisting of $89,000 in past medical/dental bills paid by insurance, $2,300 in insurance co-payments, and $1,500 in mileage. She asked for $100,000 to $200,000 in past general damages and $100,000 in future general damages.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Defendant: At a pre-trial mediation, plaintiff demanded $200,000. She served a CCP § 998 offer for $75,000. Defendant served a CCP § 998 offer for $9,999. Dr. Meier settled pre-trial for $25,000.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

According to Defendant: Plaintiff’s expert testified that defendant breached the standard of care that required biopsying a white lesion that does not wipe off or resolve after two to four weeks. As a result, the lesion in June 2008 advanced from a pre-malignant lesion to cancer. He stated further that because she developed cancer, she is now prone to developing more pre-malignant lesions in her head and neck area. Defense expert testified that the standard of care was met.

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

Continue Reading ›

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