Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

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 decedent was a few months short of completing her fellowship in hematology/oncology at UCSF. She had job prospects which would have provided her a starting salary of more than $200,000 per year. The decedent’s husband is a medical doctor who has completed a residency in neurology and who specializes in pain management. His future earnings would have been comparable to the decedent’s. The decedent’s parents joined with her husband and daughter as wrongful death claimants, alleging that she had been contributing to their support. The daughter was 2 years old at the time of the decedent’s death.

Facts:

On May 26, 2007, plaintiffs’ decedent, 32, a physician, underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure to remove a bile duct stone and to insert a stent to relieve biliary obstruction. The procedure was performed by a University of California-San Francisco professor, who heads the endoscopy program, and a gastroenterology fellow.

The decedent was to be deeply sedated and monitored by a sedation nurse. Approximately 15 minutes after the endoscope was passed, the decedent’s oxygen saturation values fell and then became undetectable. The sedation nurse attributed the problem to a malfunction of the monitor, rather than to a change in the decedent’s condition, and about 10 minutes later, after the original monitor was replaced by a second pulse oximeter, the decedent went into ventricular tachycardia.

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.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Defendant: Plaintiff, age 57, claimed a failure to diagnose and/or refer her for evaluation of a left lateral tongue lesion, which was diagnosed in March 2009 as squamous cell carcinoma. Plaintiff was seen in defendant dentist office from 1981 until February 2009 for general dental care.

The first mention of any tongue-related complaints by plaintiff was March 27, 1995. That day she was noted to have a canker sore (apthous ulcer) under her tongue. She was provided a medicament by an associate of defendant.

On October 23, 2001, plaintiff was seen for a prophy (cleaning) visit. She reported that one week prior to the visit she had a cold sore on the left side of her tongue. The hygienist noted that the area looked good that day.

On April 7, 2003, plaintiff was seen for an emergency visit. She was diagnosed with an apthous ulcer at the tip of her tongue. She was provided with Debactrol. She was advised to have the area re-checked in two days.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. 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 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.)

SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff Herman was 65 years old at time of incident, Caucasian, retired high school principal. His wife Jill, was also 65 years of age. Herman was a long-time patient of Kaiser Permanente Hospital, who had undergone carotid endarterectomy in 1988 on the right internal carotid artery. At the time of the procedure, a dye study had shown he had a severe narrowing estimated between 95% and 99% on the left internal carotid artery. However, Kaiser elected not to repair the stenosis on the left internal carotid artery and decided, instead, to await symptoms developing. Thereupon, Plaintiff was seen monthly from June, 1988 through May, 1989.

Kaiser claimed none of the symptoms Mr. Marriot was suffering; namely, dizziness, lightheadedness and staggering were specifically related to the left internal carotid stenotic lesion. On May 8, 1989, Plaintiff presented to the clinic to his cardiologist, Dr. Andy Berry, complaining of staggering episodes over the last 10 days. Dr. Berry felt he should be seen in a neurological follow-up. Plaintiff also indicated he was planning to go fishing in the mountains and was given permission by his physician to go. Subsequently, on May 29, 1989, Mr. Marriot suffered loss of speech which is felt to be related to the left internal carotid artery.

Plaintiff was seen at a clinic in Sacramento, CA, but the clinic refused to hospitalize him. He was then transported by his wife to Kaiser Permanente at which time he was diagnosed as having suffered a stroke, most probably related to a complete occlusion of the left internal carotid artery.

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 surgeon admitted that he misread the Sept. 21 biopsy.

The surgeon contended that, had the plaintiff been diagnosed earlier, she would still have opted for a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. He further claimed that she would then have experienced the same complications, regardless of when she had the surgery.

The radiologist claimed that the May 31 mammogram reading was appropriate.

She underwent a modified radical mastectomy with flap reconstruction. Six out of 12 axillary lymph nodes sampled showed evidence of metastatic disease. She then underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The plaintiff developed problems with the flap wound, requiring several more surgeries. She eventually underwent a modified radical mastectomy on her right breast, and a further repair of a hernia at the old flap site.

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.)

At trial, defense counsel submitted evidence which showed that eletrocautery risks have been taught for decades in medical school and were well known to Parrish before the surgery, and that the warnings on the device were virtually identical to those listed by other product manufacturers.

Before trial, the plaintiffs settled with the medical center for a confidential amount; with Ann Taimes, another physician at the medical center, for $30,000; with the Sacramento Anesthesiology Medical Group, which administered the anesthetic, for $30,000; and with Med Inc., which makes endotracheal devices associated with the electrode that was used in the subject procedure, for $10,000.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued for about $850,000 in expected costs, which included a special boarding school for learning disabled kids that totaled $350,000, psychological counseling and medication for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally Gregory sought $30,000 in medical expenses and $27 million in future medicals and emotional distress.

The plaintiffs asked for a seven-figure verdict, but felt that an eight-figure verdict was more appropriate.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. 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 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.)

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached the standard of care by failing to treat John Doe as an individual patient and instead focused only on his Grade 5 status. Satals failed to recognize that the aneurysm and not the AVM had bled, thus leaving John Doe at high risk for re-bleed. The appropriate treatment was to clip the aneurysm. Moreover, respondents sent John Doe to the Protector with an unclipped aneurysm, which one expert neurologist called a ‘ticking time bomb.‘ The risks of catastrophe were great. Nevertheless, respondents failed to provide appropriate follow-up neurological and diagnostic care at the Protector, essentially letting nature take its course. The inevitable happened and John Doe’s aneurysm re-bled. Before the second bleed, John Doe was making remarkable progress. According to plaintiffs’ experts, it is likely he would have recovered to the point where he could have returned to work. He may have had some difficulty walking but would not have the severe ataxia he has now. He would not require the tracheostomy. He would not require 24-hour care. His cognitive functions remain intact; however, he cannot speak because of the trach. He communicates using an alphabet board and sign language. He has lost tongue control as well as his swallowing ability due to the second bleed.

Defendants denied all of plaintiffs’ allegations and contended that they acted within the standard of care by not clipping plaintiff patient’s aneurysm. As a Grade 5, plaintiff was at increased risk of death or serious injury from surgery to clip the aneurysm. Defendants also contended that they appropriately monitored plaintiff patient at the Protector by having him examined by Kaiser internist Taimes and scheduling him for a follow-up neurosurgical examination four weeks after admission to the Protector. Defendants denied that the second bleed caused plaintiff any significant injuries and that his present disabilities were caused by the first bleed.

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: The plaintiff was diagnosed with an intermediate-grade, infiltrating ductal carcinoma in her left breast.

Facts:
In August 2003, the plaintiff, 47, a long-haul truck driver, underwent a screening mammogram that showed an area of suspicion in her left breast. An ultrasound was done and read as “highly suspicious” and indicative of a solid nodule in the left breast.

On Sept. 21, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy. The pathologist reported the results as representative of a papilloma, also known as a benign tumor. On May 31, she underwent another screening mammogram, which her radiologist read as normal.

On May 20, 2004, the plaintiff underwent her annual mammogram, which again revealed an area of suspicion in her left breast. She followed up with an ultrasound and biopsy, which led to a breast cancer diagnosis.

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.)

Summary of Facts:

INJURIES: Aaron alleged carbon monoxide poisoning, severe lung injuries and lifelong brain damage. Gregory alleged that these injures were a direct result of the airway fire.

Facts:

On April 18, 2002, plaintiff Aaron Gregory, age 8, underwent a tonsilectomy at San Jose Medical Center. Treating physician Dan Parrish used a hand-held electrode that was powered by an electrosurgical unit and was manufactured by Medical Corporation to perform the tonsilectomy. While the electrode was in Andrew’s mouth, an airway fire occurred.

Andrew’s Protector and father sued Parrish for medical malpractice. He sued Medical, alleging negligent design and failure to warn in connection with its electrosurgical unit.

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

Continue Reading ›

The following blog is provided as an example of a Kaiser medical malpractice lawsuit to aid potential clients in how a lawsuit is examined and conduced. 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 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.)

On September 10, 1999 Satals performed a craniotomy to remove four ccs of blood in the cerebellar pontine angle and also placed a tracheostomy. Despite placing the patient under general anesthesia and drilling holes in his skull, Satals did not clip the aneurysm. He also did not discuss with the family the risks and benefits of clipping the aneurysm. Aneurysms have a high risk of re-bleed, which has potentially devastating consequences. Later, Satals told Jane Doe that he did not want to sentence John Doe to life in a nursing home and sometimes doctors have to make those kinds of decisions.

John Doe was transferred from Kaiser to the Protector, a skilled nursing facility in Elk Grove, on September 24, 1999. At the Protector, the patient showed remarkable improvement. He came out of his coma, moved his limbs, squeezed his hands, tracked with his eyes and communicated using various methods. He started being weaned off his trach and tolerated several hours without the trach, breathing on his own. At the time of discharge on September 24, Kaiser had scheduled a follow-up appointment for one month. This was Kaiser’s routine appointment time for a patient transferred to a nursing home. At the Protector, Kaiser made no effort to have the patient examined by a neurologist or neurosurgeon. Instead, Kaiser placed Roger Taimes, an internist and gerontologist, in charge of plaintiff patient’s care. Taimes saw him only two times: September 30 and October 8. Taimes noted that John Doe would be brought back to Kaiser to have his aneurysm clipped if he showed significant improvement. By the time of his last examination, Taimes had noted many improvements. Nevertheless, Taimes never communicated with Satals or Phillips or anyone else at Kaiser Sacramento regarding these improvements and made no effort to have the patient evaluated by a neurologist or neurosurgeon. In fact, Taimes admitted that he has never recommended a patient have an aneurysm clipped.

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

Continue Reading ›