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, 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.)

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative visit on June 7, 2008. Plaintiff complained her stitches were bugging her and that they were tearing. Dr. Hall noted the incision was clean and dry and that plaintiff could do an SLR. An immobilizer was applied. Post op on June 14, 2008, Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff reported that she was doing okay. Plaintiff could do a SLR. By June 28, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee stiffness. Dr. Hall noted plaintiff had good quadriceps and the patella was centralized. Plaintiff had 75% flexion and appeared to be healing well.

For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Continuing, on July 19, 2008 plaintiff complained of left knee pain. Plaintiff could perform a good SLR but displayed a 10-degree lag. He also noted plaintiff had good flexion and the patella was tracking centrally. By August 16, 2008, however, plaintiff complained of soreness and tightness in her left knee. Dr. Hall noted her quadriceps range of motion and stability were excellent. Plaintiff discussed returning to work and Dr. Hall released her to return to work and follow-up as needed.

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 case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT
The High Standard for Granting a Motion for Summary Judgment, Which Is A Disfavored Remedy, Is Not Met By Moving Defendant

Motions for summary judgment are comparatively disfavored and widely understood as a drastic measure which should be used with extreme caution so that it does not become a substitute for trial. WYDA Associates v. Memer (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1702. Summary judgment procedure, inasmuch as it denies the right of an adverse party to a trial, is drastic and “should be used with caution … ” Steingart v. Oliver (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 406, 411 (quoting Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35-36).

Moreover, a motion for summary judgment is not the appropriate method to try issues, but merely should be used to discover, through the use of affidavits, whether there are issues to be tried and whether the parties possess evidence which demands analysis at trial. Aaitui v. Grand Properties (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1369. The trial court’s only function on a motion for summary judgment is issue-finding, not issue determination; the judge must determine from the evidence submitted whether there is a triable issue as to any material fact. CCP § 437c(c); see also Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 915,926. If there is a single such issue, then the motion must be denied. Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court (Motsinger) (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 237, 240.

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, 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.)

On March 24, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain when trying to walk without a splint. Dr. Hall noted an extensor lag when plaintiff attempted an SLR and also noted maltracking of the patella. Clinically, her knee was locking. Dr. Hall’s impression was patellar instability with subluxation. X-rays showed slipping of the prosthetic patellar component onto the lateral side. He advised plaintiff that unless her knee showed improvement, she should undergo a patellar revision and quadriceps repair.

Plaintiff next presented for a follow-up visit on April 14, 2008, complaining that her patella had drifted laterally. Dr. Hall recommended a revision patellar arthroplasty, and discussed with plaintiff the risks and benefits of the procedure. Plaintiff elected surgery.

On May 28, 2008, Dr. Hall, with Dr. Lee assisting, performed a quadricepsplasty and quadriceps realignment of the left quadriceps. A complete lateral release was carried out from the tibia proximally on the lateral aspect, which helped to control the mild tracking and subluxing, but did not completely settle the patella in its groove.

For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco 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 case and its proceedings.)

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-trial stage of civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of civil filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

On November 30, 2006, Dr. Gregory Brown performed a left total knee revision of the femoral and tibial components. Dr. Brown found significant internal rotation of the tibia, which was approximately 20 degrees up the tibial tubercle. The femoral component was also found to be internally rotated about 5 degrees. As such, Dr. Brown decided to perform revision of the tibial and femoral components to provide further stability to Ms. White’s patella rather than do a tibial tubercle osteotomy. . His post-operative diagnosis was dislocation of the patellar component status post total knee arthroplasty and malalignment of the left total knee arthroplasty components. . Ms. White was discharged after almost one week on December 5, 2006 with instructions to follow up, receive home health care and physical therapy, and have a home safety evaluation.

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, 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.

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 case and its proceedings.)

In the months after the May 28, 2005 surgery by Dr. Hall, Ms. White experienced intensified pain in her left knee and continued to have problems with the maltracking of that patella. Ms. White had difficulty walking, squatting, kneeling, pushing, pulling, and sitting or standing for prolonged periods, and had a burning pain which radiated down the lateral aspect of her lower leg from the knee to her ankle with numbness on the plantar aspect of her left foot. On November 23, 2005, Ms. White was noted to have recurrent lateral dislocation of patella, status post total knee replacement and revision. She was referred to orthopedic specialist for a second opinion.

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

On February 3, 2006, Ms. White presented to orthopedic specialist, Dr. Michael Young, for a second opinion. Dr. Young noted that Ms. White’s patella was dislocated laterally, and when compared to October of 2005 it was worse due to the wear.

On June 2, 2006, Ms. White presented to orthopedist Dr. Gregory Brown at UCI Medical Center for another opinion, whose impression was that Ms. White either had malpositioning of the femoral and/or tibial component, which could be accounted for both components being internally rotated on the respective positions.

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

As described above, RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were present at the hospital, in the rooms with MALYIA JEFFERS and personally and contemporaneously observed and understood the injury producing events. On the morning of November 29, 2010, they noticed their daughter had a fever and a cough. They noticed that a dark skin discoloration (purpura) began to develop that was easily visible to them. They took her to METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO for help. After they arrived the staff told them to wait. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG repeatedly asked defendants to see and treat their child.

Defendants continued to make them wait. Defendants promised her parents the doctor would see MALYIA soon but didn’t keep this promise. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG saw their daughter get weaker and sicker hour after hour as defendants chose to delay treatment. They saw the bruising on her body increase affecting her legs, arms and face. The parents became more and more distressed as defendants delayed treatment. They saw MALYIA grew sicker and weaker until she could no longer stand. She was crying for help because she was so sick. They grew desperate holding MALYIA as the waiting minutes turned into hours. The parents begged the hospital staff to treat their daughter.

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, 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.)

On November 17, 2007, the plaintiff was discharged from Universal Community Hospital and was ambulating well without any significant problems noted. On that same day, plaintiff was transferred and admitted to Community Care and Rehabilitation Center ( CCRC ). On November 20, 2007, Dr. Hong (no longer a defendant in this matter) briefly evaluated plaintiff and ordered that she continue to mobilize with her left leg until re-evaluated. Plaintiff was discharged from CCRC on November 26, 2007.

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

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall on December 1, 2007 for a two-week follow-up visit. He noted plaintiff had problems with flexion and instability. Plaintiff could not perform a seated leg raise (“SLR”) and the medial side of her knee showed some “bogginess.” Dr. Hall stated that the wound felt boggy and soft on palpation. Dr. Hall decided to place plaintiff in a cylinder cast in extension because of her inability to perform an SLR.

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 case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In November of 2004, Sandy White was scheduled for a left total knee arthroplasty by orthopedic surgeon, William Hall, M.D., after findings of moderate degenerative joint disease involving all three joint compartments in her left knee. On November 14, 2004, Dr. William Hall performed a total knee replacement on Ms. White’s left knee.

In the months following the November 14, 2004 surgery by Dr. Hall, Ms. White continued to have pain in her left knee and maltracking of her left patella. Dr. Hall discussed the issue of patellar subluxation with Ms. White, when she presented to the clinic with complaints that her left knee felt like it would buckle at times. Dr. Hall recommended and performed arthroscopy with lateral release of the left patella on Ms. White on January 27, 2005. Dr. Hall noted that the prosthesis appeared intact and in good position except the patella which was noted to be certainly maltracking and subluxing laterally. Moreover, it was noted that Ms. White’s flexion was limited. Dr. Hall performed lateral release under vision which he noted to be very complete proximally and distally and that this improved the position and tracking of the patella significantly and achieved 90-95 degrees flexion.

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Infliction of Shock and Emotional Distress)

RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG allege against defendants as follows:

Plaintiffs, RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG, hereby reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

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

RYAN JEFFERS is the biological father of MALYIA JEFFERS. LEAH YANG is the biological mother of MALYIA JEFFERS. As a result, both were foreseeable victims of severe emotional distress in the event of any serious injury to MALYIA and any delay or refusal to treat her. Both RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were physically present at all times mentioned herein with their daughter, MALYIA. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were present in the waiting room, emergency room and various treatment, recovery and hospital rooms with MALYIA JEFFERS at METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO. (See Part 7 of 7.)

Continue Reading ›