Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Results From Man Suffering Aneurysm Wrong Diagnosis, Part 3 of 3

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.


According to Plaintiff: John Doe: Tracheostomy; 24-hour care required; inability to speak due to trach; communication using an alphabet board and sign language; lost tongue control as well as swallowing ability due to second bleed. Jane Doe: Loss of consortium.


According to Plaintiff: John Doe: Past and future medical expenses; past and future lost income; pain and suffering. Jane Doe: Loss of consortium damages.


According to Plaintiff: No negotiations until the middle of the evidentiary hearing. The case settled at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and before closing argument.

Verdict/Judgment: Arbitration
Verdict/Judgment Amount: $2,600,000
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information