Knee Replacement Nightmare For San Francisco Woman Leads To Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 8

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 2, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lee for a second opinion, as she was experiencing burning pain radiating down the lateral aspect of the lower leg from the knee to her ankle. Dr.Lee examined plaintiff and discovered full knee extension and flexion to 115 degrees with the patella tracking laterally. Dr. Lee told her she needed more time to heal after plaintiff stated she wanted to review the x-rays ordered by Dr. Hall on October 6th. Plaintiff requested a third opinion and Dr .Lee offered to refer her to Dr. Michael Davis, a physician not affiliated with Universal Medical Clinic.

Dr. Davis examined plaintiff on December 8, 2008. He noted a problem with lateral tracking of the patella. Plaintiff complained of pain in the anterolateral and lateral aspect of the left knee and lateral aspect of the left leg. He recommended studies including a standing long leg alignment from hip to ankle of both legs, merchant views of both knees, and possibly a CT scan of both hip and distal femur. It should be noted that an x-ray taken on January 1, 2005 shows the patella sitting fine and in good position.

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

On January 20, 2005, Dr. Davis saw plaintiff for a follow-up consultation. Dr. Davis’ diagnosis was instability and maltracking of the patella. Dr. Davis equated this to a mechanical or soft tissue problem. He again recommended that plaintiff obtain a study of a weight-bearing alignment film from hip to ankle and merchant views of both knees. After obtaining weight-bearing films on February 3, 2005, his diagnosis was directed toward the dislocation being due to soft tissue problems on the lateral side. Dr. Davis did not chart any changes in the rotational alignment of the components. He recommended that plaintiff consider a revision surgery to the patellar component.

On March 29, 2005, Dr.Lee saw plaintiff. Plaintiff complained that the problem had not improved and that her left knee pain was interfering with all of her activities. She also stated it was contributing to her weight gain and back pain. Dr. Lee noted that Dr. Davis had recommended plaintiff undergo a patellectomy. Plaintiff strongly desired additional outside opinions and suggested Dr. Robert Jones at University of California as a referral option. On April 12, 2005,Universal Medical Clinic denied plaintiffs request for outside opinions, but later approved the referral.

On June 2, 2005, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Robert Jones at UC. In his preop charting, Dr. Jones noted that plaintiff had either malposition of the femoral and/or tibial components, or that the attachment of the medial portion of the patellar tendon at some point became detached providing a valgus force. X-rays in August showed a probable misaligned prosthesis.

Dr. Jones advised an exploration with probable prosthesis removal replacement and to realign her extensor mechanism. Plaintiff had left total knee revision surgery at UCI, performed by Dr. Jones on November 30, 2005, after which plaintiff suffered no further complications. (See Part 7 of 8.)

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

Contact Information