Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Kaiser Medical Malpractice Suit Arises After Hospital Fails to Recognize Classic Stroke Symptoms

July 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

INJURIES: Flemming sustained permanent brain damage as a result of an ischemic stroke. He suffers from cognitive impairment and was unable to return to his employment because of an inability to perform complex calculations or to multi-task. He experiences memory loss and confusion and claimed that he is limited in terms of employment options.

Facts:

On March 18, 2008, plaintiff Bradley Flemming, 33, a project manager for an electrical subcontractor, suffered an ischemic left-sided stroke with left inferior frontoparietal lobe, occipital lobe and cerebellar infarcts. Flemming was unable to speak clearly, had difficulty walking, had a major headache and showed other symptoms of a stroke. Flemming was taken by ambulance to Kaiser, arriving within one hour of symptom onset. Kaiser’s employees diagnosed F with food poisoning. Although he could not walk or talk coherently, Flemming was discharged from the hospital.

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

Sacramento Personal Injury Case Results When Hospital Fails to Prevent Coma, Part 1 of 2

July 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury 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.

(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: Plaintiff, age 23, entered defendant hospital on July 6, 2009 after sustaining a severe head and other injuries in a motorcycle accident. He was intubated in the ER and evaluated by a surgeon, who determined that none of his injuries required surgery. While in the SICU, he had a tracheostomy placed on July 20 and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placed on July 21.

Plaintiff remained in the SICU until July 28, when he was transferred to the medical-surgical unit of the hospital. On July 29, at 4:00 p.m., the nurse flushed the PEG line. The family heard a loud pop, but nothing was recorded in the records about this incident. The nurse did call the on-call surgeon about a decreased BP and increased heart rate. The surgeon asked that a cardiologist be called to consult on the patient, but the cardiologist claimed that he never received the page.

That evening, plaintiff began complaining of abdominal pain. On July 30 at 2:00 a.m., the nurse called the on-call surgeon and reported an elevated pulse. He was told that the cardiologist had never come in to see the patient. The cardiologist was called again at 4:15 a.m., and he ordered Cardizem and transfer to the Cardiac Care unit, which occurred at 5:45 a.m. At 7:00 a.m., the cardiologist came to examine plaintiff, and he ordered tests to rule out a pulmonary embolus. Defendant surgeon saw plaintiff at 8:00 a.m. and ordered that plaintiff be moved to the Medical ICU for a stat chest x-ray, which was read by defendant radiologist as normal.

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

Woman Alleges Defendants’ Negligence Caused Sacramento Car Accident, Part 2 of 2

July 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff claimed that the ditch was, therefore, a hazard without any cones, barricades, caution tape, or other warnings along the edge of the upper parking lot, and that the gate to the lot should not have been left open.

Defendant Maerk contended that defendants wood supplier and/or premises owner were negligent in leaving the parking lot gate open, in that he had told the property owner to keep the gate closed. Defendant Maerk also contended that the plaintiff’s employer was negligent for driving at an unsafe speed for the rainy conditions and for failing to see the ditch.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Plaintiff: Mild traumatic brain injury; chronic debilitating migraine headaches; decreased concentration; cognitive problems; vertigo; tinnitus; fatigue; memory problems; depression; anxiety.

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

Family Claims Medical Malpractice After Child Dies From Sudden Respiratory Arrest, Part 2 of 2

July 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

Ramon’s parents and sister sued Dentistry for Children and Adolescents, Aarons, Anders and Maker, alleging professional negligence, wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Before trial, the sister dismissed her cause of action, and the office, Anders and Maker were dismissed. The case went to trial against Aarons.

Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the registered dental assistants failed to alert Aarons to the fact that Ramon was nonresponsive. Aarons was 10 feet away when this occurred and one of the registered dental assistants went by Aarons on his way to call 911, but didn’t alert Aarons to the situation. The dentist office has 02 under pressure, oxygen masks and crash carts with epinephrine, which were all items Aarons was trained to use. If Aarons had been called, he would have employed the appropriate emergency equipment that would have saved Ramon’s life, plaintiffs’ counsel contended.

The plaintiff registered dental assistant expert testified that a dental assistant should have alerted Aarons that there was a nonresponsive patient by intercom or in person and brought him back to the room to administer CPR or use the ambu-bag as he was trained to do. The expert testified that either registered dental assistant had the duty to prevent, without physical restraint, the plaintiffs from leaving the practice with Ramon after 911 had been called.

The plaintiff pediatric neurology expert testified that it was more likely than not that if CPR had been administered to Ramon at the office, he would have survived.

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

Patient Sues San Francisco Physician For Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 4

July 20, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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.)

Between August 9 and August 21, 2007, uncertain whether the suspension precluded him from communicating with patients, defendant had several telephone calls with plaintiff. Defendant intended to see and treat plaintiff after his suspension was lifted. However, as it turned out, defendant never saw plaintiff in person after August 8, 2007. Ultimately, defendant resigned his position with his employer.

On August 16, 2007, plaintiff saw Dr. Natalie Salman, M.D. for her post-operative complaints of pain and numbness. Dr. Salman examined plaintiff and found her to have 5/5 strength and normal reflexes in both lower extremities. Dr. Salman found no objective neurological signs that suggested that plaintiff had an emergent neurological condition. The only significant positive findings were decreased sensation on the left side of plaintiff’s back at T3-T5 and patchy loss of sensation in the left leg. Plaintiff only complained of pain at the surgical site. Dr. Salman ordered an MRI of plaintiff’s spine and called Dr. Melon to discuss what was done during surgery. Dr. Melon informed her that he would follow up with the patient and the results of the MRI.

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

Patient Alleges Failure to Timely Diagnose Prostate Cancer at San Jose Hospital, Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

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

According to court records: On April 22, 2004, plaintiff Bill Fleese went to defendant San Jose hospital (“HOSPITAL”) to have blood drawn for both a total and a free Prostate-Specific Antigen (“PSA”) test. On April 30, 2004, plaintiff met with defendant Doctor for a Digital Rectal Examination (“DRE”) and a total and free PSA tests review and evaluation for the first time. Plaintiff was a patient of Mitchell Jensen, M.D., a general practitioner, and Jensen had referred plaintiff to DOCTOR, a urologist. DOCTOR stated that plaintiff had a “strong family history of prostate cancer.” He stated in his April 30, 2004 Notes Report: “Bill Fleese is a 62-year-old gentleman who comes in because of a family history of prostate cancer and a PSA and prostate check.” Jensen had previously ordered the two total PSA tests and the free PSA test conducted from the blood drawn from plaintiff on April 22, 2004. The report indicated that on April 22, 2004, plaintiff had a 2.7 ng/ml total PSA and a 21 percent free PSA.

Plaintiff telephoned DOCTOR’s office on April 28 or April 29, 2004 to confirm that DOCTOR had the total and free PSA tests results from the blood drawn on April 22, 2004, and plaintiff received confirmation from DOCTOR’s assistant that DOCTOR had received the April 23, 2004 report with the total and free PSA test results.

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

Defendants failed to provide proper medical care and treatment to expectant mother with placental abruption, Part 1 of 2

July 13, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a birth injury 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.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff, 31, was 32-34 weeks pregnant when she presented to Medical Center Oct. 1, 2005, complaining of heavy bleeding, cramping, irritable uterus and uterine contractions with history of five prior miscarriages. Plaintiff was transferred to HOSPITAL, a facility with level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), in the care of her perinatologist.

Plaintiff was admitted by OB intern acting under the supervision of Perinatologist. OB intern reportedly diagnosed Plaintiff with a clinical placental abruption. Plaintiff was monitored and was given steroids and other medicine to mature the fetus’ lungs, as well as to stop the mother’s uterine contractions. The monitoring was continued until either the fetal or maternal parameters became non-reassuring. Perinatologist allegedly did not see Plaintiff on Oct. 1 but she billed the patient.

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

Student Sues School District After Teacher Sexually Harasses Her

July 13, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment 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.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: In early November 2007, during math class at XYZ Middle School, a part of defendant ABC Unified School District (ABC-USD), with defendant teacher Dan Barrett, minor plaintiff was walking back to her chair and was approached from behind by defendant Barrett. Defendant Barrett reportedly lifted plaintiff XYZide down and completely off the ground, holding plaintiff on or about her buttocks and positioning her head directly in his groin area, and shook her up and down several times in front of the class.

After the incident, plaintiff sat down and put her head down until class was over. She spoke with classmates who told her to report the incident. She said Cindy Williams, an administrator or assistant, said she would call plaintiff’s mother and notify school personnel. Williams instructed plaintiff to return to class.

Plaintiff said that in March 2008, she was waiting for her mother to pick her up from school, and while she was standing on school grounds, defendant Barrett approached her with a crossing sign in his hand. Plaintiff said he spoke to her about seeing her in class and then struck plaintiff on the buttocks with the sign and laughed as he walked away.

Plaintiff said that during a School Attendance Review Board meeting, she reported the incidents, but an administrator told her it was not the time or place to discuss such things.

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

Failure to fly airplane in proper direction caused airplane to stall and plunge in Airplane Crash

July 13, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury 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.

(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:

Brad Erwin took an inner-island ferry to Decatur Island in October 2001 to perform a job laying carpet. On his return trip, Erwin made arrangements to fly on a XYZ Air Inc.’s inner-island commuter airplane, a Cessna 172, which flew out of the Decatur Island Airport.

After take-off, the plane reportedly stalled and plunged into a steep forested area; Erwin was killed. He was 38 years old. The other two occupants – an unidentified second passenger and the pilot, Mark Lemming – also died in the crash.

Shannon Erwin – individually as the decedent’s wife and as personal representative of his estate and the couple’s two minor children – brought a lawsuit against XYZ Air and Lemming’s estate for negligence. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged the airport had a posted rule that planes should take off to the south of the airport. The pilot disregarded this rule and flew the plane north from the airport, Erwin said, causing her husband’s death.

Furthermore, the plane weighed 60 pounds more than the maximum certified allowable weight of 2300 pounds, the plaintiff said. These negligent acts caused the plane to stall and plunge into the forest, killing all three occupants. The Erwin family alleged they suffered pecuniary loss of support, loss of love and affection of the decedent, loss of his future earnings and other monetary damages. The plaintiffs requested general and special damages, among other relief.

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

Emergency Room Fall Causes Traumatic Brain Injury

July 13, 2012 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On August 8, 2008, plaintiff, then a 66-year-old self-employed heavy equipment broker visiting from Sacramento, CA, was admitted to the Emergency Department at defendant Hospital with symptoms consistent with alcohol withdrawal. He was seen by the Emergency Department physician and was placed on a “banana pack IV.” He was then placed under the care of defendant Nurse.

Defendant Nurse testified that she had advised plaintiff on several occasions not to get out of bed. He did so, nonetheless. Defendant Nurse attempted to intervene and took hold of plaintiff as he stood up from the bed. Nevertheless, plaintiff struck his head on the floor. He was diagnosed with subdural hematoma the following day and underwent emergent neurosurgical evacuation of same. Plaintiff was in the ICU for four weeks. At that time, he underwent two months of inpatient neurocognitive treatment. He remains mildly to moderately brain-impaired in terms of his executive functioning.

Plaintiff argued that he presented as a very high-risk patient relative to his fall potential. As such, defendant Nurse was required to employ strict fall precautions, which included assisting the patient with all transfers and changes in position and communicating the patient’s fall risk to family and staff. Plaintiff claimed that this was not done.

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