Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
THE FACTS AS PLEADED
The Plaintiffs’ complaint specifically alleges the following facts, which for purposes of a demurrer must be taken as true:
a. The Plaintiff and decedent, John Hernandez (hereinafter “John”), was born on XX/XX/1921.
b. It is alleged that upon admission to Defendant Healthcare’s facility, Doctor’s Medical Center, Defendant Doctor’s Medical Center, Dr. Green, Dr. Smith, and DOES 21-40 neglected, abandoned, and abused his care, failed to protect him from health hazards, failed to provide care for his physical and mental health needs, failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise, failed to react promptly to emergent situations, all such acts constituting reckless “neglect” as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.57, and delineated in Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32, 35, such that John suffered: gangrene to his testicles, unnecessary pain and suffering, and development of rashes all over his body due to an allergic reaction to Primaxin. These injuries were preventable had the Defendant, Healthcare’s and DOES 1-10, provided enough sufficiently trained staff at Doctor’s Medical Center to provide John with the amount of care that state and federal regulations required.
c. It is further alleged that during John’s admission at Doctor’s Medical Center, Defendants Doctor’s Medical Center, DOES 21-40, and Paul Smith, M.D. failed to meet the standard of care and otherwise failed to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in like position would exercise with respect to caring for the decedent, John. Specifically, during John’s admission at Doctor’s Medical Center from January 3, 2006 to January 30, 2006, a urine culture revealed that the decedent had developed E. coli and Proteus mirabilis from Universal.
Dr. Smith, an infectious disease doctor was consulted in to manage John’s E. coli infection. In order to control John’s infection, Dr. Smith prescribed Primaxin, an antibiotic, on January 5, 2006. On January 6, 2006, when the Plaintiff, Robert, visited his father at Doctor’s Medical Center, he noticed that his father had developed rashes on his body and notified the nurse.
d. As early as January 6, 2006, Dr. Smith noted in his chart that John had developed rashes on his body and this was the result of a possible reaction to the Primaxin. In response, instead of discontinuing the medication, Dr. Smith ordered Defendant Doctor’s Medical Center and its clinical nursing staff to administer Benadryl 30 minutes prior to administering Primaxin to John. Defendant’s medical chart for John reflects that Defendant’s clinical nursing staff failed to follow specific physician’s orders and was administering Benadryl at the same time as Primaxin and not 30 minutes prior as ordered.
e. Throughout the duration of John’s admission at Doctor’s Medical Center, John continued to develop rashes all over his body. Despite this severe reaction to Primaxin, on January 14, 2006, Defendant Dr. Smith increased John’s dosage of 500 mg of Primaxin to every 8 hours from every 12 hours. However, when Dr. Smith changed John’s dose of Primaxin from every 12 hours to every 8 hours, Dr. Smith failed to change John’s dose of Benadryl from every 12 hours to every 8 hours.
f. Defendant Dr. Smith knew or should have known that John would have a reaction to Primaxin. On January 6, 2006, a culture was taken of John and showed that John was sensitive to antibiotics. Despite this knowledge and John’s worsening condition, Dr. Smith continued John on Primaxin.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Demurrer should be overruled and Motion to Strike be denied. (See Part 3 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.