Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Man Suffers Severe Injury When Sacramento Kaiser Fails to Diagnosis Aneurysm, Part 1 of 3

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:54:42 -0800

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.)

TEXT:
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiffs claimed that defendants failed to clip a ruptured aneurysm and monitor plaintiff patient's condition in a skilled nursing facility. The plaintiffs were John Doe, 51, and his wife, Jane Doe, 48. The defendants were Kaiser Foundation Hospital and Kaiser-related entities. John Doe suffered a right superior cerebellar artery aneurysm on August 29, 1999. On October 16, 1999 he suffered a re-bleed of the aneurysm while residing in a skilled nursing facility. He now requires full-time care and is confined to Alta Bates Herrick Hospital where he is essentially bed-ridden.

Plaintiff patient was in good health until August 1999. He experienced some headaches which seemed to resolve. On August 29, however, the headaches were so severe that he reported to the emergency room at the Sacramento Hospital. While in the emergency room, he vomited, had a seizure and became unresponsive. He was intubated immediately. He was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage, likely due to an aneurysm, and acute hydrocephalus. He was transferred by helicopter to Kaiser Sacramento, where he came under the care of respondents.

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

Infant Born at Sacramento Kaiser Hospital Has Permanent Brain Damage, Part 4 of 4

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:00:00 -0800

(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 further alleged that, if the infant had been properly monitored and given supplemental formula feedings, his blood sugar would not have dropped to a level low enough to cause brain damage.

Defendants contended that their care met the required standard in all respects. Defendants further contended that the infant was feeding well at the breast, as documented by the records and the testimony of the nurses and the infant's grandmother, and that the infant's hypoglycemia was due to an unpredictable, transient metabolic abnormality rather than to inadequate oral intake.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Plaintiff: Brain lesion; failure to develop normally; seizures; 24-hour tube feeding; emotional distress.

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

Sacramento Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Due Inaccurate Oral Intake, Part 3 of 4

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:57:57 -0800

(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.)

Shortly before 7:00 a.m., a phlebotomist who had come to the infant's room to draw blood noted that he was not breathing. He was then taken to the well-baby nursery, where a bedside glucose check revealed a level of 15 (severely low). The infant was transferred to the special-care nursery at around 7:10 a.m. At 7:15 a.m., seizure activity was observed. Further blood glucose testing indicated that his level had dropped as low as 7. An MRI of his brain showed bilateral occipital infarction, primarily toward the back of the brain, a lesion that is commonly associated with severe hypoglycemia.

The infant was discharged from Kaiser on August 24, 2005. Since that time, he has not developed normally. At the time of the arbitration, he was two-years, 10-months old. He cannot walk, crawl, or use his arms, legs, or hands purposefully. He has no speech. He experiences seizures on a daily basis, despite being on significant doses of anti-seizure medications. Because of his inability to swallow safely, he had a gastrostomy tube placed approximately one year ago and now takes all of his feeding via the tube. He continues to live at home with his parents.

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

Birth Injury In Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Causes Sever Injury in Child, Part 2 of 4

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:54:01 -0800

(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.)

At 22 hours of life, the infant was weighed and found to have lost 7.8 percent of his birth weight. This loss is considered significantly greater than normal. Kaiser had a policy and procedure in place such that, if there was a weight loss of 7 percent, supplemental feedings should be given under a variety of circumstances, including the baby being lethargic and not nursing vigorously enough to empty the breast. The records indicated that, on August 11, 2005 at 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff reported that the infant did not want to breast-feed. The infant was supplemented with formula at 1:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. on August 11, 2005.

Several notations were made on the nursing flow sheet for August 11, 2005, reflecting time spent by the infant at his mother's breasts. The records indicated satisfactory initiation of breast-feeding on a number of occasions. However, Plaintiff specifically recalled that the infant was not breast-feeding effectively at any time from birth through and including the morning of August 12, 2005. Her breasts became blistered and painful from the unsuccessful feeding attempts.

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

Infant Suffers Brain Injury In Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 1 of 4

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:49:38 -0800

(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.)

CASE INFORMATION
According to Plaintiff: The minor plaintiff was born at term at defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Sacramento, California on August 9, 2005. He was delivered by non-elective C-section because of fetal distress. He appeared normal and had normal Apgar scores at birth.

Plaintiff, the infant's mother, had developed gestational diabetes during this, her first pregnancy. The gestational diabetes was well controlled with diet and medication. The infant's birth weight was slightly more than 7 lbs, which was well within the normal range. However, because of the risk of infants of diabetic mothers developing hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), the infant's blood sugar was checked four times during the first 24 hours of life, pursuant to Kaiser's protocol. The first measurement was 45mg/dl (the lower limit of normal), the next two measurements were 65 and 66, and the final measurement was 47.

The plan was for the infant to be breast-fed. The medical records reflected that the infant was not breast-feeding successfully on the first day of life. Accordingly, he required supplementation with formula at five hours of life and again at 10 hours of life. A lactation consultant saw the Plaintiff and the infant on August 10, 2005, and, per her chart notation and testimony, she was unable to facilitate initiation of successful breast-feeding.

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

New Trial Sought By Sacramento Woman After Negligent Medical Treatment, Part 5 of 5

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:44:20 -0800

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.)

In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiff's foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiff's foot carries a high risk of amputation.

Based on the evidence, Plaintiff, an elderly woman who must care for herself, personally suffered great physical and mental injuries, and financial loss due to those injuries. Future medical expenses, surgeries, and home care will be required to correct Plaintiff's medical condition. As the evidence showed at trial, defendant, the Regents, is responsible for Plaintiff's catastrophic injuries, and past and future physical and mental pain and suffering. For these reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff a new trial based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented at trial, each of the Plaintiff's claims against defendant Regents was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. No other reasonable conclusion can be legally deductible from the evidence.

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

Sacramento Woman Fights Improper Jury Verdict In Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 5

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:43:21 -0800

(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.)

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiff's injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided. Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents' employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.

9. Plaintiff was under the exclusive care and control of defendants at the time of the injuries. There were no intervening causes. In this case, it is not possible to separate the negligence from the cause of Plaintiff's injuries. It is apparent that the jury improperly speculated about some other unnamed and unknown cause that was not part of the evidence presented at trial.

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

Sacramento Orthopedic Physicians Commit Medical Malpractice, Part 3 of 5

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:42:04 -0800

(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.)

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez, Mrs. Johnson's treating doctor, who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in a cast.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff's left foot during the acute phase of Charcot's, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

4. Dr. Lee explained the time limited process of Charcot Foot, and the absolute necessity of casting/booting the foot during the acute phase when the bones are subject to fractures and dislocations or subluxations. This testimony was uncontroverted.

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

Negligent Doctors Cause Sacramento Woman To Lose Foot, Part 2 of 5

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:40:20 -0800

(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.)

The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff's Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury's Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent.

As set forth in the minutes of the Court, Plaintiff Johnson presented substantial evidence supporting her claims for medical professional negligence against the Regents of the University of California ( Regents ) based upon the professional negligence of the Regents' employees. In fact, the jury found that defendant's employees, Ellen White, M.D., and Phillip Brown, M.D., were negligent in their diagnosis or treatment of Plaintiff. Yet, the jury did not rule that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Johnson's negligence claims against the Regents was supported by the uncontradicted testimony of Morgan Lee, M.D., the only qualified orthopaedic expert who testified at trial. Defendant did not present any expert testimony regarding the specific claims of medical negligence relating to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, as no other orthopaedic expert testified on behalf of defendant.

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

Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 5

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:36:59 -0800

(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.)

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Billie Johnson, will, pursuant to her previously filed Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, and does hereby, move the Court for an order to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury and judgment entered pursuant thereto in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Johnson, and to grant Plaintiff a new trial on each of her claims against Defendant for professional negligence pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §657 and §657.6 in particular.
This motion will be based on this Notice; the evidence presented at trial; all pleadings, papers and records in this action; the minutes of the Court; and this memorandum of points and authorities; and such additional argument as the Court may permit Plaintiffs to present.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Prefatory Statement

A new trial is proper upon a showing that due to procedural or legal error, an issue of fact requires re-examination after trial by jury, court or referee. Civ. Proc. Code §656. The error must result in a miscarriage of justice. Cal. Const. Art. VI, §13. Upon proper showing, the jury's verdict and subsequent judgment may be vacated ... and a new and further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on application of the party aggrieved ... Civ. Proc. Code §657.

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

Mother Sues Sacramento Doctor And Hospital For Malpractice, Part 6 of 6

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 05:41:19 -0800

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence 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.)

To recover for NIED as a bystander witness, a plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim. (Thing v. LaChusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 667-668.) In Bird v. Saenz, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 920-921, the Supreme Court reiterated the Thing requirement that the plaintiff be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, and contemporaneously be aware that it was causing injury to the victim. In Bird, the plaintiffs were in the waiting room while their mother was negligently operated on, with the result the Bird plaintiffs "had no sensory perception whatsoever of the [injury-producing event] at the time it occurred." (28 Cal.4th at p. 917.) The Bird court observed that the contemporaneous awareness element requires a contemporaneous awareness that a close relative is being injured. (28 Cal.4th at p. 916.) The Supreme Court explained, "a rule permitting bystanders to sue for NIED on account of unperceived medical errors hidden in a course of treatment cannot be reconciled with Thing's requirement that the plaintiff be aware of the connection between the injury-producing event and the injury." (28 Cal.4th at p. 921.)

In this case, Gillian Smith is apparently attempting to recover damages for injuries to her family members, including her daughter. However, Universal had no connection with her family members or her daughter.

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

Medical Malpractice By Sacramento Physician Leads To Girl's MRSA Infection, Part 5 of 6

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:40:26 -0800

(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.)

b. The Allegations Do No Support a Claim for NIED Based on a Bystander Witness Theory.

The third case relied on by Gillian Smith is Ochoa v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 159. Ochoa is a bystander witness case. Plaintiffs were the surviving parents of Rudy Ochoa, who as an inmate in the Santa Clara County juvenile hall. His parents visited him and found him extremely ill. The mother spoke with authorities, expressing concern that her son was not receiving necessary treatment. His mother was at his bedside and made repeated requests that her son receive medical treatment, including requesting that she be allowed to take him to a private physician. She remained at her son's bedside. The son died.

The Supreme Court held that the mother could assert a cause of action for NIED as a bystander witness because she had personally witnessed the failure of the medical personnel at the juvenile hall to provide medical care to her son. The court further held that the father could not assert the claim because he had not witnessed the lack of care but had only been told of the situation by his wife. (See Part 6 of 6.)

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

Parents Suffer Severe Emotional Distress Due To Malpractice At Sacramento Hopsital, Part 4 of 6

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 05:39:11 -0800

(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.)

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 27 Cal.3d 916, also has no application here. There, the family member, the husband of the patient, sued based on the emotional distress he suffered when his wife, following the dictate of the health care provider, informed him that she had a sexually transmitted disease. The transmission of this information caused a substantial disruption of the marriage and substantial emotional distress on the part of the husband. As it turned out, the wife did not have a sexually transmitted disease. In Molien, the doctor breached a duty because the doctor directed his patient, the wife, to advise the husband of the diagnosis. Here ,Gillian Smith, the patient, not the family member, is suing to recover damages she Kelly allegedly suffered because she exposed her family to an allegedly contagious disease. As alleged, no defendant directed Gillian Smith to advise a family member regarding any diagnosis. Molien does not apply.

Directly on point is Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124. In that case, parents tried to sue under a direct victim theory to recover NIED because they had unwittingly given their two-month-old son an overdose of medication, causing their son substantial injuries. The parents took a prescription for their son to a Longs Drug Stores pharmacy to be filled. The pharmacy wrote directions for five times the dosage ordered by the doctor.

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

Doctors Negligently Treat Sacramento Girl Who Suffers Nasty Infection, Part 3 of 6

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:37:06 -0800

(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.)

GILLIAN SMITH DOES NOT HAVE A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

In the opposition, Gillian Smith asserts that she has a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") because "Defendants failed to diagnose, treat and warn Plaintiffs of the impending danger to which she unknowingly exposed family members and the public." Plaintiff relies on Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064; Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916; and Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. These cases do not support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Gillian Smith.

a. The Allegations Do No Support a Claim for NIED Based on a Direct Victim Theory.

By citing to Burgess and Molien, Gillian Smith is apparently contending that she can recover for NIED as a direct victim based on her allegedly exposing family members and the general public to the allegedly contagious disease. There is no merit to the claim.

Burgess v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1064, has no application to this action. Burgess is limited to the question addressed by the Supreme Court: Can a mother recover damages for negligent inflicted emotional distress against a physician who entered into a physician-patient relationship with her for care during labor and delivery if her child is injured during the course of the delivery? (2 Cal.4th at p. 1069.)

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

Sacramento Child Severely Infected Due To Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 6

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:35:15 -0800

(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.)

These allegations have nothing to do with the claim by plaintiff Gillian Smith for negligence. Gillian Smith is seeking to recover damages for the loss of her daughter's consortium. Recovery of such damages is precluded by Baxter v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 461. If plaintiff Gillian Smith is trying to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness of the injuries allegedly suffered by her daughter, she has not alleged any facts showing that she had a contemporaneous awareness of any injury at the time it was occurring as required under Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668 and Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 920-921.

It is not clear from the opposition to the motion to strike what position Gillian Smith is taking. The opposition states that the first and second causes of action are properly pled and that, therefore, the motion to strike should be denied. However, the motion to strike is not directed at either the first or second causes of action, it is limited to certain allegations set forth in paragraph 12 regarding Gillian Smith allegedly exposing her family, including her daughter, plaintiff Natalie Smith, to the allegedly contagious infectious disease. Gillian Smith cannot recover for loss of her daughter's consortium or for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness. The motion to strike should be granted.

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