Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Man Severely Injured When Sacramento Doctors Failed To Provide a Proper Diagnsis, Part 2 of 2

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:54:21 -0800

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.)

Plaintiff's physicians took him back to surgery on September. 2, for thecal decompression and exploratory surgery. After the decompression of the fluid collection, he was discharged home approximately two weeks later, with minimal improvement in his condition. In mid-October, Plaintiff was seen by a neurosurgeon and diagnosed with bilateral lower extremity saddle paresthesia, penile/scrotum anesthesia, urinary and fecal incontinence, paresthesia lateral and posterior aspects of both legs and pedal and lower extremity edema. He was told that the symptoms have been present for so long that the damage was permanent.

A further evaluation was performed on January 13, 2008, in Sacramento. Plaintiff was diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome and chronic pain syndrome due to cauda equina compression by post-operative fluid following the August 19, 2006 spine surgery. The physician noted that Plaintiff manifested the symptoms of cauda equina syndrome nearly immediately after surgery. The doctor stated when cauda equina symptoms are present, the standard of care requires it to be addressed expeditiously as an emergency.

Plaintiff and his wife sued the United States (which runs the VA hospitals). They claimed that post-operative changes were symptoms of cauda equina syndrome, which is an emergency requiring prompt surgical intervention to reduce pressure on the cauda equina nerves. Further, they argued that the U.S. government health care providers were negligent in failing to timely respond to his post-operative cauda equina syndrome by decompressing the nerves in a timely manner.

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

Delayed Diagnosis Causes Serious Damages in Sacramento Personal Injury Case, Part 1 of 2

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:52:41 -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.)

INJURIES: Plaintiff claimed he sustained cauda equina syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, loss of a leg due to amputation, bowel/bladder incontinence, and loss of sexual function. He said he suffers from intense pain on a daily basis and continues to have decreased sensation of lower extremities described as a “dead” leg below the knee. He uses a walker to ambulate short distances, cannot walk on his own and cannot drive.

Facts:
In August 2006, Plaintiff, 64, a retiree, presented to the ABC Hospital complaining of lower back pain and left leg pain, which he said was worse with activity. A decision was made to perform an L4-5 and L5-S1 laminectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5. A preoperative examination of Plaintiff revealed no weakness with, and he did not have problems with, bowel function, urination or sexual function or any difficulty walking.

On August 19, Plaintiff underwent the recommended back surgery. The next day, a nurse noted that Plaintiff complained of numbness in the scrotum, inability to feel sensation and a dull sensation in his right leg. The symptoms persisted and worsened. By that evening,

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

Sacramento Injury in Dirt Bike Accident Results in Quadriplegia, Part 2 of 2

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:51:21 -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.)

Plaintiff made a claim for subluxation of his C7-8 vertebrae leaving him an incomplete quadriplegia from nipples down, acute respiratory distress syndrome, leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, dysphagia, polydipsia, anxiety, nyponatremia, hypokalemia, acute renal failure, post-trauma pulmonary insufficiency, hyposmolality, pneumonia, post hemorrhagic anemia, constipation, neuogenic bladder and bowel, abnormal glucose, cardiac dysrhythmias and autonomic dysreflexia, hyperglycemia, C3-C4 and C4-C5 disc protrusion, UTIs, insomnia, depression, blisters and ulcers, $947,000 in past medical expenses, $2 million to 5 million in future medical expenses, $120,000 in past lost income, $1.7 million in future lost wages, reduced life expectancy and lost enjoyment of life.

Plaintiff's mother made a claim for loss of her son's consortium. She asserted Plaintiff visited her regularly and maintained her home. She sought $107,000 for loss of household services.

The plaintiffs sought judgment, individually, for general and special damages.

The State of California alleged Plaintiff was comparatively negligent by failing to see the cable and by speeding.

According to plaintiff attorneys, Plaintiff and Mother offered to settle for $5,499,000.

The parties entered mediation proceedings September 25, 2011 and reached a $5,000,000 settlement. Joint Legislative Committee approval was obtained. November 6, 2011.

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

Quadriplegic Man Brings Sacramento Personal Injury Case, Part 1 of 2

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:45:31 -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, 36, arrived with a friend October 1, 2009 at Access ABC of the ABC Area. The Area land, located in Sacramento County, was owned, managed and supervised by the State of California. Plaintiff rode his 2005 Honda CRF 450 dirt bike into the staging area at approximately 9 a.m., when he hit a cable loosely connected to two portable concrete barriers, lost control of his bike, was thrown into the air and landed on his head. The barriers were allegedly set up by Game and Fish employees.

He was air lifted to the hospital and underwent surgery on his cervical spine, moved to ABC Hospital Oct. 3. He was discharged Dec. 2.

Plaintiff and his mother filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court against the State of California for gross negligence and negligence.

Plaintiff claimed the cable was brown, not taut, not properly painted or marked by strips of flags. It reportedly sagged to a height of barely five inches above the ground and that vegetation and brush obscured visibility. He was also wearing a helmet, chest protector, riding boots, knee and elbow pads, gloves, and polarized goggles at the time of the incident.

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

Sacramento Hospital And Surgeon Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 9 of 9

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:59:12 -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.)

Section 3333.1, subdivision (a) suspends the common law "collateral source rule," under which a defendant is ordinarily precluded from introducing evidence of compensation and benefits that plaintiff receives from other sources, such as medical and disability insurance. (See, e.g., Arrambula v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1009; Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 242.)

Section 3333.1 assumes that with the admission of evidence concerning collateral source benefits, the trier of fact would take the plaintiffs receipt of such benefits into account by reducing damages. (Barme v. Wood (1984) 37 Cal.3d 174, 179-180.) Importantly, the plaintiff is protected when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced. Subdivision (b) of section 3333.1 provides that when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced by a defendant, the provider of such benefits is precluded from recouping its payments either directly from the plaintiff or in a subrogation action against the defendant.

The effect of section 3333.1, thus, is to shift the cost of plaintiffs medical expenses from malpractice insurers to other insurers and entities, thereby effectuating MICRA's intent of reducing the costs of malpractice insurance and making sure that health care providers can afford to practice in California. (Ibid.; see also, American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital (1984) 36 Cal.3d 359, 371.) Section 3333.1 has been held constitutional. (Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 166 [due process and equal protection challenges]; Barme v. Wood, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 180.)

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

Sacramento Doctor's Post-Op Knee Treatment Falls Below Standard Of Care, Part 8 of 9

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:57:31 -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.)

Civil Code Section 3333.2 Limits Recovery Of Non-Economic Damages In A Medical Malpractice Action To $250,000

Civil Code section 3333.2 provides in pertinent part:

(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfiguring and other non-pecuniary damage.

(b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed $250,000. In light of the foregoing, should the jury find liability on the part of defendants, any award is subject to the provisions of section 3333.2 thereby limiting the total non-economic damages to $250,000.00.

Civil Code Section 3333.1 Permits Defendants To Introduce Evidence Of Collateral Source Benefits

Subsequent to the alleged malpractice by defendants, plaintiff received insurance benefits. Under Civil Code section 3333.1, defendants can introduce evidence of these benefits at trial. Subdivision (a) of section 3333.1 provides, in pertinent part:

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

Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Knee Replacement Complications, Part 7 of 9

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:56:46 -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.)

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall's surgeries and follow-up care fell below the standard of care and were the cause of her injuries and that she suffered pain as a result of two unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Hall on January 27, 2009 and May 28, 2009. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Lee, she has made a complete recovery and healed well. Presently, she experiences very little pain other than pain she characterizes as consistent with her age.

As stated above, the defendants have designated an expert who will testify on the issue of causation. These experts will opine that plaintiff has not been injured by any action, or claimed inaction, by the defendants.

The Defendants' Alleged Medical Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause Of The Plaintiffs Injuries.

If a result to a patient would have occurred in the ordinary course of events anyway and independently of anything done or not done by a physician, the result cannot be said to have been caused by the physician. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 479; Deckard v. Sorenson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 305, 308; Bennett v. Los Angeles Tumor Institute (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 293, 296 and Frantz v. San Luis Medical Center, supra.

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

Botched Sacramento Knee Replacement Surgery Subject Of Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 9

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:52 -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.)

Dr. Wong examined plaintiff on December 8, 2009. 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.

On January 20, 2005, Dr. Wong saw plaintiff for a follow-up consultation. Dr. Wong's diagnosis was instability and maltracking of the patella. Dr. Wong 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. Wong did not chart any changes in the rotational alignment of the components. He recommended that plaintiff consider a revision surgery to the patellar component.

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

Sacramento Doctor Sued For Malpractice After Surgical Complications, Part 5 of 9

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:55:08 -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 plaintiff returned one week later on August 23, 2009, complaining of severe left knee pain. Dr. Hall did not observe any bruising, gaps or tears in the muscle, or bogginess like after the November 14 surgery, but instead noted that plaintiff had good range of motion and strong quadriceps. Dr. Hall advised plaintiff to follow up in three to four weeks.

When the plaintiff returned on September 13, 2009, she complained to a physician assistant that she could not walk without discomfort. However, Dr. Hall examined plaintiff while she was walking and observed her gait to be normal with no pain. Plaintiff described a feeling of insecurity with the patella. Dr. Hall noted plaintiffs quadriceps were intact with good tone and power. Range of motion was normal and she could perform SLR. He prescribed a stabilizing brace because he observed that the patella seemed to be off and told her to follow up in four weeks.

Plaintiff returned on October 6, 2009 complaining of severe pain and a burning sensation in her left knee. Dr. Hall found plaintiff's quadriceps continuing to improve and had good strength, extension, and flexion. The x-rays were satisfactory with some lateral subluxation, but clinically, Dr. Hall felt plaintiff was doing well.

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

Detached Patella Complications Lead To Malpractice Suit By Sacramento Woman, Part 4 of 9

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:54:10 -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.)

On March 24, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain when trying to walk without a splint. Dr. Hall noted an extensor lag when plaintiff attempted a SLR and also noted maltracking of the patella. Clinically, her knee was locking. Dr. Hall's impression was patellar instability with subluxation. X-rays showed slipping of the prosthetic patellar component onto the lateral side. He advised plaintiff that unless her knee showed improvement, she should undergo a patellar revision and quadriceps repair.

Plaintiff next presented for a follow-up visit on April 14, 2009, complaining that her patella had drifted laterally. Dr. Hall recommended a revision patellar arthroplasty, and discussed with plaintiff the risks and benefits of the procedure. Plaintiff elected surgery.

On May 28, 2009, Dr. Hall, with Dr. White assisting, performed a quadricepsplasty and quadriceps realignment of the left quadriceps. A complete lateral release was carried out from the tibia proximally on the lateral aspect, which helped to control the mild tracking and subluxing, but did not completely settle the patella in its groove. The lateral tibial patellar tendon was detached distally and woven through the patellar tendon into the medical tissues. The quadriceps repair was done with Ethibond and a double breasting, overlapping procedure, which was performed to tighten the medial structures. Dr. Hall noted this procedure "may solve the patellar instability and its subluxation."

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

Post-Operative Knee Issues Lead To Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 3 of 9

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:53:18 -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.)

On February 5, 2009, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain in her left knee but reported that it felt stronger. She was able to perform a SLR with little assistance. The knee was placed in an extension splint. X-rays taken on this date do not show any complications with the tibial and femoral components. Dr. Hall next saw plaintiff on February 18, 2009. Plaintiff complained of left knee pain and reported that she had begun physical therapy. Plaintiff's quadriceps strength was good. The extensor splint was continued.

On March 4, 2009, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain and stiffness, especially in the mornings. Plaintiffs quadriceps were bulking up and she could do a SLR and had 70 degrees of flexion. These were both good signs. An extensor splint was re-applied.

On March 15, 2009, plaintiff next presented to Dr. White, another orthopedist at National Medical Clinic, for a consultation. Dr. White noted a palpable gap in the medial retinaculum and lateral subluxation of the patella with an impression of medical retinacular dehiscence. Dr. White indicated she felt a gap in the tissue on the inside edge of the patella, consistent with the lateral tracking she could visualize.

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

Patient Files Medical Malpractice Action Against Sacramento Hospital, Part 2 of 9

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 05:52:06 -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.)

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall on December 1, 2008 for a two-week follow-up visit. He noted plaintiff had problems with flexion and instability. Plaintiff could not perform a seated leg raise ( SLR ) and the medial side of her knee showed some "bogginess." Dr. Hall stated that the wound felt boggy and soft on palpation. Dr. Hall decided to place plaintiff in a cylinder cast in extension because of her inability to perform a SLR.

On December 15, 2008, Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for another follow-up visit. Plaintiff did not have any significant complaints on this visit and stated she felt much better. Dr. Hall informed plaintiff he would give the knee more time to heal and would evaluate her knee in five days. He noted the cast seemed to be improving her quadriceps function and because plaintiff was able to perform the SLR he was no longer concerned about damage to the quadriceps muscle.
On January 8, 2009, Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained that sometimes it felt like her knee was going to buckle. Dr. Hall noted that plaintiffs clinical presentation showed some patellar subluxation. He indicated a lateral release with or without medial repair might be required. Dr. Hall ordered a long-leg cast with foot included due to plaintiffs positive response to the previous cast.

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

Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Suit Following Knee Surgery, Part 1 of 9

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:50:39 -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.)

Defendants Jim Hall, M.D., and National Medical Clinic hereby submit their Trial Brief in this medical malpractice action filed by plaintiff Susan Dean.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Hall is an orthopedic surgeon practicing at National Medical Clinic in Sacramento. On February 21, 2008, plaintiff Susan Dean underwent a right total knee replacement surgery performed by Dr. Hall at National Community Hospital. On February 25, 2008, Dr. Hall discharged plaintiff Susan Dean from National Community Hospital after she had been doing well and ambulating with physical therapy. There were no postoperative complications and the outcome was satisfactory as plaintiff was noted to have recovered very well from the right total knee replacement.

On November 5, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall at National Medical Clinic for a preoperative visit concerning a left total knee replacement. Dr. Hall noted that the left knee possessed a valgus deformity and pain upon flexion. According to Dr. Hall, plaintiff was a candidate for the surgery due to arthritis in all three components of the knee and three years of left 13 knee pain. He discussed the risks, benefits and alternatives with plaintiff. On November 14, 2008, plaintiff underwent a left total knee replacement surgery by Dr. Hall again at National Community Hospital. A constant pressure motion (CPM) unit was put in place to apply passive pressure to promote movement of the knee. Additionally, plaintiff was to wear an immobilizer when walking to protect the repair of the quadriceps incision from injury.

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

Sacramento Woman Suffers Head Injuries In Car Accident, Part 4 of 4

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:45:30 -0800

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing 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.)

Disputed Costs for Frank Yung, Ph.D.:

1. $95.00 for advanced costs
2. $12,223.75 for apparently 31.75 hours at $385 per hour

Number (1) above addresses costs advanced to Frank Yung, Ph.D. Plaintiff is unsure what this advanced cost is, or what it was for. Without some description and or justification of this cost, Plaintiff refuses to pay for it.

As to number (2) above, the deposition of Frank Yung, Ph.D. stated that he only had put in 4 1/2 hours on his review and consultation in this case. Plaintiff was not made aware of these extra hours spent in review or examination of the Plaintiff. Frank Yung is now trying to charge $12,223.75 for unaccounted for time as well as testing that he didn't administer. Frank Yung, Ph.D. stated that he was in the other room working on other things when the Plaintiff was completing her diagnostic testing. In fact, his face time with the plaintiff admittedly was only 2 1/2 to 3 hours. His review of the records consisted of scanning medical records in (by his assistant) and a 90-minute review. Based on his testimony it is hard to fathom how Frank Yung could have spent the claimed 31.75 hours of review and consultation on this case.

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

Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Car Accident Victim Over Expert Costs, Part 3 of 4

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:43:30 -0800

(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.)

EXPERT FEES cont.

Disputed Costs for Dr. Greene:

1. $4725.00 for apparently 10.5 hours of work at $450 per hour
2. $175.00 for an MRI/CT scan
3. $225.00 for 3 X-Rays
4. $800.00 for a confirmatory consultation
5. $450.00 for a preparation of a report

As to number (1) above, the deposition testimony of Dr. Greene loosely estimated that he only had put in 7 hours on his review of this case (far less than the 10.5 Defendant has claimed). A reasonable review of the medical records in the Plaintiff's opinion could have been done in less than half the time and accordingly the costs for this should be cut in half to $2,362.50 for 5-plus hours of work.

Numbers (2) and (3). The MRI/CT scans and the X-rays were unnecessary as several had already been taken and the Defense should have provided those to Dr. Greene well before his evaluation of the client. Therefore, these costs should not be reimbursable at all.

For number (4) Plaintiff is unsure what a confirmatory consultation even is. Without some description and or justification of this cost, Plaintiff refuses to pay for it.

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