San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Veteran Loses 90% of Eyesight In San Jose Hospital Study, Part 2 of 2

Wed, 02 May 2012 08:30:22 -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 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.)

William claimed that the hospital's optometry department first diagnosed him as a “glaucoma suspect” in August 2004, but he received no treatment for onset glaucoma during the next four and a half years, despite subsequent visits and assessments that he was at risk for the disease. William subsequently became legally blind. He contended that the hospital should have treated him accordingly.

William further contended that the hospital's optometrists had not followed an internal policy that required all patients with glaucoma to have their treatment overseen and reviewed by an ophthalmologist and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist for his care.

The defense argued that William's private internist should have been aware of his eye condition and need for treatment, and should have referred him for such treatment. The defendant also denied that William's early symptoms were in fact indicative of glaucoma, and contended that he received proper VA medical care for treatment of his eyes.

Plaintiff's counsel noted that the defendant served subpoenas upon every one of William's private health care providers for purposes of filing potential third party complaints, but records disclosed no outside visits to any private optometrists or ophthalmologists, as William's eye care was provided exclusively at the Palo Alto VA.
William also claimed he suffered anxiety and depression, though he still has some quality of life.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Brought Against Hospital After Study Goes Wrong, Part 1 of 2

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:29:38 -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.)

INJURIES: William claimed that between 2004, when he first presented with glaucoma symptoms, and 2009, when he was diagnosed with glaucoma, he suffered the loss of more than 90 percent of his visual fields, progressive optic nerve damage and continuing damage to nerve fibers, as well as continuing and progressive “cupping” of his optic nerves. He claimed that the negligent treatment proximately caused a need for invasive glaucoma surgery in both eyes, with the left one needing further surgical revisions, and that this has caused him to be rendered legally blind. He said he has almost no peripheral vision left, but he does have remaining visual acuity (i.e., he is able to see straight ahead). He can also read, watch television and see his wife, children and grandchildren.

Facts:
In 2009, plaintiff Daniel William Sr., a military veteran in his 80s, was one of eight eye patients receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration hospital in Palo Alto, when he was contacted by VA Palo Alto Health Care System informing him that he received improper care that may have caused some vision loss, which could have been prevented.
William sued the United States government, which owns and manages the hospital, for medical malpractice - negligent treatment and failure to consult.

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

San Jose Veteran Claims Medical Malpractice After Loss Of Eye Sight

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:27:40 -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: Kirk now lives in San Jose and claimed the delayed diagnosis and treatment of his glaucoma caused legal blindness in his right eye and loss of 15 percent of vision in his left eye.

Facts:
In early 2009, L.T. Kirk Jr., 68, who served in a U.S. Air Force special unit that maintained fighter jets flown in the Korean War, was one of eight eye patients receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration hospital in Palo Alto, when he was contacted by VA Palo Alto Health Care System and informed that he received improper care that may have caused some vision loss, which could have been prevented.

Kirk filed an Administrative Tort Claim, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, against the United States government, which owns and manages the hospital, for medical malpractice - negligent treatment and failure to diagnose or consult.

Kirk subsequently became legally blind in his right eye and suffered vision loss in his left, as well. He contended that the hospital failed to treat him for his glaucoma for several years, and also contended that there was an internal breakdown at the VA Hospital arising out of the VA's failure to follow its own policy that all glaucoma patients seen in the optometry department must be referred to the ophthalmology department for care and treatment by medical doctors, and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist or medical doctor for his care.

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

San Jose Woman Claims Nurse’s Negligence Caused Her Fall, Part 2 of 2

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:32:05 -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 sued defendant for nursing negligence, contending that the nurse did not appropriately assess plaintiff's fall risk, given that she had a history of a prior fall, rheumatoid arthritis, lower extremity weakness, balance and mobility problems, as well as multiple other underlying health conditions, and that the nurse did not implement the proper fall precautions, which resulted in plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff contended that the standard of care required the nurse to either give plaintiff a bed pan or stand with plaintiff, next to her, while she used the bedside commode. It was below the standard of care for the nurse to have left plaintiff on the commode by herself.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff's fall risk was appropriately assessed and the nurse instituted appropriate fall-risk precautions, which included assistance with transitions and ambulation.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Defendant: Left tibia fracture; surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to Defendant: Not reported.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Defendant: Not reported.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
According to Defendant: Plaintiff's nursing expert, Elaine Karen, R.N., testified that defendant's nurses negligently performed the fall-risk assessment of plaintiff and that the standard of care required a nurse to be in the room while plaintiff used the bedside commode, given her history of mobility problems, including balance problems and lower extremity weakness.

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

After Car Accident Child Diagnosed With Paraplegia, Parents Sue San Jose Hospital, Part 2 of 2

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:28 -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 plaintiffs' orthopedic surgery expert testified that the strong statistical probability was that some additional improper movement at the hospital (before surgery) caused the spinal cord injury, and if Katlyn had movement of her legs when she arrived at the hospital she should have continued to have that movement if the appropriate precautions were taken. The expert added that a verbal order was insufficient, and that regardless, there was no proper documentation by the nurses that there even was a voiced request for lumbar or thoracic spinal precautions when Melon removed the cervical spinal precautions in the emergency room.

Melon countered that he provided appropriate care at all times, that Katlyn's injuries at L2-3 and T-10 were caused solely by the automobile accident, and that nothing could have been done to Katlyn at the hospital that could have prevented her paraplegia. Melon further contended that he gave verbal orders to put spinal precautions in place, and that it was custom and practice for the trauma team to do so in situations like Katlyn's.
The defense's trauma surgery expert claimed that the medical record did not document any improper movements in the hospital, and that a verbal order, as testified to by Melon, would be sufficient to comply with the standard of care for a trauma surgeon.
The neuroradiology expert for the defense opined the subsequent imaging (there was no MRI done before the abdominal surgery) supported his opinion that the spinal injuries occurred in the auto accident.

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

Elderly Woman Falls Off Bedside Commode in San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 1 of 2

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:31:20 -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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Defendant: Plaintiff Daniel Melvin was a 74-year-old woman who lived in a two-storey condominium by herself. She had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, with hand and feet deformities, as well as osteoporosis and other underlying health issues. On February 3, 2007, plaintiff fell at home in her kitchen. On February 13, 2007, she was admitted to defendant Stanford Hospital & Clinics for an outpatient 23-hour stay related to the burst fracture. The surgery was unremarkable, and she was transferred to a room on the orthopedic floor by 6:00 p.m. The next morning, February 14, 2007, the nurse performed a complete physical assessment of plaintiff and a fall-risk assessment. At some point between 8:35 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. that morning, plaintiff advised the nurse that she had to go to the bathroom. The nurse placed a bedside commode next to plaintiff's bed and assisted plaintiff out of the bed and onto the commode. The nurse advised plaintiff to call him when she was finished so he could assist her back to bed. He then left the room.

Plaintiff claimed that, while she was on the commode, it collapsed and came apart, causing her to fall to the floor. She sustained a fracture to her left tibia. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient on February 14th and underwent open-reduction, internal fixation (“ORIF”) of the left tibia on February 16th. Plaintiff was discharged to a skilled nursing facility on February 19th.

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

Parents of Child Sue San Jose Hospital After Claimed Negligent Treatment, Part 1 of 2

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:40:32 -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: Katlyn was diagnosed as a functionally complete T-10 paraplegic. The plaintiffs asked for an award of $15.8 million: $632,970 in past economic damages, $10,208,009 in future economic damages and $5 million in past and future general damages.

Facts:
On Dec. 27, 2005, minor plaintiff Katlyn Soosh, 4, was a lap and shoulder belted rear seat occupant of a 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe when it was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Interstate 5, in an unincorporated part of San Jose County. Katlyn was transported by a helicopter to Children's Hospital of Central California, and upon arrival her care was directed by pediatric trauma surgeon, Dr. Derrek Melon. Katlyn's initial examination revealed an abdominal injury from the seat belt that required surgical repair, as well as mid-back swelling and suspected spinal ligamentous injury. No written orders were made at that time regarding instituting spinal precautions. The initial X-ray of the lumbar spine was originally read by the radiologist as negative, but later changed to reflect a probable chance fracture at L2-3. Melon performed the abdominal surgery.

Katlyn, by her guardian ad litem, sued Melon, alleging medical malpractice. The hospital was also sued, but it settled out prior to trial.

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

Deceased Woman’s Family Argues San Jose Hospital Provided Negligent Treatment, Part 2 of 2

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:39:31 -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.)

Lemons performed the cardioversion on April 17, 2007. Two days later, Garvey was seen by her primary care physician with a blood pressure of 202/64, nosebleeds and high blood sugar. The primary care physician decreased the dosage of her antihypertension medication.

On April 20, 2007, Garvey was admitted to a hospital in San Jose as she had become unresponsive due to a stroke. A CT scan of the brain performed on the same day showed no hemorrhage.

A CT Scan taken April 21 indicated a stroke involving the basal ganglia, internal capsule and right mid-brain. Garvey was a “do not resuscitate” patient and life support was discontinued that day.

Garvey's widower and children sued Lemons, alleging that a cardioversion must not be performed unless a patient is adequately anti-coagulated pursuant to American College of Cardiology Guidelines, both before and after cardioversion, and that Lemons's decision to proceed with cardioversion with the patient unprotected, given the inadequate anticoagulation, was below the standard of accepted care. The plaintiffs contended that Garvey sustained a cardioembolic stroke three days after her cardioversion which resulted in her death.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Results After Elderly Woman Dies In Hospital, Part 1 of 2

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:38:27 -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: Garvey died from a stroke. Her husband and children sought recovery of non-economic damages of between $400,000 and $500,000. The plaintiffs sought recovery of damages for future loss of parental guidance, future loss of companionship, future loss of financial support and funeral expenses.

Facts:
In December 2002, plaintiffs' decedent Pamela Garvey, 74, began cardiology care with Dr. Neil Lemons. Garvey underwent a coronary angiography with stent placement, coronary artery bypass graft surgery and pacemaker placement.

Garvey had multiple medical risk factors including hypertension, hypercolesteremia, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. She also had a stroke of the posterior cerebral artery distribution in December 2000.

After attending regular visits with Lemons in 2003 and 2004, Garvey didn't attend office visits in 2005. In 2006, she indicated that she was no longer willing to take statins, aspirin or undergo treadmill examinations. She chose to take medications prescribed by her primary care physician, including L-Arginine for her high blood pressure and hypercholesteremia, and Byetta for diabetes.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Results After Doctor Misses Cancer, Part 2 of 2

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:45:28 -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 surgeon admitted that he misread the Sept. 21 biopsy.

The surgeon contended that, had the plaintiff been diagnosed earlier, she would still have opted for a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. He further claimed that she would then have experienced the same complications, regardless of when she had the surgery.

The radiologist claimed that the May 31 mammogram reading was appropriate.
She underwent a modified radical mastectomy with flap reconstruction. Six out of 12 axillary lymph nodes sampled showed evidence of metastatic disease. She then underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The plaintiff developed problems with the flap wound, requiring several more surgeries. She eventually underwent a modified radical mastectomy on her right breast, and a further repair of a hernia at the old flap site.

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

Misdiagnosis in San Jose Medical Malpractice Suit Results in Breast Cancer Spread, Part 1 of 2

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:44:23 -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: The plaintiff was diagnosed with an intermediate-grade, infiltrating ductal carcinoma in her left breast.

Facts:
In August 2003, the plaintiff, 47, a long-haul truck driver, underwent a screening mammogram that showed an area of suspicion in her left breast. An ultrasound was done and read as “highly suspicious” and indicative of a solid nodule in the left breast.
On Sept. 21, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy. The pathologist reported the results as representative of a papilloma, also known as a benign tumor. On May 31, she underwent another screening mammogram, which her radiologist read as normal.

On May 20, 2004, the plaintiff underwent her annual mammogram, which again revealed an area of suspicion in her left breast. She followed up with an ultrasound and biopsy, which led to a breast cancer diagnosis.

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

Teen in Vegetative State After San Jose Doctor Operates Negligently in Medical Malpractice Case, Part 2 of 2

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:43:20 -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.)

Plaintiff's counsel argued that the VP shunt was not worked up at admission because of miscommunication. The lawyers also argued that the neurosurgeon performed the craniectomy instead of addressing the possible VP shunt malfunction. Despite evidence of increased intracranial pressure caused by excessive CSF, the neurosurgeon opened the “drum tight dura” and a portion of the child's brain stem herniated through the incision under considerable force.

The health care providers did not bill for the majority of services that the teen required post-surgery during his hospitalization. The health care liens were settled for $80,000.
The plaintiff experienced developmental delays, microcephaly and periodic seizures prior to the incident. At the time of the incident, he was receiving special education classes. He was functioning on a first-to-second-grade level. He was fluent in Spanish and English, very sociable and interacted appropriately with his peers, according to plaintiff's counsel. He was independent in dressing, bathing, preparing simple meals, obtaining his own drinks, and feeding himself.

The child's wage loss contentions were limited due to his level of pre-occurrence cognitive deficiencies.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Results After Boy Suffers Catastrophic Brain Stem Injury, Part 1 of 2

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:40:59 -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.)

INJURIES: Catastrophic brain stem injury was reportedly caused by primary trauma associated with the herniation and massive subsequent hemorrhage. The teen is in a persistent vegetative state with a tracheotomy. He is dependent on a gastrostomy tube for nutrition and requires round-the-clock attendant care. Plaintiff experts calculated his monthly care costs to be $50,000.

Facts:
In April 2006, the plaintiff, a 13-year-old fifth-grader, presented to health care providers with complaints of persistent headaches for four days. Based upon a CT scan and the clinical presentation, the attending pediatric neurologist suspected that the headaches were due to increased intracranial pressure caused by a build up of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) probably due to a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt malfunction.

The plaintiff was born with hydrocephaly, a condition occurring secondarily to obstruction of the CSF pathways in the brain and accompanied by an accumulation of CSF within the skull. He had a VP shunt inserted, which drained CSF from the brain to the gut, decreasing and stabilizing intracranial pressure. The VP shunt was controlled by a pressure valve, which opens the shunt when excess CSF causes increased intracranial pressure. It is common for CSF to form clots, causing the shunt to malfunction.

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

San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Due To Missed Early Diagnosis in Breast Cancer Case, Part 2 of 2

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:21:57 -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.)

Plaintiff then underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with Taxol, Adriamycin, and Cytoxan. She underwent bilateral mastectomies on January 4, 2009. A residual tumor measuring 5.5 cm was found in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. Axillary node sampling revealed five metastatic nodes.

In May 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed with metastatic disease to the lung, liver, and bone. This represents incurable Stage IV disease.

Plaintiffs alleged that the June 30, 2006 mammogram showed a new density in the right superior breast on the MLO study. They contended that this finding should have been appreciated, that the mammogram should have been read as a BIRADS 0, and further imaging studies should have been conducted. Plaintiffs argued that had this been accomplished, it was medically probable that the diagnosis would have been made in July 2006 rather than July 2008. Plaintiffs further alleged that, had the diagnosis been made in July 2006, with the same chemotherapy as she received in 2008, her likelihood of cure would have been upwards of 70 percent.

The defense contended that the June 30, 2006 mammogram was properly read. They further contended that plaintiff was herself at fault for not obtaining a mammogram in June 2007, as instructed. Had she been compliant, her cancer would have been diagnosed based on a June 2007 mammogram and her cancer was curable at that time.

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

San Jose Woman Improperly Diagnosed Results in Terminal Cancer, Part 1 of 2

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:20:38 -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: Plaintiff, currently a 42-year-old accountant at a bank, underwent a mammogram on June 30, 2006 read by defendant radiologist. The study was interpreted as a BI-RADS 1, within normal limits. She was instructed to return for an additional screening mammogram one year later, but did not.

Plaintiff next underwent a screening mammogram on April 5, 2008. That study was read as showing a density in the right upper breast on the MLO view only. The report stated that the density had increased in size from the 2007 study. The study was read as BIRADS 0, additional studies needed. Plaintiff then underwent a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound on April 20, 2008. These studies were interpreted by defendant as benign, BI-RADS III, follow up in four months requested.

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