San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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.)

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:

"In the event the defendant so elects, in an action for personal injury against a health care provider based upon professional negligence, he may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant to United States Social Security Act, any state or federal income disability or worker's compensation act, any health, sickness or income-disability insurance, accident insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability coverage, and any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the cost of medical, hospital, dental or other health care services ... "

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.)

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

Continue reading " Improper Follow-up Care By San Francisco Orthopedic Surgeon Leads To Malpractice Suit, Part 8 of 8 " »

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.)

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 and May 28, 2008. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Jones, 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 San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Negligence By San Francisco Surgeon Results In Malpractice Suit, Part 7 of 8 " »

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.)

On November 2, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lee for a second opinion, as she was experiencing burning pain radiating down the lateral aspect of the lower leg from the knee to her ankle. Dr.Lee examined plaintiff and discovered full knee extension and flexion to 115 degrees with the patella tracking laterally. Dr. Lee told her she needed more time to heal after plaintiff stated she wanted to review the x-rays ordered by Dr. Hall on October 6th. Plaintiff requested a third opinion and Dr .Lee offered to refer her to Dr. Michael Davis, a physician not affiliated with Universal Medical Clinic.

Dr. Davis examined plaintiff on December 8, 2008. 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.

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

Continue reading " Knee Replacement Nightmare For San Francisco Woman Leads To Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 8 " »

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.)

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative visit on June 7, 2008. Plaintiff complained her stitches were bugging her and that they were tearing. Dr. Hall noted the incision was clean and dry and that plaintiff could do an SLR. An immobilizer was applied. Post op on June 14, 2008, Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff reported that she was doing okay. Plaintiff could do a SLR. By June 28, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee stiffness. Dr. Hall noted plaintiff had good quadriceps and the patella was centralized. Plaintiff had 75% flexion and appeared to be healing well.

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

Continuing, on July 19, 2008 plaintiff complained of left knee pain. Plaintiff could perform a good SLR but displayed a 10-degree lag. He also noted plaintiff had good flexion and the patella was tracking centrally. By August 16, 2008, however, plaintiff complained of soreness and tightness in her left knee. Dr. Hall noted her quadriceps range of motion and stability were excellent. Plaintiff discussed returning to work and Dr. Hall released her to return to work and follow-up as needed.

Continue reading " San Francisco Woman Needs Several Surgeries to Repair Knee Damage In Malpractice Suit, Part 5 of 8 " »

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.)

On March 24, 2008, 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 an 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, 2008, 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, 2008, Dr. Hall, with Dr. Lee 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.

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

Continue reading " San Francisco Hospital Sued After Patient Undergoes Multiple Knee Surgeries, Part 4 of 8 " »

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.)

As instructed, on January 12, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for another follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee and left heel pain. Dr. Hall windowed the heel of the cast to relieve pressure and decrease plaintiff's pain. Dr. Hall discussed the possibility of a lateral release of the patella with scope. He explained the risks and benefits of the procedure to plaintiff.

Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a pre-operative evaluation at which time she reported pain in her left knee. She was able to perform an SLR but there was maltracking of the patella. Dr. Hall and plaintiff discussed the risks and benefits of an arthroscopy and lateral release with possible medial repair. The arthroscopy with lateral release of plaintiffs left patella was performed on January 27, 2008. The scope showed maltracking and subluxing laterally. In addition, flexion was limited. The lateral release was performed and improved the position and tracking of the patella significantly with 90 to 95 degrees of flexion achieved.

On February 5, 2008, 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.

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

Continue reading " Medical Center In San Francisco Must Defend Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 8 " »

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.)

On November 17, 2007, the plaintiff was discharged from Universal Community Hospital and was ambulating well without any significant problems noted. On that same day, plaintiff was transferred and admitted to Community Care and Rehabilitation Center ( CCRC ). On November 20, 2007, Dr. Hong (no longer a defendant in this matter) briefly evaluated plaintiff and ordered that she continue to mobilize with her left leg until re-evaluated. Plaintiff was discharged from CCRC on November 26, 2007.

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

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall on December 1, 2007 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 an SLR.

Continue reading " San Francisco Surgeon Botches Knee Surgery, Commits Malpractice, Part 2 of 8 " »

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.)

Trial Brief of Defendants William Hall, M.D., and Universal Medical Clinic.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Sandy White is represented by the ABC Law Offices in San Francisco.

Defendants William Hall, M.D., and Universal Medical Clinic are represented by the XYZ Law Firm of San Francisco.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Hall is an Orthopedic Surgeon practicing at Universal Medical Clinic in San Francisco. On February 21, 2007, plaintiff underwent a right total knee replacement surgery performed by Dr. Hall at Universal Community Hospital. On February 25, 2007, Dr. Hall discharged plaintiff from Universal 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, 2007, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall at Universal 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.

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

Continue reading " San Francisco Woman Files Medical Malpractice Suit Against Surgeons, Part 1 of 8 " »