San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

INJURIES: Jermaine claimed he sustained radial nerve damage in his dominant, left arm, as a result of the surgery performed by Euick. He claimed he suffers intractable neuropathic pain, as well as motor loss, in the arm. Jermaine has been on constant pain medication since the surgery.

Facts:
On July 21, 2006, plaintiff John Jermaine, 42, a heavy-equipment operator, underwent surgery to have what was diagnosed as a benign mass removed from his upper left arm. The surgery was performed by Dr. Jeffery Euick, who Jermaine was referred to by his general practitioner, and took place at San Francisco Hospital in San Francisco.

After surgery, Jermaine claimed he experienced muscle weakness and severe nerve pain. The mass was later diagnosed as a leiomyosarcoma, or a cancerous tumor. Jermaine underwent a subsequent surgery at UCLA Medical Center to excise further along the margins of the removed tumor.

Jermaine sued Euick and his employer alleging medical malpractice. He accused Euick of negligent treatment and claimed he failed to properly test and diagnose his cancerous tumor. He alleged his employer was vicariously liable for Euick's actions.

Jermaine claimed Euick was negligent for failing to order and obtain a pre-operative MRI for surgical planning and for proceeding with a surgery that was more difficult than expected. He alleged Euick failed to diagnose the tumor as malignant, and should have performed a more timely biopsy, before the surgery. Jermaine further claimed that Euick was in way over his head, and that he should have been referred to an oncologic surgeon at a specialty hospital or tertiary center.

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

Continue reading "Man Alleges Negligent Treatment At San Francisco Hospital Caused Arm Nerve Damage" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

INJURIES: Clemmens sustained traumatic encephalopathy and required eight months of hospitalization. He now has significant cognitive deficits and general difficulty performing the tasks of every day life. He is unable to return to work.

Facts:
On Sept. 26, 2007, plaintiff Nathan Clemmens, 53, a sales manager for Oasis, fainted while at San Francisco International Airport, hitting his head on the floor and becoming dazed. He was rushed via ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital, where a CT scan revealed a small subarachnoid hemorrhage and an EKG revealed a heart attack. A subsequent angiography showed an occluded right coronary artery.

The plaintiff was hemodynamically stable, but cardiologists at the hospital decided to perform angioplasty and place a stent. Following the administration of anticoagulant agents, Clemmens developed massive bleeding in the brain in the form of bilateral frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhages. He survived, but sustained permanent brain damage.

Via his wife, Clemmens sued the hospital's operator, The Regents of the University of California, for medical malpractice. Clemmens's counsel claimed that given knowledge of the plaintiff's head injury, the stenting procedure was contraindicated and an unacceptable risk. The lawyer claimed that the danger from the plaintiff's clogged coronary artery was not life threatening.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Performs Negligent Treatment Causing Permanent Brain Damage" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

At 32 weeks, the perinatologist interpreted the ultrasound as showing calcifications in the liver, intrauterine growth retardation and polyhydramnios. An amniocentesis confirmed the presence of chickenpox viral DNA in the amniotic fluid, with no other abnormalities shown on the ultrasound or amniocetesis. At 36 weeks, the second obstetrician delivered the baby via Caesarean section.

The baby had significant neurological abnormalities.

The plaintiff and her fiancé sued the first obstetrician, the second obstetrician, the perinatologist and the genetics counselor for medical malpractice.

Plaintiffs' counsel contended that the second obstetrician should have vaccinated the plaintiff mother before she became pregnant; the second obstetrician should have administered VZIG after exposure to the chickenpox virus; and the defendants should have recommended amniocentesis and discovered signs of congenital varicella on ultrasound before 26 weeks gestation.

The defense contended that the vaccination had been recommended to the plaintiffs; that VZIG was not proven to protect fetuses from congenital chicken pox; and that the plaintiffs had the option of having amniocentesis, and that ultrasound abnormalities did not show up until 32 weeks gestation.

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

Continue reading "Infant Born with Significant Neurological Abnormalities in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

INJURIES: The baby was born with severe neurological abnormalities, including an absent gag reflex with repeated aspiration, microgastria and severe reflux, partial aplasia of one leg, oral aversion, episodic apnea to the point of loss of consciousness, periodic repeated vomiting spells which required permanent tracheostomy, round-the-clock oxygen therapy and feeding only by gastrostomy or jejunostomy tubes. The infant requires round-the-clock care.
Facts:

In spring 2007, the plaintiff, a 33-year-old woman who planned on having children, presented to an obstetrician. The plaintiff was found to lack immunity to chickenpox, though she was not vaccinated against it. Roughly three months later, she became pregnant. Thirteen weeks into her pregnancy, she was visited by her mother who had active shingles, the same virus as chickenpox. The plaintiff was sent immediately by her internist to a second obstetrician for treatment with anti-chickenpox immune globulin (VZIG). The second obstetrician did not administer the treatment. About three weeks later, the plaintiff broke out in classic chickenpox and recovered fully with antibiotics. She then followed up with a perinatologist to determine if the fetus had contracted congenital chickenpox.

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

Continue reading "Doctors Fail To Treat Pregnant Mother For Chicken Pox in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

Plaintiffs' counsel contended that during the 13 minutes following the intubation and during the prolonged CPR process, Vasquez experienced a severe anoxic insult to his brain and never regained consciousness.

The plaintiffs contended that the original intubation was placed esophageally, not tracheally, and that the hospital's claim that Vasquez was saturating in the 90s and then suddenly became bradycardic was untrue, and physiologically impossible. Counsel noted that there were no oxygen saturation (SpO2) values recorded in the chart. The lawyer contended that the hospital's failure to monitor Vasquez following intubation allowed his oxygen saturations to progressively drop to the point where he could no longer sustain cardiac function and went into cardiac and respiratory arrest.

The lawyer further contended that following the cardiac and respiratory arrest, the hospital failed to attempt to re-intubate Vasquez and instead tried to ventilate him via bag valve mask ventilation. Counsel asserted that, had respondents appropriately monitored Vasquez following intubation, it would have become evident that he was not properly intubated long before he went into respiratory and cardiac arrest, and that the delay in re-intubating Vasquez further contributed to his anoxic brain injury.
The hospital responded that the ER doctors' post-intubation examination confirmed tracheal placement of the endotracheal tube. Although the medical record did not contain any recordation of oxygen saturation following the intubation, the defense insisted that Vasquez's oxygen saturations were in excess of 90 and remained so following intubation.

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

Continue reading "Father Dies After Nurses Fail To Monitor in Hospital in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

INJURIES: Vasquez lost his life.

Facts:
On Aug. 28, 2007, plaintiffs' decedent Larry Vasquez, 62, retired, was brought via ambulance to a South San Francisco emergency room with complaints of shortness of breath that had been increasingly worsening over the previous several days. He was morbidly obese with a history of respiratory problems including obesity hypoventilation syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which had necessitated his intubation on two previous occasions in less than one year.

While in the ER, Vasquez experienced respiratory arrest and severe anoxic insult to his brain. He died several weeks later.

Vasquez's three adult children sued for medical malpractice.

On ER arrival, Vasquez's oxygen saturations were noted to be 88 percent on room air and the emergency physicians evaluated and placed him on BiPap, according to plaintiffs' counsel. When oxygen saturations did not improve on BiPap and Vasquez became progressively more obtunded, ER physicians decided to intubate. Counsel claimed that multiple attempts at intubation were made by two separate physicians. The last intubation was believed to be placed tracheally, however, yellow fluid was seen coming from the endotracheal tube 13 minutes after the intubation. Physicians reportedly claimed that Vasquez suddenly became bradycardic and ultimately asystolic.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Man Dies at Hospital In San Francisco Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

The plaintiffs contended that a general anesthesiologist should have been employed during the second procedure because the decedent had undergone an ERCP procedure five days earlier, during which she proved to be difficult to sedate and became combative during the procedure. The plaintiffs argued that if a general anesthesiologist was managing her airway, her exhaled carbon dioxide would have been monitored through capnography and the respiratory arrest that led to a cardiac arrest would have been prevented. The plaintiffs also contended that there was a failure to competently assess the decedent's airway and remove the endoscope when the decedent's pulse oximeter readings dropped and then became undetectable. The plaintiffs argued that once it was noted that the decedent was in ventricular tachycardia, six minutes elapsed before the Code team attempted cardioversion.

The plaintiffs relied on their experts in anesthesiology and cardiology, who contended that as soon as a crash cart was brought into the room, within a minute or two of calling the Code, the decedent should have been defibrillated.

The defendant argued that it was within the standard of care not to use an anesthesiologist for the second ERCP procedure and to proceed with a sedation nurse without the benefit of capnography. It added that standard sedation medications and dosages were used, and changes in the oxygen saturation readings were not reflective of an obstructed airway or respiratory arrest. The decedent's oxygen saturation values returned to the high nineties when a second pulse oximeter was employed, and it was only after the decedent independently developed an arrhythmia that ventricular tachycardia developed and she arrested.

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

Continue reading "Wrongful Death In Soon-To-Be Physician Settles for $5 Million in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

INJURIES: The decedent was a few months short of completing her fellowship in hematology/oncology at UCSF. She had job prospects which would have provided her a starting salary of more than $200,000 per year. The decedent's husband is a medical doctor who has completed a residency in neurology and who specializes in pain management. His future earnings would have been comparable to the decedent's. The decedent's parents joined with her husband and daughter as wrongful death claimants, alleging that she had been contributing to their support. The daughter was 2 years old at the time of the decedent's death.

Facts:
On May 26, 2007, plaintiffs' decedent, 32, a physician, underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure to remove a bile duct stone and to insert a stent to relieve biliary obstruction. The procedure was performed by a University of California-San Francisco professor, who heads the endoscopy program, and a gastroenterology fellow.

The decedent was to be deeply sedated and monitored by a sedation nurse. Approximately 15 minutes after the endoscope was passed, the decedent's oxygen saturation values fell and then became undetectable. The sedation nurse attributed the problem to a malfunction of the monitor, rather than to a change in the decedent's condition, and about 10 minutes later, after the original monitor was replaced by a second pulse oximeter, the decedent went into ventricular tachycardia.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case Results From Failure To Monitor, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

Plaintiffs' experts contended that Plaintiff should have been referred earlier for a complete workup, and that the nurse practitioner had a duty to take the culture result very seriously in light of Plaintiff's history of symptoms. In addition, Plaintiffs contended that the nurse practitioner should have taken the time to look up Streptococcus Viridans. Had the nurse practitioner done so, she would have found that it is not found on the skin. She would also have learned that it is the most common organism causing sub-acute endocarditis, and the Plaintiff had been experiencing all the classic symptoms of that condition.

As is true with most cases involving a negligent delay in diagnosis, the Defendent contended that Plaintiff was largely responsible for the delay, particularly since she had a nursing background; and that any negligence on the part of the health care provider occurred too late in the process to make that much of a difference. What made causation in this case somewhat more challenging was that Plaintiff's more serious long-term injuries, including embolic brain injury, materialized more than two (2) weeks after she had began taking the appropriate IV antibiotics. Plaintiffs' causation experts maintained that Streptococcus Viridans is readily treatable; however, the multiple trials of inadequate antibiotics only moderated the symptoms without killing the organism. Consequently, the negligent delay in referral enabled the bacteria to build up on her aortic valve, and to form a biofilm barrier that inhibited the effectiveness of the IV antibiotics and her body's natural defenses.

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

Continue reading "Doctor Sued in Medical Malpractice Case After Failing to Properly Diagnose San Francisco Nurse, Part 3 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

The results of the blood workup would be reported to her primary care provider within three days. Three days later, Plaintiff went to her clinic, along with her whole family, to find out what those tests showed and to see whether it was okay to go on their vacation. Her symptoms were continuing, but now she complained of a swollen tender sternum. The nurse practitioner looked through the results of the tests and saw that the laboratory found two out of two bottles positive for Streptococcus Viridans. According to Plaintiff and her ten-year-old son, the nurse practitioner commented words to the effect, “Oh, by the way, they found some Strep in the tests, but that must be a skin contaminant. Go on your vacation, have a great time, and when you come back if you are still feeling ill, then you can have more blood work done.”

In the meantime, the nurse practitioner gave Plaintiff another Z-pak, just in case she still had a lingering low-grade infection, another prescription for Maxalt and a prescription for percocet for pain. The nurse practitioner testified in her deposition that she suggested that Plaintiff could stop by the hospital for a blood test on the way to her family vacation. Plaintiff denied that the nurse practitioner made such a suggestion, and there was nothing in the nurse's notes to that effect. Again, the Z-pak provided only temporary relief of Plaintiff's symptoms. Her family cut short their vacation and she returned once more to the clinic only to be prescribed another ineffectual antibiotic.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case Arises After Failure to Diagnose, Part 2 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

TEXT:
2007 - Plaintiff, female age 45, had worked as a surgical nurse until 10 years ago when the first of her four boys was born. She intended to go back to nursing sometime after her youngest was in school. Beginning in mid-November 2007, Plaintiff went in to her local clinic complaining of an occasional fever of 102.5, general aches and fatigue. The nurse practitioner suspected influenza. Six days later, Plaintiff returned and told the nurse practitioner that her continuing symptoms were making it hard for her to care for her children. Although she did not have a fever at that time, the nurse practitioner suggested that Plaintiff might wish to get checked out at the local hospital, but that she could prescribe a Z-pak to see whether that would work. A Z-pak is a general spectrum of oral antibiotic. Plaintiff chose to try the Z-pak. The Z-pak seemed to temper Plaintiff's symptoms over the next week, but then the symptoms reappeared along with other symptoms.

Plaintiff returned to the clinic, and this time, she reported a headache, muscle aches, fatigue, night sweats, chest tightening and an unproductive cough. She said that the night sweats were so bad that she was wrapping herself in towels to keep from soaking her bed. The doctor told her that she was likely pre-menopausal, despite the fact that she was still having regular periods. He also told her that overweight people often sweat at night. As to her feeling so fatigued, the doctor noted that after all, she had four active boys. He thought her headaches might be from migraines, and so he prescribed Maxalt.

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

Continue reading "Failure to Diagnose Leaves San Francisco Mother With Extensive Injuries, Part 1 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice 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. 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.)

First, she created a large, 8-square-inch open wound on the foot of a diabetic patient, knowing that even tiny open wounds can quickly become infected. However, she failed to prescribe antibiotics to guard against such infection. Knowing the potential for infection, she took a culture of the wound, which she sent to the San Francisco Hospital lab.
Further, she tightly covered the open wound with multiple layers of gauze and elastic. Among other things, this made it impossible for the condition of the wound to be observed by the patient or anyone else. It also may have diminished plaintiff's otherwise-healthy circulation in that foot.

Worst of all, she made no provision for frequent observation of the wound to monitor its status. She could have hospitalized plaintiff or could have arranged to have his wound checked either at her office or by another provider. By failing to provide for such observation, and, indeed, forbidding the patient to remove the elastic dressings, she prevented plaintiff's infection from being discovered and remedied at a point in time when his leg could have been treated and saved. At some point between the 12th and the 16th, the foot became unsalvageable, but if it had been properly monitored, he could have been started on IV antibiotic treatment immediately upon observation of infection (if not before), and the leg could have been saved.

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

Continue reading "Diabetic Gets Leg Amputated In San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case, Part 3 of 3" »