Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
11. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe and debilitating pain, anxiety and emotional distress, and will continue in the future to suffer severe and debilitating pain anxiety and emotional distress, in an amount not yet determined but to be shown according to proof at trial.
12. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff incurred medical expenses for past medical care, and will continue in the future to incur medical expenses in an amount not yet determined, but to be shown according to proof at trial.
13. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ medical negligence, Plaintiff incurred losses in her earnings and earning capacity and will continue in the future to lose earnings in an amount not yet determined, but to be shown according to proof at trial.
14. On this cause of action, Plaintiff is entitled to all compensatory damages available against defendants for their negligence, including any and all Economic Damages, without limit, and all Non-Economic Damages, subject to the limitations of California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (M.I.C.R A.).
COUNT TWO: WILLFUL OR RECKLESS MISCONDUCT/MEDICAL BATTERY
[Brought by Plaintiff Sura Bhandi as against all Defendants]
15. Sura Bhandi hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations and realleges the same as though set forth in full herein.
16. In spring of 2008 Plaintiff Sura Bhandi who had been treating with Defendants Wellness and Jones, told the same that her soreness issues in her shoulders area had resolved and that she felt she no longer needed chiropractic care.
17. Upon hearing of this, Defendants decided to take exit x-rays of the Plaintiff. After said x-rays were taken Defendants advised Plaintiff that she may have a slight disc herniation in her lower back. Plaintiff stated that her lower back was not giving her pain and that she felt further treatment was unnecessary.
18. At this point the Defendants insistent that she keep treating and that they would focus the treatment on he lower back. Plaintiff being ignorant of what type of medical issue was concerning her lower back agreed to continue treatment. At this point Defendants had, by and through their agents and employees, actual and also constructive knowledge of the particular perils to Sura Bhandi’s safety and health. Defendants likewise had actual and constructive knowledge of the risk that Ms. Bhandi could sustain catastrophic injury to her back with continued care.
19. Defendants proceeded to give the recommended care During treatment over the summer of 2008 Sura Bhandi complained that the chiropractic treatments given to her lower back were not helping and actually causing her more pain. Defendants stated that this was normal and that the only way to help the pain would be through more treatments. Based on Defendants representations Plaintiff continued the treatment. (See Part 4 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.