Sacramento Personal Injury 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, 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.

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital And Surgeon Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 9 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

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

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Knee Replacement Complications, Part 7 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Botched Sacramento Knee Replacement Surgery Subject Of Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Sacramento Doctor Sued For Malpractice After Surgical Complications, Part 5 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Detached Patella Complications Lead To Malpractice Suit By Sacramento Woman, Part 4 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

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

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Patient Files Medical Malpractice Action Against Sacramento Hospital, Part 2 of 9 " »

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.)

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.

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Suit Following Knee Surgery, Part 1 of 9 " »