California Medical Malpractice Law Blog

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that a Harvard study has found that the legal system successfully weeds out claims against health care professionals that have no merit. This comes as a surprise to the American Medical Association, and other medical groups and insurance companies, who have long contended that the laws regarding the liability of health care professionals are too liberal and that tort reform is necessary.

The study was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, found that 90% of all claims against health care professionals involved a severe injury; 26% of those resulted in death and 80% in disability. The study reported that 63% of the injuries were due to the negligence of a medical professional and that the overwhelming majority of those claims thought to be without merit did not result in compensation.

This study, which some believe is another nail in the coffin of tort reform, substantiates what plaintiff and defense lawyers have known for a long time; that tort reform is a response to a campaign of misinformation orchestrated by insurance companies that gives preference to insurance company profits over the rights of health care professionals to affordable insurance and the rights of those they inadvertently injure.

California enacted the Medical Compensation Reform Act (MIRCA) in 1975 that, among other things, limited pain and suffering awards against health care providers to $250,000. The damage limitations of MICRA will likely not apply to those who have been injured as a result of Kaiser’s alleged failure to properly administrate their kidney transplant service.

California Civil Code § 3428 states that a health care service plan or managed care entity, such as Kaiser, has a duty of ordinary care to “arrange for the provision of medically necessary health care service to its subscribers and enrollees…” California Civil Code § 3428 (j) states that damages recoverable for a violation of this statute are not limited by MICRA.

Practically speaking, this means that for those who lost family members, or were otherwise seriously injured, as a consequence of Kaiser’s alleged misadministration of their transplant service, their pain and suffering damages will truly reflect their actual losses and not be limited by the draconian measures of MICRA.

In response to patient protests, California HMO regulators announced on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 that they will oversee Kaiser Permanente’s kidney transplant unit in San Francisco in an effort reduce undue delays in facilitating kidney transplants. Presently more than 2,000 Northern California Kaiser patients are waiting for kidney transplants. Kaiser patients have reported considerable delays in obtaining kidneys; delays which are allegedly caused by lost paperwork, poor communication with staff members and problems transferring their seniority from other institutions. At a recent news conference, Cindy Ehnes, the director of the state Department of Managed Health Care referred to a statistic that showed that more than twice as many patients on Kaiser’s transplant waiting list had died than had received new organs.

It is presently unknown if patients have died, or were seriously injured, as a result of these alleged administrative problems at Kaiser. Those who were injured, and possibly their families, may have statutory rights under the laws of the state of California and should consider seeking legal advice.

This case involved neonatal blindness injuries to premature triplets from retinopathy of prematurity. One child was almost completely blind; one child was almost completely blind in one eye and had partial loss of vision in the other eye; and the third child had some functional diminution of vision, primarily in one eye. Retinopathy of prematurity (what used to be called rebrolentna fibroplasia can be treated if timely diagnosed. It is a common problem in premature infants. We contended that the hospital, neonatologist, and pediatricians failed to properly follow up and screen these children and failed to diagnose the condition in a timely manner. The defendants contended that the mother had been properly warned about the condition and failed to obtain an eye exam in a timely fashion after the triplets were discharged from the hospital. This confidential settlement is believed to be the largest of its type in the history of the state of occurrence.

An infant can sustain birth trauma during, before, or directly after birth. Unfortunately, when an infant sustains birth injuries, he or she can develop lifelong physical, developmental, and cognitive complications, including Erb’s palsy, brain damage, and cerebral palsy. Lawyers at our San Francisco law firm may be able to help you if your child has suffered birth trauma due to the negligence or wrongful actions of a medical provider.

Commonly, birth trauma occurs when the flow of blood and oxygen is restricted during the birthing process. When it becomes clear that the mother or infant is not receiving adequate oxygen, it is necessary that the attending physician or medical personnel act quickly to increase oxygen. When the attending physician is negligent and fails to correct the blood and oxygen flow, permanent injuries may result. There are many medical techniques, including cesarean that can prevent long-term damage to the infant. If the physician or attending medical staff fails to act quickly and expertly, the responsible parties may be guilty of medical negligence. In these cases, they can be held liable for the financial and emotional losses suffered by the infant and his or her family. Often, these losses are devastating to the child and family and that is why the attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell are committed to protecting the rights of birth injury victims. Click here for examples of successes in this area.

If your child has been the victim of birth injury or trauma, we may be able to help. Please contact the birth injury attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell today

$21 million - Largest California verdict (non-punitive) for single individual, including interest and costs.

We represented a 56-year-old woman who was injured when her car was struck from behind by a Mack truck at the Fourth Street off-ramp off Highway 280 in San Francisco. She was waiting at a stop light when the truck hit the car behind her and then pushed her car into the car in front of her. The driver of the truck claimed that his brakes failed at the last minute. At the scene of the accident she did not seem to be seriously injured; nevertheless, she was taken to the hospital where they discovered she was bleeding into her brain. She was admitted to the hospital for an emergency craniotomy to evacuate a large subdural hematoma. She was in a coma for three days and woke to a partial paralysis. Several months later she had recovered her motor abilities, but had residual cognitive deficits including memory, concentration and the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. She attempted to return to work eight months after the accident as an executive search recruiter, however she was unable to perform the demanding aspects of her job. The defense contended that she was obviously bright, articulate and therefore should be able to work. They also contended that the brake failure could not have been anticipated. We convinced the jury that she was not able to return to her previous employment and there was not a brake failure. The defendant offered $3,500,000 in settlement, which was rejected. The jury awarded $19,631,000. The judgment was entered for this amount plus past interest and costs for a total of $21,000,000. Our investigation indicates that this may be the largest net compensatory (non punitive) award of its type for an individual in California state history.

Personal injury law is designed to provide financial protection for individuals who have suffered catastrophic injuries, such as brain injury or spinal cord injury, due to the negligent or wrongful actions of another individual or entity. Many injuries can be classified as personal injury, and our San Francisco personal injury law firm has experience litigating most types of personal injury cases.

While there are many types of personal injury cases, the most common include automobile accidents, premises liability, and defective products. Many of these cases involve the victim suffering severe physical devastation, often in the form of brain injury or spinal cord injury. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell believe that if another citizen, business owner, or organization is responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim, the negligent entity should be held liable for the victim’s losses – financial and emotional.

Please contact our San Francisco personal injury law firm today if you have suffered an injury due to the negligent or wrongful acts of another.

Spinal Cord Injury
Traumatic Brain Injury
Automobile Accidents
Products Liability
Premises Liability
Child Abuse
Wrongful Death

Medical providers are supposed to offer us care and support during our most critical moments. While most medical providers do offer excellent care that will help us to heal, some providers do not hold themselves to a requisite standard of care. When these medical professionals fall below this standard of care, they may be guilty of medical malpractice. San Francisco law firm Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell represent clients who have been injured due to the negligent or wrongful actions of a medical provider.

Physicians, nurses, all members of hospital staff, and any other individuals providing care to a patient may be guilty of medical malpractice. Our San Francisco attorneys have represented clients who have suffered devastating injuries due to the actions or inaction of a variety of medical professionals. Medical malpractice can include unsanitary or unclean conditions, negligent care, surgical mistakes, hospital mistakes, failure to diagnose, nursing home abuse, and many other issues.

It is important to remember that not every unfavorable outcome following medical treatment is a case of medical malpractice. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell encourage potential clients to ask themselves the following questions:

Is the patient’s condition significantly worse now, following treatment?
Are the symptoms the patient experienced following treatment commonly associated with the medical procedure he or she underwent?
Is the physician able to give a satisfactory explanation for the patient’s symptoms?
If your physician cannot answer your questions satisfactorily, you may have been a victim of medical malpractice. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell encourage you to contact a medical malpractice attorney at our firm today.

Pediatric Meningitis
Failure to Diagnose – Cardiac & Cancer
Radiation Injury
Anesthesia Injury
Suicide
Kaiser Medical Malpractice

Despite new legislation and good faith efforts by citizens to eliminate the problem, elder abuse is on the rise in San Francisco and across the United States. Elder abuse means that the elderly - our most vulnerable adult citizens - are falling victim to the machinations and abuses of other individuals. Elder abuse can be financial, physical, emotional, or sexual. Some of our elder abuse victims in San Francisco have been cheated out of thousands of dollars, beaten, and even deprived of water and food by their abusers. Sadly, the emotional and physical toll on the victim and his or her family can be devastating. In such instances, it may become necessary for the victim or his or her family to seek legal representation from an attorney who has experiencing litigating cases involving elder abuse. San Francisco attorneys at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell have this experience, and we are ready to aggressively litigate your case to help you receive compensation for your losses.

Elder abuse will only decrease if our society begins to hold abusers accountable for their actions. This begins in the courtroom. If you have been a victim of elder abuse, San Francisco lawyers at Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell may be able to help. Contact our attorneys today.

Nursing Home Abuse

Sadly, nursing home abuse is on the rise in San Francisco and across the United States. When a patient is placed in a nursing home, it is often because the patient is unable to care for him or herself. We expect that nursing home staff and owners will take extra care to provide a safe environment that will promotes health and well being of elderly residents. When the nursing home staff or managers do not uphold this standard, and their negligence or wrongful actions lead to injury or illness among residents, the nursing home is guilty of nursing home abuse. San Francisco victims have been subjected to abuses including unsanitary conditions; overmedication; unnecessary physical restraint; and physical, financial, or sexual abuse. Nursing home abuse is a particularly odious form of medical malpractice because many of the victims are unable to speak up and accuse the abusers. It is for this reason that citizens and nursing home abuse lawyers have a duty to report these crimes and prosecute offenders.

If you or a loved one has been a victim of nursing home abuse, our San Francisco lawyers may be able to help. Please contact Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell today.

$10.0 million - Record settlement for an obstetrical case.

Our birth injury specialists recently settled a case for $10,000,000 for birth injuries to a child now 3 years of age. The 17 year old mother had a normal pre-natal course, was admitted to the hospital for a trial of labor with normal fetal heart tones on the monitor strip. Rupture of membranes later revealed clear fluid and thereafter, a pattern of variable and late decelerations developed with retained variability. In the early morning hours, the late and variable decelerations continued with diminished variability. The baseline became tachycardic with diminished variability with persistent significant mixed late and variable decelerations with slow recovery. This continued for approximately four hours to the birth. The mother developed a fever or 38.5 after the epidural was given. The baby demonstrated a similar after birth with a pH of 6.98 with a base deficit of 15.4. The defendants contend that there was not sufficient loss of variability to justify intervention. They contended that the cord gas did not evidence significant metabolic acidosis and the child course after birth was more consistent with intrauterine infection, bacterial infection than interpartem hypoxia. Plaintiffs contended that there was clear evidence of non-reassuring fetal heart tones suggestive of metabolic acidosis which required earlier intervention. Plaintiffs contended that the baby’s presentation after birth was classic for interpartum asphyxia and met most of ACOG’s guidelines for hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy from interpartum events. The child is a spastic quadriplegic, tube fed with global delays, including severe cognitive deficits. Defense contented life-expectancy was limited. Plaintiffs contended life expectancy was near normal. This is believed to be a record settlement for an obstetrical case. This confidential settlement is considered to be a record settlement or verdict in the state where it was obtained.

$9.9 million - Confidential largest medical malpractice settlement in California history; involved cardiac death of young executive.

Our wrongful death attorneys in San Francisco recently settled a case involving the death of an athletic 38-year-old executive, who stopped at a clinic on his way to the airport complaining of exert ional and resting chest "tightness," which was relieved by Advil. The EKG was normal; there were no cardiac risk factors. The doctor diagnosed chest muscle strain and allowed the decedent to fly on to Colorado and then Mexico. He died 7 days after the clinic visit. Unfortunately, his tissue was severely decomposed when it was returned to the United States. There was no evidence of myocardic infarction, but there was an 85% sclerotic lesion in the right coronary artery and congenital narrowing of the left coronary artery. We contended that the decedent died of myocardio- ischemia. Defendants argued that the decedent appeared healthy and in no distress and therefore the clinic symptoms were not cardiac and his death was probably from some other cause. Our wrongful death attorneys believe that this is the largest pre-judgment medical malpractice settlement in California history.