California Medical Malpractice Law Blog

The California Court of Appeals, Second District, has recently upheld a $9 million judgment for a woman who suffered brain damage as the result of a delayed diagnosis of an infection in a shunt in her brain.

In Sanchez v. Caremore Medical Group, the plaintiff – Maria Theresa Sanchez – came in to the hospital – a CareMore facility - complaining of a severe headache and vomiting. She had been diagnosed with hydrocephalus in childhood and had a peritoneal shunt installed in her head to drain the fluid. Sanchez was “highly functional.”

Sanchez was given Tylenol and sent home from the hospital. Her symptoms worsened and a few days later she went to an emergency room where it was determined she needed to be tested for a brain infection. However, upon transfer to a new CareMore facility, her physician failed to include a description of the symptoms and the consulting neurologist failed to look at any of the other records.

Although Sanchez’ symptoms continued to worsen, CareMore physicians refused to admit her to the emergency room. A non-CareMore doctor eventually diagnosed her as having a brain infection and removed the infected shunt after she had become so ill that she fell out of her wheelchair.

As a result of the delay in diagnosis, Sanchez cannot walk, has slurred speech, is in constant pain, and is partially paralyzed.

Proper diagnosis is the first and most essential step in the treatment process. A medical provider is responsible for recognizing potential medical problems early on. This means that he or she must perform tests that another medical professional with the same knowledge would perform. Here even though instructions were given to rule out brain infection, due to carelessness on the part of the new doctor, this crucial test was never performed.

When a medical professional falls below the standard of care established by other medical providers, he or she may be guilty of medical malpractice.

Continue reading " $9 Million Verdict For Failure To Diagnose Brain Infection Upheld " »

Last spring as part of the health care overhaul, President Obama agreed to fund demonstration projects to look at alternatives to the current medical malpractice litigation structure. In a recently published article in The Circuit, the online edition of the California Law Review, the Center for Justice and Democracy analyzed many of these state based litigation alternatives, including health courts and early offer laws, and determined that both patient safety and compensation suffered.

This in-depth article concluded:

“None of the litigation alternatives currently proposed enhance patient safety while ensuring that injured patients are compensated. Limiting patients’ access to court and compensation for their injuries does nothing to increase patient safety. Reducing financial accountability on hospitals when errors occur will likely negatively impact patient safety. And allowing hospitals to control the fact-finding process surrounding medical errors also reduces transparency and, ultimately, accountability.”

As medical malpractice attorneys we’ve seen first hand the devastating impact medical malpractice can have on individual patients and their families. Restricting victim’s access to court, capping damages and giving hospitals more control over the decision-making process only serves to further harm patients and deny them real justice after suffering a catastrophic injury.

Rather, focus should be placed on advancing patient safety instead of “litigation alternatives.” In fact, litigation can play a role in improving patient safety by holding those physicians, hospitals, and caregivers accountable for their acts of negligence.

Continue reading " Medical Malpractice Litigation Alternatives Fail To Enhance Patient Safety Or Ensure Adequate Compensation " »

Attorney Jeffrey S. Mitchell was recently honored to be a guest on Ringler Radio and given the opportunity to discuss MICRA, California’s landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act.

Following is an excerpt of the discussion:

MICRA is a comprehensive set of statutes mostly enacted in 1975 as a reaction to an perceived insurance crisis that might cause “doctors would leave the state.” The touchstone of MICRA is the $250,000 per plaintiff limit or “cap” on general damages or pain and suffering. The cap is a hard and fast rule concerning the amount of damages one can recover, regardless of the number of defendants or acts of negligence alleged.

California’s MICRA has been mimicked by a number of states across the country.

In addition to the cap provisions, a number of other provisions of MICRA impact the day–to-day litigation of medical malpractice claims more than the cap. One of these is MICRA’s strict limitation on the recovery of attorneys’ fees. California Business & Professions Code Sec. 6146 sets forth a sliding scale for recovery of attorney contingency fees that is substantially lower than recovery in other personal injury actions. It’s an “ascending/descending scale.” As the recovery goes up, the attorneys fee percentage declines. For verdicts and settlements between $100,000-$600,000, attorneys can recover 25%, but for amounts over $600,000 the contingency fee percentage is 15%.

Despite the challenges presented by MICRA and caps, attorneys at medical malpractice firms such as Bostwick, Peterson & Mitchell, LLP are dedicated to advocating on behalf of those injured as the result of medical negligence.

As stated by Attorney Mitchell, “we work smarter and harder as time goes on in an effort to get people what they deserve.”

Continue reading " Attorney Jeffrey Mitchell Discusses California’s Landmark Medical Malpractice and Liability Laws " »

In a recently published article in Health Affairs, Dr. Robert M. Wachter, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, warns of an important but neglected issue in medical care - diagnostic errors. In fact, the proper diagnosis is the first and most essential step in the treatment process. Common areas of failed diagnosis occur with patients who have suffered strokes, head or brain injuries, and cardiac problems. Diagnostic errors often occur with certain types cancer patients as well.

As stated by Dr. Wachter, "[T]he topic of diagnostic errors has been strangely absent from the flurry of patient safety activity over the past decade." However, diagnostic errors occur in an average of 10 percent of hospital visits.

Finding a solution to diagnostic errors may be difficult. Proposed ideas include "better thinking" by physicians, promotion of activities that improve diagnostic safety, and the meaningful use of technology.

Despite the occurrence of diagnostic failures, physicians are required to recognize potential symptoms in patients and test for them. When physicians fail to diagnose an illness or a disease and a patient suffers as a result, he or she may have a claim for medical malpractice.

Continue reading " Reducing Diagnostic Errors Critical To Patient Safety " »

In a request that could have widespread implications, the Los Angeles Times reports that L.A. County supervisors are seeking doctors’ peer review documents from Olive View-UCLA Medical Center. After receiving an anonymous letter that peer review of the practices at the neo-natal ICU was absent, the county requested access to two years of documents. The county claims access to these documents is necessary in order identify potential patient safety problems and better inform the board’s decision-making process regarding medical malpractice claims.

Allowing the supervisors access to the peer review process could be the first step in determining where and how errors occurred and preventing these errors from happening in the future. Patients would be better served by allowing oversight of the peer review process. As stated by Supervisor Molina, she has learned from the closing of other area hospitals not to trust medical staff to police themselves.

The county’s request comes after several significant settlements of medical malpractice claims based on actions that occurred at Olive View, including post-operative infections, failures to diagnose, and delays in delivery.

Changes in procedures often are not made until it’s too late – after medical errors are made and injuries result. While maintaining confidentiality and providing physicians a forum to discuss errors is critical – oversight that this process is actually occurring and that steps are being taken to ensure the same errors don’t occur again is necessary.

Continue reading " Los Angeles County Board Seeks Hospital’s Peer Review Records " »