This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice
Misread X-ray

Michael Casey v. Atul Jani

Published: Jul. 8, 2006 | Result Date: Apr. 25, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: M62331 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Monterey Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stephen H. Fredkin
(Law Offices of Stephen H. Fredkin)


Defendant

William David Walker


Experts

Plaintiff

Charles Higgins
(medical)

Perry Shoor
(medical)

Tom Thomas
(technical)

Carol R. Hyland M.A.
(technical)

Defendant

Barry M. Gardiner
(medical)

David Wixson
(medical)

Marc A. Cohen M.D.
(technical)

Bruce T. Adornato M.D.
(medical)

Facts

On Dec. 16, 2001, Drs. Min Yi and Atul Jani treated 45-five-year-old plaintiff Michael Casey for an infection caused by intravenous heroin use. The doctors performed a skin debridement procedure, during which Yi accessed a triple line. Yi believed she had placed the line in the right internal jugular vein.

Following the procedure, a chest x-ray was taken. Jani reviewed the x-ray and confirmed the proper placement of the line in the jugular vein. The plaintiff suffered a stroke several hours after the procedure. Tests showed that the stroke may have been caused by the placement of the triple line in the right carotid artery. This placement may have caused a thrombus to form, and this thrombus may have then dislodged and traveled to plaintiff's brain.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Casey sued Jani for medical malpractice, contending he negligently misread the x-ray result. The plaintiff did not sue Yi, because placing the triple line in the artery was a blind procedure.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant countered that the X-ray was not misread, that there was no indication that the IV was placed in the right carotid artery, that chest X-rays cannot tell a surgeon if the line is in a vein or artery, and that the line appeared to be in a vein and not the carotid artery. Further, defendant claimed the stroke was caused by a thrombus breaking off from Casey's lower extremity and migrating upstream to his brain.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $500,000, but defendant offered nothing.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered stroke symptoms on the left side of his body and has limited use of his left hand and left arm. However, the plaintiff has been able to return to work part-time.

Result

The jury determined that defendant was not negligent.

Deliberation

2.5 days

Poll

9-3

Length

eight days


#100638

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390