Michelle McWright v. C. Wanda Zee-Cheng, D.O., John Benhoff, M.D., and Vale Anesthesia Medical Group, et al.
Published: Jan. 18, 1997 | Result Date: Oct. 11, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: C9502140 – $0
Judge
Court
Contra Costa Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Wade R. Cartwright
(medical)
Clarence A. Feagin Jr.
(medical)
Defendant
Jay Brodsky
(medical)
Edward Falces
(medical)
Facts
On March 11, 1994, plaintiff Michelle McWright, a 49-year-old disabled woman, underwent lengthy back surgery at Brookside Hospital under general anesthesia. The anesthesiologist during the surgery was defendant C. Wanda Zee-Cheng, D.O., who was an employee of defendant Vale Anesthesia Medical Group at that time. The plaintiff claimed that she was allergic to non-paper tape, which, when applied to her skin, created an allergic reaction. She made this claim to defendant John Benhoff, M.D., of defendant Vale Anesthesia Medical Group, a few days prior to her surgery during a pre-anesthesia meeting. The plaintiff's anesthesia was postponed, and on the new date of surgery, defendant Zee-Cheng was assigned as the anesthesiologist. Defendant Zee-Cheng acknowledged reading the prior anesthesia note, and was aware of the plaintiff's claim of a reaction to non-paper tape prior to surgery. The surgery was over seven-and-one-half hours long, during which time defendant Zee-Cheng utilized an oral endotracheal tube. The endotracheal tube was secured by reversing a surgical mask, placing the mask portion behind the plaintiff's head, and tying the endotracheal tube with the strings of the mask. The plaintiff was placed in a prone position with her head turned during the anesthesia to accomodate the breathing tube. Following surgery, the plaintiff was placed in the post-anesthesia recovery room and was eventually released to ICU and then to her own room. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on medical negligence and malpractice theories of recovery. Defendant Benhoff was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff several weeks before trial, and defendant Vale Anesthesia Medical Group was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff at the beginning of trial.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $92,500, increased to $205,200 at trial. The defendants made no settlement offers.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $5,200 for scar revision surgery.
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed she suffered unnecessary scarring on her nose.
Other Information
The decision was reached approximately one year and five months after the case was filed. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held on Sept. 23, 1996 before Judge Van De Poel. It did not resolve the matter. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Cartwright, noted an area of scarring on the nasal dorsum in the mid-line measuring 2 cm. by 1 cm. which was raised, hypertrophic, and soft. In addition, he noted a 1 cm. by 5 mm area of hypertrophic scarring in the left nasal ala. He estimated that scars could be revised at a cost of $5,200; that prognosis for a good result could be excellent; and that significant improvement could be expected. He denied that the plaintiff's complaints of nose bleed, headaches, congestion, and whistling and snoring had anything to do with the scarring. The plaintiff's expert also agreed that he could not tell from looking at the scar what caused the initial injury. Defense expert, Dr. Brodsky, was not called as a witness inlight of the judgment for nonsuit; however, Dr. Brodsky would have testified that the use of a reversed surgical mask is a well-accepted technique in anesthesia cases; and that applying tape on a patient's nose would serve no purpose and was simply not done during oral endotracheal anesthesia.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390