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
Lack of Informed Consent

Diana Reed v. Veena Mummaneni, M.D., et al.

Published: Sep. 16, 2003 | Result Date: May 5, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV192787 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Mark J. Litwak

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Karl W. Schoth


Defendant

Michael D. Gonzalez
(Law Offices of Michael D. Gonzalez)


Experts

Plaintiff

Edward Feldman
(medical)

Marshall Kadner M.D.
(medical)

Defendant

Terre L. Osterkamp
(medical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Diana Reed, a then 32-year-old woman, presented to her treating doctor, Thelma Reich, M.D., (not a defendant) with complaints of heavy menstrual bleeding, cramping and pain. Dr. Reich, her family physician, ordered narcotic analgesics, and when this failed to take care of her complaints, initiated an evaluation which included ultrasound examination of the pelvic organs. This imaging ultrasound revealed multiple fibroid tumors or myomas within the uterus which were likely the cause of the patient's complaints. Dr. Reich referred the patient to the defendant, Veena Mummaneni, M.D., for further evaluation and work up. The first evaluation took place in December 1998. Dr. Mummaneni examined the patient as well as the ultrasound report and concurred with the finding that there were multiple myomas within the patient's uterus. On Dec. 22, 1998, the patient and the doctor discussed the various treatment options which included hysterectomy, multiple myomectomies and hormonal therapy. On this visit, the patient indicated the willingness to get the matter resolved and indicated that she would prefer a hysterectomy. On Feb. 22, 1999, the patient returned to the doctor's office, and at this time, she complained of continued symptomatology and no relief from analgesics. On this pre-operative visit, the patient again reiterated her desire to have a hysterectomy for resolution of her problems and signed a consent for hysterectomy on that date. Surgery was scheduled for Feb. 25, and took place at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard. As Dr. Mummaneni entered the pelvis, she found that there were no myomas present within the walls of the uterus. There was, however, a large (grapefruit size) myoma on a stalk attached to the uterus which was twisting on itself and retroverting and retroflexing the uterus. Dr. Mummaneni carefully examined the uterus and finding no other pathology decided to clip this tumor off at its attaching stalk and closed the patient. Upon awakening, the patient was informed of the finding of the surgery and the fact that her uterus remained. Almost immediately, the patient began to complain bitterly of the fact that the hysterectomy was not performed as she had understood. The patient then began to treat with multiple other physicians in the Ventura County area for resolution of which she claimed to be continuing problems with heavy bleeding and cramping. She began treatment with Edward Feldman, D.O., who treat the patient conservatively but after approximately six months of conservative treatment, he performed a hysterectomy in February 2000. The patient claims to be pain-free and symptom-free since the hysterectomy performed by Dr. Feldman.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $30,000. There were no offers.

Specials in Evidence

$8,000

Injuries

Six months of pain and suffering with heavy menstrual bleeding, cramping and discomfort.

Other Information

The case initially went to trial in November and December 2001. The causes of action at the first trial were battery and lack of informed consent. At the first trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant Dr. Mummaneni as to the battery cause of action but found in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of lack of informed consent. Upon motion of the defendant, the underlying court granted a new trial as to the cause of action on lack of informed consent. The plaintiff appealed the court's granting of the new trial, and the matter was briefed and argued before Division 6 of the Second Appellate District. That court ruled 3 to 0 upholding the court's decision to grant a new trial as to the lack of informed consent.

Deliberation

2.5 hours

Poll

10-2 (that Dr. Mummaneni had fully informed the patient of all significant perils involved in the surgery)

Length

five days


#102479

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

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