Richard and Michelle Gremillion v. Steven B. Goodman, M.D.
Published: Dec. 31, 1994 | Result Date: Oct. 18, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV74326 – $945,510
Judge
Court
San Luis Obispo Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Raymond G. Schultz
(technical)
Mary Ziegler
(technical)
Andrew Ippoliti
(medical)
Morris Noble
(medical)
Jonathan C. Horton
(medical)
Edward L. Bennett M.A.
(technical)
Defendant
Barbara Luna
(technical)
Alfredo A. Sadun M.D.
(medical)
Jerome Kay
(medical)
Gene Bruno M.S., C.R.C., C.C.M., C.D.M.S.
(technical)
Facts
On January 4, 1993, Plaintiff Richard Gremillion, a 46-year-old state park maintenance worker, was seen by Defendant Dr. Steven B. Goodman, M.D., for flu symptoms. Plaintiff denied any abdominal complaints. Defendant diagnosed an upper respiratory infection and prescribed antibiotics. While in the pharmacy obtaining the medication, Plaintiff fainted from blood loss. He was transported to a local emergency room where he was diagnosed as suffering from a gastrointestinal bleed. His hematocrit level upon admission was 32.7 percent. He was admitted to a hospital and Defendant consulted a gastroenterologist. This gastroenterologist ordered a follow-up blood test and advised discharge of the patient, if his condition had stabilized. The next morning, prior to discharge, the Plaintiff's hematocrit was 22.6 percent. It was disputed as to whether the Defendant reviewed the hematocrit before signing the discharge order. The Plaintiff was discharged the morning of January 5, 1993, and advised to make a follow-up appointment with the Defendant, one week later. On January 6, 1993, Plaintiff experienced a partial loss of vision in his right eye; yet Plaintiff delayed seeking medical attention until the following day. He was seen by his optometrist determined, through a visual field test, that there was bilateral visual loss, with the lower half lost on the right eye. The optometrist called the Defendant and advised that there was some type of vascular event taking place, most likely due to a thrombosis. Defendant attempted to telephone Plaintiff and finally reached him the next morning, January 8, 1993. Plaintiff reported that his vision had improved. Defendant suggested that Plaintiff keep his follow-up appointment, scheduled (upon the first discharge from the hospital) for January 11, 1993. On January 10, 1993, Plaintiff awoke from a nap and was experiencing total, bilateral vision loss. Plaintiff's wife telephoned the Defendant, but he was on call. Another physician took the call, and Plaintiff reported he was having problems with his vision. The physician consulted with the Defendant, prescribed steroids, and advised the Plaintiff to have a sedimentation rate test done at the local laboratory, located in a hospital. When Plaintiff presented himself for the test, an emergency room nurse refused to let him go home until he was examined by the emergency room physician. He was then admitted to the hospital, and a neurologist and ophthalmologist were consulted; Plaintiff's hematocrit was 20.4 percent. Another 20 hours passed before Plaintiff was transfused with 2 units of packed red blood cells, recommended by the consulting neurologist; the hematocrit level then increased to above 30 percent. Plaintiff's vision loss was permanent, as he suffered irreversible infarcts of the optic nerve. Plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from a rare condition known as posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION) caused by a combination of low blood pressure and loss of blood.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff contends he demanded $600,000 before and during trial; increased to $650,000 just before the jury returned from deliberations; and Defendant offered $30,000 prior to trial and increased to $500,000 on the fourth day of jury deliberation.
Specials in Evidence
collateralized $13,500 $191,000 to $319,000
Damages
Plaintiff counsel asked the jury to award at least $935,437 to Plaintiff and $250,000 to Plaintiff's wife for loss of consortium.
Injuries
Permanent, total, and bilateral loss of vision. Future rehabilitation, equipment, training, et cetera, was estimated to be $481,000. Plaintiff's wife also claimed loss of consortium injuries.
Deliberation
5 days
Poll
10-2 negligence, 9-3 causation
Length
10 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390