Facts

On Aug. 21, 2002, plaintiff Michael Warren, 58, visited Daniel McGrath, D.O., a family practitioner in Redding, regarding dark-colored skin growths on his forehead. Dr. McGrath diagnosed the lesions as benign seborrheic keratoses. In November 2002, a new growth appeared on the plaintiff's right cheek in the same place as the prior growth. On July 3, 2003, he presented the growth to a different family practitioner, John Nepomuceno. Dr. Nepomuceno biopsied the lesion and found it to be a Grade III nodular melanoma and referred the plaintiff to John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica.
On July 29, 2003, Eddy Hsueh performed a reexcision of the right cheek tumor. Dr. Hsueh also performed a modified radical neck dissection because a pathology report revealed that the melanoma had spread to a submandibular lymph node. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. McGrath. The plaintiff's wife claimed loss of consortium.

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that while the defendant removed the dark-colored skin growths on his forehead with a laser, the defendant also used the laser to remove a broken blood vessel on the plaintiff's left cheek and a growth on his right cheek. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant fell below the standard of care by lasering instead of biopsying the right cheek lesion on his first visit, which according to his expert witness, meant that the melanoma could have been entirely removed at that visit and completely cured.

DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that he met the standard of care in every aspect of his care and treatment of the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that performing destructive treatment of benign skin lesions with a laser constituted acceptable medical practice. Contrary to the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant denied ever lasering any growths on the plaintiff's cheeks. The defendant explained that such procedure, if performed by him, would have involved the plaintiff's use of an eye shield and the defendant's use of a laser located in a different room, neither of which occurred.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $800,000 and the defense offered $29,999.

Specials in Evidence

$94,000 unspecified amount

Damages

The plaintiff sought $1 million for past and future pain and suffering. The plaintiff worked as a trust-deed salesman and claimed an unspecified amount in past and future lost wages.

Injuries

Past medical specials; past and future lost wages; past and future pain and suffering, defendant's wife presented a loss-of-consortium.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for the defense and found that the defendant did not deviate from the standard of care.

Deliberation

6.5 hours

Poll

11-1

Length

10 days