Leslie R. Bonneau v. Carl Schultz, M.D.
Published: Jan. 28, 2017 | Result Date: Dec. 7, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CIVDS1414241 Verdict – Defense
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
David H. Ricks
(David H. Ricks & Associates)
Defendant
Jeffrey A. Walker
(Walker Law Group)
Experts
Plaintiff
Michael G. Khoury II
(medical)
Paul E. Wakim
(medical)
Defendant
Rudolph Bedford
(medical)
Ronald S. Fishbach
(medical)
Wallace Peck
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Leslie Bonneau, after undergoing bypass surgery and suffering a stroke, required the placement of a G-tube in the stomach for feeding at San Antonio Community Hospital on Sept. 22, 2013. The G-tube was placed endoscopically by Dr. C.T. Hung. The G-tube was thereafter inadvertently removed on Sept. 27, and was manually reinserted by Dr. C.T. Hung on Sept. 28. Dr. Hung requested x-ray confirmation of proper placement of the manually re-inserted G-tube.
Defendant Dr. Carl Schultz was the radiologist assigned to interpret the study, which he identified as satisfactory G-tube placement. Based on the x-ray report, Dr. Hung initiated feeding through the G-tube. On Oct. 1, the patient was becoming septic and a CT scan was performed, showing that the G-tube was not within the stomach to begin with, but rather within the peritoneal cavity. Because of sepsis and infection, the patient had to undergo an abdominal surgery to remove the feeding contents in the cavity.
Plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Shultz and Dr. Hung. Dr. Hung settled prior to trial. The case continued against Dr. Shultz.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the post G-tube placement x-ray was misinterpreted as showing proper placement of a G-tube, when in fact it was not placed within the stomach. As a result, the subsequent tube feeding went into the peritoneal cavity rather than the stomach, leading to infection, sepsis and an abdominal surgery. The surgery resulted in a large incisional scar, the development of incisional hernias, pain, suffering, disfigurement, emotional distress, impact on lifestyle and further injury to health.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that the interpretation of the x-ray, albeit in error in retrospect, was properly assessed at the time of its initial reading given the clinical information available and was an error not equating to negligence pursuant to CACI 505.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff made a CCP 998 demand of $165,000. Defendant made a CCP 998 offer of $50,000.
Injuries
Plaintiff claimed unnecessary abdominal surgery, abdominal scar, development of incisional hernias requiring surgery, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and disfigurement.
Result
The jury rendered a verdict for the defense on the negligence and liability claims.
Other Information
Mediation before Jay Horton of Judicate West did not result in case settling. FILING DATE: Dec. 7, 2016.
Deliberation
two hours
Poll
12-0
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