Facts

Lisbeth Emestica had diabetes, which resulted in diabetic retinopathy requiring reattachment of her retinas. She underwent surgery to reattach the retina of her right eye at the County of Los Angeles Hospital on Sept. 27, 2007. The surgery was performed by Dr. Thomas O'Hearn, whereby he injected silicone oil into the globe of Emestica's eye to keep her retina in place. A similar surgery was performed on her left eye on Nov. 20. The following day, she was transported by Sherron Combs on a wheelchair to the eye clinic for a follow-up examination. However, during transportation, an elevator door struck her wheelchair which caused her great pain on her right eye. Prior to the transport, she had no pain on her eye, but had "10 out of 10" pain on her right eye when she arrived at the eye clinic.

Her right eye pressure was recorded at 41, which was very high. It was determined that the silicone oil migrated from the globe of her right eye onto the anterior chamber of her eye. A peripheral iridotomy was performed on her eye to control the pressure, but the oil was subsequently surgically removed a week later.

Emestica sued Combs, the County of Los Angeles, O'Hearn, and the University of Southern California. The case went to trial against the County only by stipulation of the parties.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the migration of the oil into her eye was a result of her wheelchair being struck by an elevator door during transport. She contended that her transport fell below the standard of care and that she should have been transported facedown on a gurney. She also contended that her diabetes care was not sufficiently aggressive, which resulted in diabetic retinopathy.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the elevator door incident did not generate sufficient trauma to cause the oil migration, and that timing was merely coincidental. Defendants further contended that the migration was the result of Emestica having been on her back the previous day, and not the elevator door incident. Defendants also denied the allegations that Emestica's diabetic care was not sufficient to have caused the retinopathy. They argued that the management of her diabetes was within the standard of care.

Injuries

Emestica sustained blindness in both eyes, and underwent repeat peripheral iridotomy and surgical removal of silicone oil. She further claimed to have sustained diabetic retinopathy, but did not file a claim for future treatment.

Result

The jury found the County negligent, but that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her damages.