Nalani Burton v. Jeremy Goodwin
Published: Dec. 14, 2004 | Result Date: Sep. 28, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCCVPO031649 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Siskiyou Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Jennifer C. Kurlan
(Leonard & Lyde)
D. Marc Lyde
(Leonard & Lyde)
Experts
Plaintiff
Angelo Capozzi
(medical)
Stephen Foutz
(medical)
Defendant
Jeremy Goodwin
(medical)
Lorne G. Eltherington
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Nalani Burton, 45, had medical conditions causing her to experience chronic chest and neck pain. She was referred to pain medicine specialist defendant Jeremy Goodwin. The defendant located trigger points in her chest wall that correlated with her pain, and recommended trigger point injections as both a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Because the plaintiff had breast implants, the defendant claimed he warned her of the slight risk that the left implant could be punctured during the injections. The plaintiff claimed she received no such warning and would not have proceeded with the injections had she been informed of the risk. The defendant claimed that with the plaintiff's help, he identified the upper margin of the implant and performed the injections a safe distance away. The plaintiff denied that she helped the doctor locate the edge of the implant. The injections temporarily relieved the plaintiff's chest pain. During the plaintiff's trip home on the day of the injections, she noticed that her left breast implant started to lose volume. The implant had been inadvertently punctured during the injections. The plaintiff had the implant surgically replaced the next month.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $4,999. The defendant's offer was a C.C.P. Section 998 waiver of costs in exchange for dismissal.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed she sustained scarring under her left breast due to the replacement surgery, as well as swollen lymph nodes. She claimed $125 in prescription co-pays and travel expenses. She sought general damages per the jury's determination. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had no special damages because both the implant and the replacement surgery were paid for by the implant manufacturer.
Result
The jury returned a defense verdict.
Deliberation
two hours
Poll
11-1 (no negligence), 12-0 (informed consent)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390