Facts

On Oct. 24, 2005, plaintiff Julia Barrientos, 55, underwent right eye cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. On Oct. 25, the plaintiff returned to defendant Dr. Barry Katzman for post-operative day one examination. The plaintiff was examined and treated for high eye pressure of 50 and sent home with instructions to return the next day. In the early morning hours of Oct. 26, 2005, the plaintiff experienced severe pain but waited until her scheduled appointment later that morning. On the morning of Oct. 26, she presented to Dr. Katzman's office and was diagnosed with endophthalmitis (inflammation of the ocular cavities, caused by infection, trauma or allergic reaction), and sent to a retinal specialist for further evaluation and treatment.

Despite intravitreal antibiotics injections, the plaintiff's condition worsened and she underwent an enucleation of the right eye on Oct. 29.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that she presented with early signs and symptoms of endophthalmitis which defendant failed to recognize on post-operative day one. The plaintiff had high eye pressure of 50 and claimed that Dr. Katzman failed to lower the eye pressure before sending her home. The plaintiff further contended that Dr. Katzman failed to perform an adequate examination of the posterior segment of plaintiff's eye, by performing a dilated slit lamp examination.

The plaintiff claimed that the high pressure and corneal swelling was related to an infection rather than from the surgery itself. Also, the plaintiff claimed that the nature and extent of endophthalmitis seen on post-operative day two necessitated that early signs and symptoms of endophthalmitis were present on post-operative day one. More likely than not, a referral to a retinal specialist on post-operative day one would have resulted in treatment that would have saved the globe of plaintiff's right eye.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Dr. Katzman contended that plaintiff's high eye pressure of 50 was appropriately recognized and treated with pressure lowering medications in office prior to the patient being sent home. A thorough and complete examination was performed within the standard of care and there was a reasonable explanation for the increased eye pressure. The standard of care did not require an evaluation of the posterior segment, retina or optic nerve although Dr. Katzman testified that he saw a red reflex signifying the absence of blood cells or debris in the vitreous.

The defendant further contended that there was no evidence of the presence of infection on post-operative day one, and that the endophthalmitis manifested itself between the first and second office visit. Dr. Katzman made an appropriate and timely diagnosis of endophthalmitis on post-operative day two, and immediately referred the patient to a retinal specialist. More likely than not, an earlier referral to a retinal specialist would have resulted in the same outcome.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand for $250,000. The defendant made no offer.

Specials in Evidence

none; none; none; $15,000;

Result

Defense verdict.

Deliberation

5.5 hours

Poll

9-3 (causation)

Length

eight days