Confidential
Settlement – $763,333Judge
Court
Riverside Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Bryan R. Reid
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
James R. Parrett
(Susson Parrett & Odell)
Experts
Plaintiff
Dorothy L. Fisher
(medical)
Stephen Read
(medical)
Richard F. Corlin
(medical)
Kathryn Locatell M.D.
(medical)
Facts
The patient was a resident at the defendant nursing home. The defendant doctor was the patientÆs primary
physician, who was also the medical director at the nursing home. The patient had been placed in the nursing
home at the request of the County ConservatorÆs offices. At the time of admission, the patient was diagnosed
as a having a "schizo-affective disorder, borderline intellectual and extrapyramidal syndrome," among other
things. As a result of these disorders, the patient was known to hear voices in his head and to compulsively eat
rocks and foreign objects.
The initial psychiatric evaluation by the defendant psychiatrist indicated that the patient heard voices in his
head telling him to eat foreign objects. All of the defendants were aware of the patientÆs compulsive behavior.
These episodes were separately documented on a "behavior sheet."
Based on those behavior sheets, over the course of a year, the defendants were aware of at least 119 episodes
where the patient put foreign objects in his mouth, because they reviewed the patientÆs chart and were informed
of the ingestion of foreign objects on a monthly basis.
During this same time period, the patient also lost a substantial amount of weight. From admission to
discharge, 13 months later, he lost 24 pounds. Most of the time that the patient was a resident, he did not gain
sufficient weight to meet his ideal body weight. The only treatment provided by the defendants to address this
massive weight loss was nutritional supplements. However, at no time did the defendants take any efforts to
ascertain the true cause of the patientÆs weight loss.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to act upon any of these incidents to remedy the situation. At no
time did the defendants order a change in the patientÆs care plan; nor did they order closer supervision.
On Dec. 5, 1997, the patient died due to a gastrointestinal obstruction, secondary to the ingestion of foreign
objects. The coronerÆs autopsy report revealed that at the time of his death, the patient had 3600 grams
(approximately 8 lbs.) of foreign objects in his stomach and intestines, including AA batteries, paper clips,
pens, pencils, rubber bands, washers, nuts and bolts, among other things. The plaintiffs sued as successors in
interest and as heirs to the decedent.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs accepted the defendant nursing homeÆs C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $683,333. Defendant primary care physician offered $75,000. Defendant psychiatrist did not settle, and the plaintiffs are appealing the granting of summary adjudication as to the issue of elder abuse against him.
Damages
There were no special damages except for the funeral bills.
Result
PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHANGES/CORRECTIONS ASAP, THIS CASE IS FOR NOV. 17, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/MANAGED CARE SPECIAL ISSUE. THANK YOU.
Other Information
As a result of the patientÆs death, the California Department of Health Services investigated the cause of death and concluded that the facility had failed to comply with numerous regulations regarding the health and welfare of the decedent. The Health Department fined the defendant nursing home $10,000 and cited for a Class "A" citation. The Health Department concluded that "The above violations either jointly, separately, or in any combination presented either an imminent danger that the death or serious physical harm would result or a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm would result." This citation was appealed. However, upon appeal, the administrative law judge affirmed the citation and upheld the fine arising out of the decedentÆs death. The defendants filed several motions for summary adjudication. The court granted the motion for summary adjudication as to defendant primary care physician and defendant psychiatrist for the cause of action for elder abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied the motion for summary adjudication as to the nursing homeÆs progressive care. After the ruling on these motions, the mediation took place. The plaintiffs dismissed their care for medical malpractice against defendant psychiatrist. As a result, a final judgment has been entered in favor of defendant psychiatrist. The plaintiffs are now appealing the granting of the motion for summary adjudication against the defendant psychiatrist. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for attorney fees, which is pending.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390