Michael B. Kafka and Jacqueline A. Kafka v. Steven Seizer, M.D., Santa Monica Physicians
Published: Feb. 26, 2000 | Result Date: Jan. 13, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC050323 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Gregory M. Hulbert
(Hulbert & Hulbert)
Experts
Plaintiff
Dudley S. Danoff M.D., F.A.C.S.
(medical)
Robert Karns
(medical)
Defendant
Edward J. O'Neill
(medical)
J. Bradley Taylor
(medical)
Facts
On Sept. 20, 1994, plaintiff Michael Kafka had a complete physical examination performed by defendant Dr.
Steven Seizer, a family physician. As part of the physical, defendant ordered a laboratory blood test known as
prostatic specific antigen, or PSA. The test screens for prostate cancer. Plaintiff was instructed to return to
defendantÆs office two weeks thereafter to discuss his health and to obtain the lab results.
On Oct. 5, 1994, plaintiff returned as requested. Several of the laboratory tests indicated abnormalities
inclusive of the elevated PSA reading. Plaintiff discussed the physical exam and abnormal lab results with
defendant.
Defendant recommended that plaintiff undergo a sigmoidoscopy, which screens for colon cancer, a hematology
because plaintiff was anemic and a urological consultation because of his elevated PSA reading. Plaintiff
elected to defer the sigmoidoscopy and urology consultation with the understanding that he would return in six
months at which time the sigmoidoscopy and another PSA test would be performed.
At that time, if the PSA result was still elevated, a urology consultation would be mandated. PSA readings
could be elevated for reasons other than cancer.
Plaintiff did not return to defendantÆs office until January 1997, 2+ years later. A repeat PSA test was
performed and the result was a substantial increase from the prior reading. Plaintiff was immediately referred
to a urologist, who confirmed that plaintiff had prostate cancer.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $250,000 excluding the subsequent wrongful death claim. The defendant made no offer.\
Injuries
The disease extended outside the prostate capsule, thereby altering patientÆs prognosis from the likelihood of 100 percent cure with no life expectancy diminishment, to spread of the disease, with no likelihood of survival beyond three to four years.
Other Information
Jacqueline Kafka, the co-plaintiff, dismissed her loss of consortium claim at the commencement of jury selection. The plaintiff dismissed his claim against the medical group prior to the case going before the jury. Hence the only claim being decided by the jury was the malpractice case against defendant, Dr. Seizer.
Deliberation
three hours
Poll
11-1
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