Anait Khotsikian v. Susan Chobanian, M.D., et al.
Published: Aug. 24, 1996 | Result Date: Jul. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: EC013668 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Burbank
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert T. Miner
(medical)
Robert T. Miner
(medical)
Defendant
Malcolm D. Paul
(medical)
Malcolm D. Paul
(medical)
Facts
On Sept. 25, 1992, the plaintiff, Anait Khotsikian, a 53-year-old teacher, presented to the defendant otolaryngologist, Susan Chobanian, M.D., allegedly complaining of unhappiness with the function and cosmetic look of her nose. The plaintiff had two previous nasal surgeries, one in Moscow in 1973 and one in June 1987. In the 1987 surgery, a cartilage graft was placed in the left nasal valve. (The defense argued that this was placed to address airway obstruction and difficulty breathing.) The defendant contended that on initial presentation to the defendant on Sept. 25, 1992, the plaintiff's history and physical examination reflected bilateral nasal airway obstruction, difficulty breathing and complaints regarding the cosmetic look of the nose. The plaintiff denied any breathing problems either on Sept. 25, 1992, or before that date. The plaintiff alleged that she was not given informed consent regarding the risks and complications of revisional nasal surgery, and more specifically, that she was not advised she could have breathing problems after such surgery. The defendant contended that the chart, various consent forms, and various written materials reflected that these issues were discussed with the patient, as were alternative surgical techniques, such as placement of a cartilage graft. On Oct. 29, 1992, the defendant performed revisional nasal reconstruction and septoplasty on the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the Oct. 29, 1992 surgery was negligently performed in that there was excessive resection of cartilage and other material from the nose which led to the collapse of the skeletal structure of the nose and an inability to breathe, which had not been present before the surgery. The plaintiff contended that the standard of care required placement of a cartilage graft rather than resection. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's breathing problems preexisted her surgery and that a previous cartilage graft for purposes of opening up the nasal airway and improving breathing did not work. The defendant claimed that she did her best and utilized appropriate medical judgment in releasing and elevating scar tissue, trimming a spur and small portions of cartilage and attempting to reconstruct the bone in a cosmetically favorable way. Thre defendant argued that there were extensive preoperative discussions with the plaintiff concerning the perils of revisional nasal surgery and that there were increased risks of all possible complications and that no guarantee could be given regarding cosmetic or functional results. The plaintiff allegedly contributed to her problems by missing postoperative appointments, failing to follow instructions and failing to return to the office in the requisite amount of time. The defendant claimed that none of her surgical procedures and/or maneuvers resulted in the collapse of the nasal skeleton and that any residual nasal obstruction came about due to incomplete healing as opposed to anything the defendant did or failed to do. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on medical negligence and professional malpractice theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $250,000 at the conclusion of trial. The defendant made no settlement offer.
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged she sustained collapse of the skeletal structure of her nose resulting an inability to breathe.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and six months after the case was filed.
Deliberation
1 hour
Poll
10-2
Length
8 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390