Facts

On Jan. 1, 2011, plaintiff Audrey Lewis, age 69, slipped and fell at Ralphs Grocery store injuring her left hip. She initially was evaluated by physicians at USC Keck Hospital and treated conservatively. In April 2011, because the cause of her pain was unclear, she was referred to defendant by Mark Spoonamore, M.D., Chief of Spine Surgery at USC.

Plaintiff first saw defendant on May 23, 2011, who ultimately diagnosed her with a probable torn labrum of the left hip, notwithstanding that an MRI of the left hip performed at USC on June 17, 2011 was reported as negative for a labrum tear or any other pathology. On Sept. 16, 2011, defendant performed a left hip arthroscopy and detected a tear of the labrum and a cam lesion causing femoral acetabular impingement. He repaired the tear and performed an osteoplasty to correct the impingement. The patient initially reported improvement in her pain and mobility, but the symptoms recurred.

Defendant recommended a left total hip replacement, which was performed on July 31, 2012 at Cedars Sinai Medical Center. Defendant continued to treat the patient until Jan. 14, 2013, at which time the patient complained of little pain and much improved mobility. Defendant did not see plaintiff again professionally.

Plaintiff claimed that neither the arthroscopy nor the total hip replacement were indicated. All imaging studies, including many x-rays taken in defendant’s offices, demonstrated no evidence of a labral tear, cam lesion, or FAI. The only reason to perform a total hip replacement was osteoarthritis of the hip joint, and there was no radiographic evidence of OA on any study. Defendant relied on a pre-total hip MRI allegedly showing severe osteoarthritis of the left hip joint, when in fact no MRI was performed before that surgery.

Although plaintiff signed a consent for both procedures, that consent was vitiated when she learned neither surgery was indicated. Therefore, she alleged defendant was liable on a theory of medical battery.

Plaintiff further claimed that defendant was untruthful about the results of pre-operative imaging studies and made changes in his medical records to justify the surgeries.

Dr. Snibbe claimed he has more expertise in analyzing MRI studies of the hip than a radiologist and testified that the June 17, 2011 MRI did demonstrate a labral tear and a cam lesion, thereby justifying the recommendation and performance of the arthroscopy when conservative treatment had failed.

By July 31, 2012, all other possible causes of plaintiff’s continued pain and disability had been ruled out, and therefore the cause of her pain had to be OA. The patient was given the option of a total hip replacement, or to continue with conservative care. Plaintiff felt doing nothing was unacceptable and therefore consented to the surgery.

Plaintiff’s experts conceded that both surgery were performed “expertly” with no complications.

After the second surgery, plaintiff’s complaints either subsided or were eliminated and the records of subsequent care providers, up to as recently as April 2016, demonstrated that plaintiff had a good result and resolution of her hip complaints.
5. Any residual hip complaints were due to the fall at Ralphs, not the conduct of defendant, or to something outside of the hip joint and unrelated to the care of defendant.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed that as a result of her treatment with defendant, she was not able to return to her work as an administrative assistant at the USC School of Pharmacy, where she planned on working until at least the age of 75 or 78. The value of her loss of past and future earnings was claimed to be $240,789 (to age 75) and $389,365 (to age 78) In additions, plaintiff asked for an award of about $455,000 in past and future non-economic damages. Defendant claimed that plaintiff’s treatment was successful and had nothing to do with her decision to retire. At the conclusion of her treatment, the only work restriction was not to lift anything over 20 pounds. Plaintiff admitted she never asked her employer for an accommodation of that restriction. Defendant did not suggest an alternative figure for damages.

Result

Beverly Hills Orthopedic Group was dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a cost waiver before the verdict. At the conclusion of evidence, the judge refused to instruct on medical battery as there was no evidence supporting the claim.

Other Information

The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded her approximately $200,000, including past medical expenses (thereby, implicitly rejecting the unnecessary surgery defense on damages). Defendant made a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds, in part, that the instant action was barred by the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, which was denied by the court.

Deliberation

2.5 hours