This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Medical
Malpractice
Failue to Diagnose

John Doe v. Roe Physician

Published: Aug. 4, 2023 | Result Date: Sep. 17, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 30, 2020 |

Settlement –  $975,000

Judge

Serena R. Murillo

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Benjamin T. Ikuta
(Ikuta Hemesath LLP)

Michelle B. Hemesath
(Ikuta Hemesath LLP)


Defendant

Michael V. Lamb
(Schmid & Voiles)

John S. Cayley
(Schmid & Voiles)


Facts

This case involved plaintiff John Doe who alleged that he developed prostatic adenocarcinoma because defendant physician did not refer plaintiff to a urologist in a timely manner. Plaintiff had multiple concerning laboratoy results over six years with no action taken by defendant physician. Two other physicians covering for defendant physician noted issues with plaintiff's PSA Levels. Plaintiff's PSA levels were eventually more than double the normal level, and plaintiff was required to be on drugs and therapy, including radiation, androgen deprivation therapy, and Lupron. Plaintiff requires substantial future treatment and will require palliative and hospice care during his end of life.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that they canceled their appointment to see a urologist because defendant told plaintiff their high PSA levels were normal. Defendant indicated all labs were normal multiple times, and plaintiff trusted defendant's opinion and canceled his appointment with a urologist. After six years of elevated PSA levels, plaintiff changed his insurance and saw another provider who was concerned about plaintiff's PSA levels and immediately referred him to a urologist. Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that Plaintiff Doe was fine to leave untreated since it was "asymptomatic cancer" and that early diagnosis of prostate cancer was not important in regards to a long-term medical outcome. Defendant Roe Physician also contended that there was not any significance as to a low free PSA percentage. Defendant Roe Physician stated a rectal examination was never warranted to test for prostate cancer.

Result

The case settled for $975,000.

Other Information

Defendant physician was insured by a $1 million policy.


#141465

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390