Rita Jauregui, et al v. Luz Medina, M.D., et al.
Published: Feb. 17, 1996 | Result Date: Dec. 7, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC117808 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Juan J. Dominguez
(The Dominguez Firm Inc.)
Mark S. Ravis
(Law Office of Mark S. Ravis)
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiff wife, Rita Jauregui, a 26-year-old unemployed woman, began experiencing perineal drainage inflammation and pain 30 to 40 days after the birth of her first child on December 10, 1991. The plaintiff alleged that the symptoms were due to a recto-cutaneous fistula. The plaintiff wife began treating with the defendant, Luz Medina, M.D., an employee of defendant, Community Health Foundation, on September 17, 1992. After the birth of her second child on February 9, 1994, a fistula was discovered. The plaintiff wife continued as the defendant doctor's patient past the birth of her second child until the fistula was diagnosed by other doctors in May of 1994. The plaintiff wife brought this action against the defendant doctor and defendant Community Health Foundation based on a medical malpractice theory of recovery. The plaintiff husband brought this action for loss of consortium.
Settlement Discussions
Per the defendant, the plaintiffs made a $50,000 settlement demand pursuant to C.C.P. º998 and the defendants offered nothing. Per the plaintiffs, the defendants offered $10,000.
Damages
Pain and suffering (plaintiff wife); loss of consortium (plaintiff husband) claimed.
Injuries
The plaintiff wife alleged that she suffered rectal cutaneous fistula; and pain and suffering from the alleged delay in surgical repair as a result of the defendants alleged malpractice.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed. The plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denied on February 2, 1996, by the trial judge. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The plaintiffs argued that case law relating to the discovery rule does not support the verdict and, as such, the verdict is against the law.
Deliberation
2+ hours
Poll
9-3
Length
2+ days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390