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.

CONFIDENTIAL

Oct. 25, 1997

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Medical Malpractice
Failure to Diagnose

Confidential

Settlement –  $350,000

Judge

Wendell E. Mortimer Jr.

Court

L.A. Superior Pomona


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lawrence J. Rudd


Defendant

Mary Seliger

James D. Nichols


Experts

Plaintiff

Melvin Krause
(medical)

Marianne Inouye MBA
(technical)

Fred Kuyt
(medical)

Defendant

Roy L. Herndon
(medical)

David J. Weiner M.B.A., AM
(technical)

Leon Bender
(medical)

Facts

In October 1992, the decedent, a 45-year-old paralegal, presented to defendant medical center with a six-month history of intermittent episodes of bloody urine. The blood usually followed a period of exertion which is known physiologically to increase the pressure within the bladder. The defendant medical center's employee, a family practitioner working in the walk-in clinic, diagnosed the decedent's condition as a urinary tract infection, despite the fact that no infection was found on culture of the urine. As it had in the past, decedent's urine cleared, not because of any treatment, only because his symptoms were intermittent and the bleeding stopped on its own. The intermittent bleeding continued and the family practitioner referred the decedent to a urologist member of the medical center and was eventually seen by urologist in late March 1993. Following an incomplete examination, the urologist determined no further evaluation was required - the decedent's diagnosis was chronic prostatitis. The decedent was told that stress in his life was causing him to urinate blood, rather than cancer of his bladder which was present at the time and which continued to grow, eventually spreading to his lungs causing his death. The decedent's symptoms continued to come and go as they had for about a year. He was eventually seen by another family practitioner, who ordered an ultrasound of the urinary tract with the thought that the bloody urine might be due to a kidney stone. No stone was found. However, the decedent's bladder wall was noted to be thickened, an abnormal finding. The family practitioner, concerned about the bladder abnormality in light of decedent's history, considered bladder cancer a potential diagnosis and understood at that a cystoscopy, actual visualization of the inside of the bladder, should be considered to rule out bladder cancer. The decedent was again referred to defendant urologist who ignored the abnormal ultrasound of the bladder and again told decedent that the stress in his life was causing him to urinate blood. No tests were performed to determine if decedent had cancer. In January 1994, at the insistence of decedent, defendant urologist finally performed a cystoscopy, placing a firm tube into the penis to visualize the bladder. The decedent was found to have bladder cancer which had minimally invaded the muscle layer of the bladder. Since it was invasive, the decedent underwent the removal of his bladder. Even though there had been a significant delay in the diagnosis of the cancer, it was hoped the cancer was caught before it had a chance to spread and he would be cured. This was not to be. Plaintiff was later found to have metastatic cancer to his lungs, a terminal condition. He died on April 21, 1996. The plaintiffs, the decedent's wife and son by a previous marriage brought this action against the defendants based on negligence and wrongful death theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $410,000 and the defendants offered $275,000 at settlement conference before Judge Wendell Mortimer, Jr. The plaintiffs then lowered their demand to $375,000 and the defendants increased their offer to $325,000. The case settled the next day for $350,000. As the economic losses of the son are going to be paid by Social Security, his share of the settlement will be paid via an annuity which will begin paying at age 18. The cost of the annuity is $80,000 and will pay $233,000 (guaranteed) over the life of the annuity.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed $250,000 in non-economic damages. The plaintiff wife claimed $267,000 in economic damages which included approximately $75,000 for loss of household services.

Other Information

The settlement was reached approximately 11 months after the case was filed.


#79762

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

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