Garth Drozin and Renee Drozin v. Gary Feldman, M.D.
Published: May 23, 1998 | Result Date: Apr. 17, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: LC035331 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Van Nuys
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Gregory M. Hulbert
(Hulbert & Hulbert)
Facts
Plaintiffs Garth and Renne Drozin, husband and wife, were experiencing fertility problems for which they consulted the defendant Dr. Gary Feldman. A fertifily work-up was commenced which, over the course of a year, included ordering three hysterosalpingograms. Defendant Feldman explained to the patient the nature of the imaging study, inclusive of the fact that it involved injecting dye into the uterus and utilizing fluoroscopy (real-time X-ray) to ascertain whether the fallopian tubes were, in fact, open. It was thus explained that, by virtue of the invasive nature of the study and the use of X-ray, one did not want to be pregnant when the study was performed. Over the course of a year, the patient wife was referred for three hysterosalpingograms in December 1993, July 1994 and December 1994. The initial study demonstrated obstruction of the fallopian tubes, for which the patient underwent surgery to address the problem. The second study, done six months following the surgery, revealed that the surgery did appear to have successfully resolved the obstructions. Subsequently, the patient became pregnant, which was diagnosed as an ectopic pregnancy, requiring termination of the pregnancy. The surgery was accomplished, and the patient assured that she could continue in her efforts to conceive whenever she felt it appropriate. A third hysterosalpingogram was also ordered, to ascertain whether the ectopic pregnancy had caused any further damage of the fallopian tubes. In the interim, the patient, after years of effort, and unbeknowst to her, conceived what was admittedly an intrauterine pregnancy. The patient, without knowing that she was pregnant, presented herself for the third hysterosalpingogram, which destroyed the pregnancy. Subsequent efforts to conceive and attempts at in vitro fertilization have failed. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant based on a negligence theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made no firm demand. The defendant made no offer.
Specials in Evidence
$30,000
Injuries
The plaintiff wife claimed she suffered _________.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately _____ years and _____ months after the case was filed. A settlement conference/ arbitration/ mediation was held on ____/____/19____ before _______________ (name) of ____________ (affiliation) resulting in ___________. Please describe any significant legal/procedural issues which help explain the outcome.
Deliberation
½ day
Poll
12-0
Length
eight days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390