James Siket v. David Callister
Published: Aug. 3, 2004 | Result Date: May 3, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: EC036256 Verdict – $29,999
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Burbank
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The subject suit for medical malpractice was filed on Feb. 21, 2003 with the alleged medical negligence in the ophthalmologic treatment of the plaintiff which resulted in his alleged diminished vision and his need to wear glasses following bilateral cataract surgery. The plaintiff wore corrective lenses before the surgeries. He claimed before the surgeries, he did not know he would need to wear glasses after the surgeries. The plaintiff claimed his vision was worse after two cataract surgeries than before. The defendant contended that he gave full information to consent to the surgeries and that plaintiff signed an office and hospital consent form.
Settlement Discussions
The defendant did not participate in any settlement discussions. The plaintiff filed a C.C.P. Section 998 demand in the amount of $29,999.
Result
The court ordered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff because the plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the issue of lack of informed consent. The court awarded the defendant costs.
Other Information
The plaintiff struck the medical malpractice claim and pursued the case on the lack of informed consent exclusively. Both the plaintiff and the defendant waived jury.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390