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.

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Hospital Negligence
Negligent Care

Kim Hong Tran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital

Published: Jun. 7, 1997 | Result Date: Apr. 28, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 699499 –  $0

Judge

Robert C. Baxley

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James E. Swingley
(Law Office of Jame E Swingley)


Defendant

Sheila S. Trexler


Experts

Plaintiff

Rosemarie Horsch
(medical)

Defendant

Marilee K. Nebelsick
(medical)

Facts

On May 21, 1994, plaintiff Kim Hong Tran, a 32-year-old legal translator and office manager, presented to defendant Sharp Memorial Hospital to deliver her second child. A nurse attempted to start an IV in her left wrist area. The plaintiff claimed that in doing so, the nurse damaged the radial nerve. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant hospital based on medical negligence and respondeat superior theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $20,000. The defendant made no settlement offers.

Specials in Evidence

$32,500

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed she suffered permanent numbness from the wrist to the nail bed of her left thumb, and weakness and pain involving her left hand. (Two neurologists testified and agreed that radial nerve injury at the level of the wrist can only result in sensory deficit, not motor deficit.)

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert Rosemarie Horsch, a registered nurse, testified that the first IV attempted in the plaintiff's left arm was inappropriate because a 16- or 18-gauge needle would have been too large for the plaintiff and the choice of site (the wrist area) is always inappropriate, as it is an area of flexion. She also testified that in a petite female, the wrist would carry a higher potential risk of injury because the nerve and vein are close. Defense expert Marilee K. Nebelsick, a registered nurse, testified that the use of a 16- or 18-gauge needle in the plaintiff's case would have been within the standard of care, and that the wrist area is an appropriate site for IV placement.

Deliberation

+ hour

Poll

9-3

Length

5 days


#83455

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

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