Nery Castellanos, Olivia Castellanos v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Medical Group
Published: Oct. 7, 2003 | Result Date: Aug. 4, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: DUM0002677 Arbitration – $0
Court
Case Not Filed
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Brent S. Buchsbaum
(Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag LLP)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Malin R. Dollinger
(medical)
Defendant
Bradley Taylor
(medical)
Gregory P. Sarna
(medical)
Facts
On July 23, 1993, the plaintiff presented to the Urgent Care Kaiser Harbor City complaining of abdominal pain, dysuria and positive frequency. Urinalysis revealed that white blood cells and a urine culture was positive for E-coli. He was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and treated with antibiotics. Subsequently, he returned on Sep. 10, 1993 complaining of pain on urination. A urinalysis and urine culture were noted to be negative. He was treated with antibiotics and was advised to follow up if complaints persisted. He did not return until April 26, 1995. At that time, he presented with complaints of urgency and frequency. A small amount of hemoglobin was noted in urinalysis. However, a urine cytology was negative for malignancy. Therefore, he was diagnosed with questionable chronic prostatitis and treated empirically with antibiotics. The plaintiff did not return with complaints of urological discomfort until Feb. 17, 1997. At that time, he was referred to urology with complaints of burning, dysuria, hesitancy and urgency. The urinalysis revealed a moderate amount of blood. Therefore, a renal sonogram was ordered which detected an upper pole lesion of the left kidney. As it was suspicious for a neoplasm, the plaintiff underwent a left radical nephrectomy on July 22, 1997. The pathology report revealed that the tumor was a renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type with a grade II nuclei.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $299,999; the defense offered a dismissal with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of cost and malicious prosecution.
Damages
The plaintiff wife filed a claim for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs contended that they have both suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged delay in diagnosis and treatment of the patient's renal cell carcinoma. They further contended that they will continue to suffer emotional distress as the alleged delay has increased the patient's chances of a recurrence.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390