Liang McCarthy v. Howard Lokietz, M.D., Pamela Lee, M.D.
Published: Jul. 31, 1999 | Result Date: May 13, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GC018311 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Pasadena
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Robert B. Packer
(Packer, O'Leary & Corson APLC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Lisa Scheinin
(medical)
Lawrence J. Baraff
(medical)
Judith E. Brill
(medical)
Robert Lane Morris
(medical)
Defendant
Michael M. Goldberg
(medical)
James Atkinson
(medical)
Wilson Wong
(medical)
Richard Chinnock
(medical)
J. Carlos Maggi
(medical)
Facts
The patient, Elizabeth McCarthy, born on Sept. 6, 1994, was diagnosed at birth with an atresia (congenital blockage) of the small bowel. This was surgically repaired shortly after birth. After the surgery, due to scar tissue and adhesions, increased the risk (over the child's lifetime) for development of bowel obstructions. Defendant, Howard Lokietz, M.D., became the patient's regular pediatrician and saw the patient on multiple occassions in 1994 and 1995, including two occassions where patient's symptomatology suggested bowel obstructions. This condition was ruled out on one occasion by a barium imaging study and another by self-resolution. Otherwise, the child was normal and healthy. On the afternoon of Dec. 31, 1995, the child developed "flu-like" symtoms, principally malaise, vomiting and poor intake. On Jan. 1, 1996, defendant Pamela Lee, M.D. was taking call for the Pediatric Group which included Dr. Howard Lokietz. At approximately 4 p.m., the plaintiff, the patient's mother, telephoned Dr. Lokietz and ultimately spoke to Dr. Lee. The plaintiff advised Dr. Lee that the child had a fever of 102 degrees and had intermittent, but persistent vomiting. Dr. Lee suggested the administration of children's Tylenol and/or Motrin and hydration. She further indicated that the mother should call her back if the child's temperature went as high as 105 degrees. No further calls were made to Dr. Lee. On Jan. 2, 1996, the plaintiff took the patient to Dr. Lokietz' offices when it opened at 9 a.m. Dr. Lokietz performed an examination, believed the child to most likely be suffering from gastroenteritis but, in light of the child's history of abdominal surgery, urged the mother to allow an abdominal series of X-ray to rule out bowel obstruction. Allegedly, the mother was resistant to further X-rays, as such diagnostic testing may be detrimental to the child's future reproductive capacity as well as an increased risk of cancer. Ultimately, Dr. Lokietz ordered an abdominal ultrasound. He wrote an order for an ultrasound to be conducted at nearby Arcadia Methodist Hospital. There was a dispute over whether this study was ordered "stat" or routine. The mother took the child to Arcadia Methodist Hospital, arriving at approximately 9:44 a.m. After checking in through the outpatient registration process, the mother and child arrived in the Radiology Department at approximately 10:30 a.m. In light of the order to "rule out abdominal obstruction," the Radiology Department questioned the advisability of an ultrasound as it was a far less diagnostic test than a bowel X-ray. Initially, the mother agreed to have a bowel X-ray, but as the child was being prepared for the study, she changed her mind and insisted on an ultrasound. Ultimately, an ultrasound was performed by Wilson Wong, M.D., and reported that the results showed hi-grade bowel obstruction. With this information, the mother agreed to a bowel series X-ray, and this was performed later by another radiologist who believed the results were suggestive of a bowel obstruction. These results were relayed to Dr. Lokietz, who undertook to have the patient admitted to Huntington Memorial Hospital, where the child could be seen by the surgeon who operated on her shortly after birth. However, in the Radiology Department of Arcadia Methodist Hospital, the child suddenly became very ill and lethargic. Instead of going to Huntington Memorial Hospital, the radiology receptionist accompanied the mother and child to the emergency department, where the initial heart beat was registered at 248 and the diagnosis made of probable septic shock with severe dehydration. The child shortly went into full cardiorespiratory arrest, could not be resuscitated and died approximately at 12 noon. The plaintiff alleged that both Dr. Lokietz and Dr. Lee were negligent in their diagnosis care, and treatment of the child, causing her death.
Settlement Discussions
Shortly before trial, the plaintiff issued a statutory demand of $174,000 with an indication that "something less" would settle the case. Neither defendant made a settlement offer.
Damages
Although economic damages both for loss of future support and for damages associated with negligent infliction of emotiona distress (and an independent cause of action brought by the mother), were urged in discovery by the conclusion of testimony, the plaintiff only asked the jury for general damages associated with the loss of love and companionship of decedent. The court bifurcated the cause of action for N.I.E.D, which would have been tried if plaintiff prevailed on the wrongful death cause of action.
Other Information
The plaintiff's motion for new trial is set on Aug. 6, 1999.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
10-2 (Dr. Lokietz was negligent), 12-0 (negligence was not a cause of death), 12-0 (Dr. Lee was not negligent)
Length
12 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390