Dennis Palmieri v. Retinal Consultants, Kenneth R. Diddie, M.D., Thomas A. Hanscom, M.D.
Published: Aug. 14, 1999 | Result Date: Jul. 15, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC046117 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Howard A. Slavin
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert Mushen
(medical)
Richard Elander
(medical)
Defendant
Donald A. Frambach
(medical)
Facts
In February 1996, the plaintiff, a 46-year-old attorney, developed problems with the vision of his right eye which described as a "white-out" or blurry vision. Within one or two days before February 29, the plaintiff then begin experiencing a curtain-like sensation involving the lower half of the vision of his right eye. This led plaintiff to see general ophthalmologist Richard Elander, M.D., who immediately diagnosed a retinal detachment in the plaintiff's eye and referred the patient to defendants. The plaintiff was seen by retinal specialist, Dr. Kenneth Diddie, during the morning of February 29. Dr. Diddie examined the plaintiff and determined that plaintiff had a superior horseshoe tear in the retina of the right eye and a retinal detachment which also involved the macula of the rigth eye (the macula is that portion of the retina that is responsible for most acute vision). Also diagnosed was a break in the inferior retina of the right eye without detachment of that part of that retina. Dr. Diddie recommended a procedure known as pneumatic retinopexy. By this procedure, an injection of expanding gas is made into the posterior segment of the eye. As the gas expands, it pushes the retinal tear closed while fluid underneath the retina is pumped out so that reattachment of the retina will occur. A freezing probe is also used to place burns over the area of the retinal tear. Dr. Diddie selected 0.2 ccs of C3 F8 gas also known as Perfluoropropane. The plaintiff consented to this procedure and was allowed to return to a law office, having been given positioning instructions to keep his head upright while working, and to sleep in an upright position. This would allow the gas to push upward and seal the retinal tear that had caused the detachment. During the afternoon of February 29, though his eyelid was to be shut with two patches having been taped over it, the plaintiff claimed that he developed the return of the same symptoms that he had experienced before the pneumatic retinopexy had occurred. The plaintiff made two calls to the office of defendants and advised of the symptoms. The plaintiff was told not to worry about the symptoms but to keep the return appointment that he had for the next morning. When the plaintiff returned the next morning, he saw the other member of the retinal specialty group, Dr. Thomas Hanscom. Dr. Hanscom found that instead of closing the superior retinal tear, the gas had migrated through the tear and was now behind the retina. Dr. Hanscom then decided to take the patient to St. John's hospital where Dr. Hanscom performed a vitrectomy, scleral buckle and gas injection. This surgery was successful in anatomically attaching the retina. However, the plaintiff developed metamorphopsia, distorted and poor vision, for which he brought this malpractice action. Ten days after the retina in the right eye was diagnosed to be detached, the plaintiff suddenly developed a detachment of the retina of his left eye. The retina of the left eye was reattached by defendant Dr. Hanscom and the plaintiff has at least 20/40 vision in the left eye which was approximately the same vision that he had before the detachment. According to an examination of March 1999, by plaintiff's expert in Washington, the plaintiff's vision in the right eye is 20/800 (worse than legal blindness) and plaintiff has also developed a cataract in the right eye.
Settlement Discussions
In 1998, the defendant offered a waiver of costs and claims if plaintiff would dismiss action.
Injuries
The plaintiff suffered metamorphopsia (distorted vision) and extremely poor vision, apparently caused by the development of a cataract following the two surgical procedures that plaintiff underwent. The plaintiff's right eye vision, by time of trial, was reported to be 20/800. At various times after the surgical procedures, the plaintiff's right eye vision was reported to be as good as 20/80 when examined by the defendant, and similar vision was obtained when plaintiff was examined at UCLA within the first year following surgery.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and four months after the case was filed. The defendants has proposed to submit psychiatric testimony concerning plaintiff's ability to practice law, and his loss of earnings claim. The plaintiff has contended, in papers filed in this action, and in lawsuits filed in other courts, that he has been the victim of action against him by the federal government and its various agencies. The plaintiff waived his claim for lost income and no psychiatric testimony was permitted.
Deliberation
45 minutes
Poll
12-0
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390