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
Medical Malpractice
Failure to Diagnose

German Velasquez v. Wesley Phipatanakul M.D., Loma Linda University Medical Center, Suzy Sedrak M.D., and West Covina Medical Group

Published: Aug. 11, 2012 | Result Date: Apr. 27, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: KC054706 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Pomona


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Rolando Hidalgo


Defendant

Dennis K. Ames
(La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames)

Michael D. Reid
(LaFollette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames APC)


Experts

Plaintiff

Irwin L. Bliss M.D.
(medical)

D. Preston Flanigan
(medical)

Defendant

John Cerlanek
(medical)

Kendall S. Wagner M.D.
(medical)

Facts

On Sept. 2, 2007, German Velasquez sustained scapula and left femur fractures, and a dislocated left ankle due to a motor vehicle accident. Wesley Phipatanakul, an orthopedic surgeon, performed open reduction surgery on Velasquez, who also suffered from diabetes. For post-operative treatment, Velasquez visited Phipatanakul and his family practitioner. Because the wound of his ankle developed gangrene, on Oct. 20, 2007, Velasquez underwent a below-the-knee amputation of his left leg. He sued Phipatanakul, Loma Linda University Medical Center, and his family practitioner, alleging medical malpractice. Subsequently, Loma Linda, and his family practitioner were dismissed from the lawsuit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that Phipatanakul should have referred him to a vascular surgeon who would have examined Plaintiff's prior femoropopliteal bypass surgery. Plaintiff claimed that another femoropopliteal surgery would have saved Plaintiff from amputation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that he acted within the standard of care, and that he gave warnings about a possible amputation based on Plaintiff's uncontrolled diabetes. Defendant argued that clinical data did not show that referring playoff to vascular surgery was needed because he had good blood profusion, and nevertheless, a new surgery would not have increased blood flow.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $250,000 in general damages.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered below-the-knee leg amputation and necrosis.

Result

The jury found in favor of the defense, concluding that there was no causation regarding damages.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

9-3 (negligence), 11-1 (no causation)

Length

one month


#90130

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

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