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.

Torts
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
Negligent Supervision

David A. Jones v. Harvey A. Zarem, Harvey A. Zarem, M.D. Inc. a Corporation, Gina Rockford

Published: Aug. 6, 2005 | Result Date: May 25, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC292136 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Michael L. Stern

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John R. Blanchard
(Law Office of John R. Blanchard)


Defendant

Gillian N. Pluma
(LaFollette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames APC)

Louis "Duke" DeHaas Jr.
(LaFollette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames APC)


Experts

Plaintiff

Harvey Zaren
(medical)

Defendant

Timothy P. Creyaufmiller
(medical)

Lester M. Zackler M.D.
(medical)

Facts

On March 14, 2002, the plaintiff, David Jones, underwent extensive cosmetic surgery by the defendant, Dr.
Harvey Zarem, at Pacific Surgicenter. On March 18, 2003, he called Dr. Zarem to request additional pain
medication and spoke with the defendant, Gina Rockford, R.N., a surgical coordinator for Pacific Surgicenter.
His request was denied.
On or about March 18, 2003, a conversation took place between the plaintiff's employer and Rockford. According
to Rockford, the plaintiff's employer voiced his concerns as to the plaintiff's desire and ability to return to work
within a few days of surgery. Rockford allegedly told the plaintiff's employer that, in general, physicians do not
recommend that patients return to work too soon after surgery and if patients are on pain medication they do
not recommend that they drive. She also alleged that she told the employer that the plaintiff called her to get
some pain medication.
The plaintiff returned to work on March 22, 2002, and alleged that his employer told him that Rockford stated
that he was a drug abuser, for which he was allegedly suspended and subsequently terminated.

Injuries

Severe emotional distress and damage to his reputation, and loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Other Information

The plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with business relations was dismissed pursuant to a motion for a directed verdict.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (on the issue of violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act as to defendant Gina Rockford, R.N.), 12-0 (on the issue of slander per se as to defendant Gina Rockford, R.N.)

Length

eight days


#92078

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

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