Facts

On April 10, 2001, the plaintiff, who was four years old, was admitted to UCLA medical center to have a hemo-dialysis catheter replaced. During placement of the new catheter, defendant surgeon was having difficulty passing the guide wire along the vena cava and made several attempts without success. Finally, the defendant surgeon advanced the guide wire, apparently unaware that the superior vena cava had been perforated. The anesthesiologist reported that the plaintiff's blood pressure was beginning to drop and defendant surgeon was aware. The plaintiff went into code with full cardiac arrest and a chest needle returned blood indicating that a perforation had occurred. Cardiac surgeons were finally summoned and chest compressions were initiated when no pulse was noted. A cardiac surgeon finally arrived and plaintiff's chest was opened. The cardiac surgeon performed internal cardiac massage until a hypotensive pulse was detected. At this point the perforation in the superior vena cava was repaired and the plaintiff's chest was closed. The plaintiff was put on full life support and taken to the pediatric intensive care unit, comatose, paralyzed, and suffering from seizures.

The defendant physicians counseled plaintiff's family that there was no hope for any recovery of neurological or motor functions, cognitive skills, speech or vision.

In May 2001, the plaintiff was transferred to the first of several children's hospitals and rehabilitation centers where he ultimately peaked at his current condition, which includes paralysis of the lower extremities, limited motor skills, and vision and learning disabilities. Presently, the plaintiff requires 24-hour care.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the surgical perforation of the superior vena cava and the hospital's failure to act appropriately and within a reasonable amount of time was below the standard of care exercised by reasonable medical professionals in the area.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that the surgeons, doctors and hospital acted reasonably and despite the unfortunate result, within the applicable standard of care. In addition, the defendants contended that the perforation of the vena cava was a known risk that the plaintiff was informed of, and with knowledge of that risk, consented to the operation.

Settlement Discussions

On Nov. 10, 2004, the plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $5,868,373. After an initial mediation, the parties proceeded to a second mediation where the current settlement was initiated.

Specials in Evidence

$362,780; $642,809. $3,392,984;