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
Negligent Treatment

Vicki Brook v. Christopher Alexander, M.D.

Published: Jul. 12, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 30, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RIC402489 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas J. Johnson

Viktors Andre Rekte
(Rekte Bradshaw)


Defendant

Tom M. Allen


Experts

Plaintiff

Stewart L. Shanfield
(medical)

Defendant

J. Randall Davis
(medical)

Facts

On Dec. 24, 2000, plaintiff Vicki Brook, a 42-year-old self-employed bookkeeper, was moving a heavy desk and felt pain in her shoulder. When the pain persisted, Brook went to Dr. Christopher Alexander, an orthopedic surgeon. On Aug. 10, 2001, Alexander diagnosed Brook with impingement syndrome and performed a Mumford Procedure on her. On Nov. 2, Alexander performed arthroscopic lysis of adhesions to break up scar tissue. Brook's condition improved at first but then regressed. On Feb. 12, 2002, Alexander performed a partial rotator cuff repair. He then recommended physical therapy but not additional surgery. Between July 2 and Aug. 6, Brook claimed she suffered from Grad III shoulder separation, which she believed was the result of surgeries performed by Alexander.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Brook sued Alexander contending his treatment during the Mumford Procedure was negligent because he removed one centimeter more of the bone than necessary. Brook alleged that during the procedure, Alexander inadvertently nicked the coraclavicular ligament without knowledge he had done so. Because of this nick, her ligament began to deteriorate and eventually ruptured in July 2002. Brook believed all her subsequent medical care needs were caused by Alexander's negligence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant maintained that he took off the appropriate amount of bone during the Mumford Procedure and denied altering the ligament. He alleged it would be impossible to come into contact with the ligament from where he performed the surgery. Alexander introduced into evidence an MRI of Brook five months after the procedure and the ligament was intact at that time.

Damages

Brooks sought $70 to $700 per month for her future medical expenses. This figure was based on what her co-pay would be without health insurance, $700, or with insurance, $70. She also sought damages for pain and suffering.

Injuries

After Brook's shoulder separation, she underwent additional surgery by a different surgeon to break up loose scar tissue. She later underwent two surgeries for ligament reconstruction by another surgeon. She also had physical and chiropractic therapy.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for defense finding that Alexander did not violate the standard of care.

Deliberation

2.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

five days


#92824

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

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