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

John Doe, an incompetent adult v. Roe Medical Center, Roe Neurosurgeon and Roe Pediatric Intensivist

Published: Nov. 21, 2015 | Result Date: Jun. 15, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Settlement –  $8,950,000

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven A. Heimberg
(Heimberg Barr LLP)

Marsha Elena Barr-Fernandez
(Heimberg Barr LLP)


Defendant

John C. Kelly
(Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen)

Gabriel M. Irwin

David A. Winkle
(Murchison & Cumming LLP)

Michael J. Doubet
(La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames)


Facts

On Oct. 11, 2011, plaintiff John Doe, 16, presented to Roe medical center with new onset signs and symptoms, including headache, vomiting and other symptoms similar to an incident from two months prior. He was known to have a history of an astrocytoma, a type of brain tumor. He was evaluated in the emergency room where he was determined to have hydrocephalus by the emergency room doctor. The emergency room doctor consulted with both Roe neurosurgeon and Roe pediatric intensivist.

Within 2.5 hours of arrival to the emergency room, plaintiff was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. By then, an MRI had been ordered at the request of Roe neurosurgeon. The radiologist interpreted the MRI and determined that there was significant hydrocephalus. Roe pediatric intensivist ordered neurologic checks to be performed every hour for four hours and then every two hours. Plaintiff also was placed on numerous electronic monitors.

The emergency room doctor had called Roe neurosurgeon, who ordered the MRI and requested that numerous parameters of well-being be followed. These parameters allegedly were followed in the PICU. The PICU flow sheet reflected that the observations were made more or less timely throughout the night, with documentation of all the neurologic assessments.

Plaintiff began to deteriorate, according to the medical records, approximately six hours after admission to the PICU. Roe Intensivist was called as soon as the nurse noticed neurologic changes and responded immediately. He performed numerous interventions over the next approximately 45 minutes, although, these did not reverse the process. The neurosurgeon was called in and was there providing care and starting surgery within approximately 30 minutes of being called.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Roe Neurosurgeon declined to go to the hospital and ordered plaintiff's MRI, and other instructions, over the phone. The nurse testified that plaintiff was restless through the night but that he was alert and aware and able to respond to commands at all times during the night until his ultimate deterioration. Plaintiff claimed negligence by defendants, including failure to properly diagnosis the seriousness of the developing hydrocephalus, and failure to properly monitor and intervene as the increasing intracranial pressure developed and caused plaintiff's brain damage.

Plaintiff contended that the nurses failed to do the proper monitoring and to recognize plaintiff's developing problems, and that Roe neurosurgeon failed to give proper instructions or to come to the hospital to treat condition about which he had sufficient information to know its emergent nature. Plaintiff claimed that Roe pediatric intensivist failed to provide proper oversight of the monitoring, and that he intervened belatedly and inappropriately when the crisis from the hydrocephalus occurred. Plaintiffs also contended that Roe intensivist was an agent of Roe medical center.

Plaintiff alleged that this improper diagnosis, monitor and treatment more likely than not was the cause of plaintiff's brain damage.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Roe neurosurgeon contended that he was not required to come in or do anything further than the instructions he gave, and was permitted to rely on monitoring by the nurses and intensivist.

The nurses contended that they in fact did follow plaintiff closely, as supported by their charting, and that there was a rapid and unpredictable onset of the problematic changes, and that they immediately and timely notified the pediatric intensivist once these signs and symptoms were properly and timely observed.

Roe pediatric intensivist contended the same, and that his interventions thereafter were timely and reasonable.

Defendants further contended that plaintiff has a very short life expectancy and that there were no interventions that could have changed the outcome in this case.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed he has a 40 to 50-year life expectancy and will require 24/7 care in a sub-acute facility.

Result

The case settled for $8,950,000.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 19, 2013.


#95739

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

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