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 (Non-Vehicular)
Professional Negligence
Medical Malpractice

William Lister v. Robert Parker, D.P.M.

Published: Nov. 20, 1999 | Result Date: Oct. 7, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 318258 –  $0

Judge

Joan F. Ettinger

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jack D. Hull III


Defendant

Ramon E. Lewis

Matthew D. Rifat
(Law Offices of Matthew D. Rifat)


Facts

On Aug. 23, 1996, plaintiff William Lister underwent bilateral bunion surgery. Defendant Robert Parker, D.P.M., performed the surgery and a subsequent arthrotomy repair. The plaintiff claimed he developed complications, such as elevatus, swelling and pain. The plaintiff sought treatment for the complications from a Virginia podiatrist, who said the complications were due to "malpractice" and were a "surgical nightmare." The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant doctor based on professional negligence theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

On Sept. 20, 1999, the plaintiff made a settlement demand for $250,000. The defendant made no settlement offer.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to MICRA limits ($250,000) for general damages.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed he suffered complications from bunion surgery, requiring surgery on both feet and all toes.

Result

(directed verdict)

Other Information

The trial court found that the plaintiff knew or should have known of any injury and negligence on June 23, 1997, when he was told by the subsequent treater that he had been subjected to malpractice. The plaintiff argued he did not discover the nature of the malpractice until later and argued that surgical screws placed in his feet during surgery were "foreign objects," tolling the statute of limitations. Trial was bifurcated on issue of statute of limitations. The court held as a matter of law that the surgical screws were not foreign objects as they were designed and inserted for indefinite therapeutic purpose. The directed verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed.

Length

two days


#97063

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

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