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 Plastic Surgery

Janice D. Stevens v. Scott C. Sessions, M.D., Sessions Plastic Surgery Centre

Published: Jun. 23, 2007 | Result Date: Apr. 2, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC866626 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

George John Ronis

R. Scott Sims


Defendant

Clark R. Hudson
(Neil Dymott Hudson, APLC)


Experts

Plaintiff

Robert T. Miner
(medical)

Barry Fischer
(medical)

Defendant

Michael Peters
(Ramo Law, PC) (medical)

John E. Bokosky
(medical)

Heather H. Xitco
(technical)

Facts

In August 2004, plaintiff Janice Stevens discussed a number of cosmetic surgery options with defendant Dr. Scott Sessions. The plaintiff chose to have a neck lift and a four-lid blepharoplasty. In November, the defendant performed a preoperative physical examination of plaintiff and informed her of the potential risks and complications of the procedures. The plaintiff expressed that she comprehended the pros and cons of the procedures, and surgery was scheduled for Dec. 2.

After the surgery, the plaintiff went to see defendant to remove sutures and to follow-up regarding her surgical results. The plaintiff's ophthalmologist observed that plaintiff's eyes could not shut completely, which was deemed a typical reaction to a four-lid blepharoplasty. On Feb. 7, 2005, defendant noted in plaintiff's records that her post-operative care was of the highest standard and she experienced no problems. Although the plaintiff was advised to follow-up with defendant in three months, she never did so.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, claiming medical malpractice after suffering from lagophthalmos, a condition that prevented her from shutting her eyes.

The defendant contended that the abnormal scarring caused plaintiff’s lid retraction.

Settlement Discussions

The demand under C.C.P. Section 998 was $90,000.

Specials in Evidence

Plaintiff claimed $3,000. Plaintiff claimed $50,000. Plaintiff claimed $16,000.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the surgery performed by defendant, she was unable to fully shut her eyes when she slept, and she suffered from disfigurement, pain, dry eye and fatigue. Plaintiff was forced to sell her business due to her physical problems.

Result

The jury found for defendant.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

9-3

Length

eight days


#98569

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

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