Confidential
Settlement – $2,000,000Facts
In 1989, the plaintiff husband, a 75-year-old retiree, began having problems with double vision and headaches. An MRI scan was done to rule out a possible aneurysm and the MRI was interpreted as normal. Over the next three years, he continued to have problems off-and-on with double vision and headaches. These problems became worse in early 1993. The plaintiff's neurologist decided that it would be appropriate to have another MRI to rule out left orbital/posterior communicating aneurysm. An aneurysm in this location would explain all of the plaintiff's problems. On Feb. 9, 1993, this information was transmitted to the defendant radiologists. The plaintiff presented to the defendant radiologists for the MRI on Feb. 19, 1993. At that time, additional information was taken from the patient. On the form, the defendant neuroradiologist was asked to "rule out left orbital/posterior communicating aneurysm". The MRI films were done, including magnetic residence angiogram (MRA). The defendant neuroradiologist admitted in his deposition that these films showed on at least eight views as clearly visible aneurysm in exactly the location that the plaintiff's general doctor believed one would be located. The aneurysm was about the size of a dime. The defendant neuroradiologist did not see this dime-sized aneurysm and reported back to the plaintiff's general surgeon that no aneurysm was visible on the MRI. The plaintiff went to a number of specialists over the next three years tyring to find an answer for his worsening double vision and the severe headaches he was experiencing. He was beginning to lose his balance as well. He was prescribed a number of different treatments, none of which gave him much relief. The plaintiff's eye physician, referred him back to the general doctor stating that this double vision must have something to do with brain pathology because it was not related to his eyes. The general doctor again ordered an MRI on Jan. 25, 1996. The defendant neuroradiologist reveiwed the previous film on Feb. 19, 1993, and found that he had missed a clearly visible dime-sized aneurysm when he had reviewed those films. The defendant recorded in his Jan. 25, 1996 report that the aneurysm was visible on Feb. 19, 1993. By Jan. 25, 1996, the aneurysm had now grown to a size between a quarter and a half-dollar. In mass, the aneurysm had increased somewhere between six and ten minutes. According to the treating neurosurgeon, the aneurysm in January 1996 was classified as a "giant aneurysm". Surgery was performed in February 1996. During the surgery, the plaintiff suffered a stroke. The plaintiffs, the patient and his wife, brought this action against the defendants based on medical negligence and malpractice theories of recovery. The defendants admitted liability and causation shortly before trial.
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Specials in Evidence
$89,000
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed he suffered a stroke as a result of the defendant's negligence. He was paralyzed on the left side of his body as a result of the stroke. He also suffers from a speech disorder, aphasia, as well as memory loss. While the plaintiff has not regained the use of his left arm, and has a brace on his left leg requiring him to swing his leg out, he does now manage to walk as far as 100 feet. The plaintiff wife must constantly watch him, however, and in her deposition, testified that it is like having a small child to take care of again.
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately one year and three months after the case was filed. A mediation was held on May 8, 1997 before Eugene Moen of Chemnick, Moen & Greenstreet, it did not resolve the matter. The treating neurosurgeon signed a statement that the risk of stroke occurring in 1996 was four to five times greater than it would have been in 1993.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390