Woman Blames Kaiser for Poop Through Vagina
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
April 25, 2013
PORTLAND (CN) - A Kaiser surgeon, or a surgical resident practicing under a surgeon, bungled Vicki Lopez-Lunn's colostomy closure, puncturing her vagina with one or more staples and causing an abnormal opening between her colon and vagina, Lopez-Lunn claims in a malpractice lawsuit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court. "As a result, Ms. Lopez-Lunn began passing stool through her vagina," according to the complaint.
James W. Dennis, M.D. and Emily Bubbers, M.D. are named as defendants.
"Vicki Lopez-Lunn was never informed of the increased risks associated with having a resident surgeon, [such as] Emily Bubbers, M.D. perform surgical procedures like the one performed on plaintiff," the complaint states. "Had Dr. Dennis and /or Dr. Bubbers informed Ms. Lopez-Lunn of the risks associated with this surgery, Ms. Lopez-Lunn would have elected not to proceed with the surgery."
"Defendant Dennis and/or Bubbers knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that puncturing Ms. Lopez-Lunn's vaginal cuff with surgical staples would cause injury to Ms. Lopez-Lunn," the complaint asserts.
The plaintiff is seeking $1.7 million in damages and is represented by Clayton Morrison of Beaverton, Ore.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Kaiser: Guts Pulled Out through Cervix, Woman Claims
Kaiser: Guts Pulled Out Cervix, Woman Claims
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
April 04, 2013
LOS ANGELES (CN) - During uterine surgery, a Kaiser surgeon perforated a woman's uterus and pulled part of her small intestine out through her cervix before realizing what it was, the woman claims in court.
According to the complaint, Dorothy Ho had uterine surgery performed by a Dr. Murray because of postmenopausal bleeding. "During the operation, as was later discovered, defendant Murray apparently, in attempts to remove a polyp during the course of the medical surgery, noted a protrusion of tan colored tissue, which defendant Murray then attempted to remove from plaintiff's cervix. As defendant Murray continued to pull on the tissue, it continued to elongate and when the tissue was sufficiently removed from the vaginal area, it was discovered that the tissue was not of gynecologic origin. Upon further consultation and confirmation with other medical staff, it was determined that defendant had perforated plaintiff's uterus and instead caused a small bowel injury to plaintiff's bowel due to a tear in her bowels caused by said surgery," according to the complaint.
"In this, defendant Murray failed in defendant's position as a trusted surgeon to perform the surgery with the level of skill, knowledge, and care that other reasonably careful surgeons would use in similar circumstances when confronted with a tissue of unknown origin attached to and protruding from an abnormal growth," the complaint states.
Next, defendant Murray, "immediately performed" a procedure, "during which a large portion, i.e. approximately 40 cm, of plaintiff's small bowel had to be removed," according to the complaint.
"After the operation, defendant Murray informed plaintiff Ho that despite the complication during the procedure, i.e. perforation and small bowel tear, that plaintiff would make a full recovery and would suffer no further, significant effects from the medical complications from the procedure," the complaint says. However, Dorothy Ho remained hospitalized for nine days, during which she "suffered from vomiting, abdominal cramping, bloating, and pain, which she was advised were normal complaints arising from such surgery," according to the complaint.
Dorothy Ho did not learn the full extent of her injuries for four months, during which time she continued to have abdominal pain and needed to take a leave of absence from her job as a Kaiser pharmacist, the complaint says.
Having lost 40 centimeters (about 15.6 inches) of her small bowel, Dorothy Ho's medical problems continue, including "inability to eat much, inability to eat greasy foods, inability to undertake hikes, [and] travel abroad," and "major depressive and anxiety disorders," requiring prescriptions for Xanax, Cymbalta and Ativan, according to the complaint.
Plaintiff is represented by David Lin of Pasadena.
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
April 04, 2013
LOS ANGELES (CN) - During uterine surgery, a Kaiser surgeon perforated a woman's uterus and pulled part of her small intestine out through her cervix before realizing what it was, the woman claims in court.
According to the complaint, Dorothy Ho had uterine surgery performed by a Dr. Murray because of postmenopausal bleeding. "During the operation, as was later discovered, defendant Murray apparently, in attempts to remove a polyp during the course of the medical surgery, noted a protrusion of tan colored tissue, which defendant Murray then attempted to remove from plaintiff's cervix. As defendant Murray continued to pull on the tissue, it continued to elongate and when the tissue was sufficiently removed from the vaginal area, it was discovered that the tissue was not of gynecologic origin. Upon further consultation and confirmation with other medical staff, it was determined that defendant had perforated plaintiff's uterus and instead caused a small bowel injury to plaintiff's bowel due to a tear in her bowels caused by said surgery," according to the complaint.
"In this, defendant Murray failed in defendant's position as a trusted surgeon to perform the surgery with the level of skill, knowledge, and care that other reasonably careful surgeons would use in similar circumstances when confronted with a tissue of unknown origin attached to and protruding from an abnormal growth," the complaint states.
Next, defendant Murray, "immediately performed" a procedure, "during which a large portion, i.e. approximately 40 cm, of plaintiff's small bowel had to be removed," according to the complaint.
"After the operation, defendant Murray informed plaintiff Ho that despite the complication during the procedure, i.e. perforation and small bowel tear, that plaintiff would make a full recovery and would suffer no further, significant effects from the medical complications from the procedure," the complaint says. However, Dorothy Ho remained hospitalized for nine days, during which she "suffered from vomiting, abdominal cramping, bloating, and pain, which she was advised were normal complaints arising from such surgery," according to the complaint.
Dorothy Ho did not learn the full extent of her injuries for four months, during which time she continued to have abdominal pain and needed to take a leave of absence from her job as a Kaiser pharmacist, the complaint says.
Having lost 40 centimeters (about 15.6 inches) of her small bowel, Dorothy Ho's medical problems continue, including "inability to eat much, inability to eat greasy foods, inability to undertake hikes, [and] travel abroad," and "major depressive and anxiety disorders," requiring prescriptions for Xanax, Cymbalta and Ativan, according to the complaint.
Plaintiff is represented by David Lin of Pasadena.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Was Kaiser Permanente correct, or simply trying to save money, when it said Castleman's patient was "hopeless"?
One of Kaiser Permanente's tricks is to avoid testing patients, or to avoid releasing test results, so Kaiser won't have to pay for treatment.
I agree with Plaintiff's claim in the story below that "...a deliberate strategy and business practice on the part of defendants to systematically deny medically necessary care that Kaiser is unable to provide itself...Based on a consistent pattern and practice, defendants routinely deny medically necessary treatment requested by members' medical professionals on invalid and unjustified and unjustifiable grounds for the sole purpose of saving money and, ultimately, cause the premature death of members, thus relieving defendants of the continuing financial obligation to provide care and treatment to desperately ill people."
It will be interesting to find out exactly how Kaiser handled the following case. It is true that some cases are hopeless. But Kaiser's strategies intentionally make it difficult, if not impossible, to know the truth about a patient's condition.
Here's an update on this case.
Man Says Kaiser Business Model Includes Death
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News Service
March 14, 2013
LOS ANGELES (CN) - Kaiser Foundation Health Plan refuses to pay for care necessary to save a man's life, he claims in court.
Jalal Afshar, 58, suffers from Castleman's disease, a rare condition known as lymphoproliferative disorder. The disease is not cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, but often leads to lymphoma and is treated with chemotherapy or radiation. He also suffers from a rare blood disorder that appears along with Castleman's disease, called POEMS syndrome.
Diagnosed in 2005, Afshar says he developed a growth in his abdomen in January 2012 and sought advice from his Kaiser oncologist, Dr. Iman Abdalla, who told him, "I don't know what to do with you," and that she had "run out of ideas and options" for his treatment, the complaint says.
She attributed his difficulty in breathing, edema in his limbs and stomach, and the growth in his abdomen to "middle-age fat" and a "sedentary lifestyle."
He then sought out a second opinion, ultimately traveling to Arkansas where he was seen by Dr. Frits van Rhee at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. Afshar began receiving chemotherapy on the advice of Dr. van Rhee who also planned to have stem cells collected for a future stem cell transplant. Kaiser, however, denied any coverage of the treatments, claiming Afshar could get the same treatments under the Kaiser plan.
Afshar twice appealed the decision over the phone because Dr. Abdalla had "already admitted that she did not know how to treat him, and given that all of the past treatment Kaiser had offered had been ineffective." Kaiser refused, causing Afshar to return to Los Angeles where doctors administered a 12-hour course of chemotherapy using a combination of drugs that were not the same as the ones used by Dr. van Rhee, according to the complaint.
By June 8, 2012 Afshar's legs were significantly swollen and his breathing had become more labored and difficult, according to the complaint. He developed a fever and his blood pressure dropped, leading to his admittance to the intensive care unit.
On June 13, Afshar's wife Maryam was told by doctors that his condition was "without hope" and that "there was nothing else they could do," according to the complaint.
A chaplain and a palliative care representative then visited Afshar in his room and told him they believed his case was hopeless, according to the complaint.
Afshar, however, refused to accept defeat, returning to Arkansas where he once again began receiving care from Dr. van Rhee. He has since amassed over $1.8 million in medical bills, which Kaiser refuses to pay.
Afshar has been under Dr. van Rhee's care since June 17, 2012.
"This action arises out of a deliberate strategy and business practice on the part of defendants to systematically deny medically necessary care that Kaiser is unable to provide itself," the complaint states. "Based on a consistent pattern and practice, defendants routinely deny medically necessary treatment requested by members' medical professionals on invalid and unjustified and unjustifiable grounds for the sole purpose of saving money and, ultimately, cause the premature death of members, thus relieving defendants of the continuing financial obligation to provide care and treatment to desperately ill people."
Afshar is suing for breach of contract, violations of California's Business and Professions Code and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Scott C. Glovsky and Danae A. McElroy, of Pasadena, represent the plaintiff.
I agree with Plaintiff's claim in the story below that "...a deliberate strategy and business practice on the part of defendants to systematically deny medically necessary care that Kaiser is unable to provide itself...Based on a consistent pattern and practice, defendants routinely deny medically necessary treatment requested by members' medical professionals on invalid and unjustified and unjustifiable grounds for the sole purpose of saving money and, ultimately, cause the premature death of members, thus relieving defendants of the continuing financial obligation to provide care and treatment to desperately ill people."
It will be interesting to find out exactly how Kaiser handled the following case. It is true that some cases are hopeless. But Kaiser's strategies intentionally make it difficult, if not impossible, to know the truth about a patient's condition.
Here's an update on this case.
Man Says Kaiser Business Model Includes Death
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News Service
March 14, 2013
LOS ANGELES (CN) - Kaiser Foundation Health Plan refuses to pay for care necessary to save a man's life, he claims in court.
Jalal Afshar, 58, suffers from Castleman's disease, a rare condition known as lymphoproliferative disorder. The disease is not cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, but often leads to lymphoma and is treated with chemotherapy or radiation. He also suffers from a rare blood disorder that appears along with Castleman's disease, called POEMS syndrome.
Diagnosed in 2005, Afshar says he developed a growth in his abdomen in January 2012 and sought advice from his Kaiser oncologist, Dr. Iman Abdalla, who told him, "I don't know what to do with you," and that she had "run out of ideas and options" for his treatment, the complaint says.
She attributed his difficulty in breathing, edema in his limbs and stomach, and the growth in his abdomen to "middle-age fat" and a "sedentary lifestyle."
He then sought out a second opinion, ultimately traveling to Arkansas where he was seen by Dr. Frits van Rhee at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. Afshar began receiving chemotherapy on the advice of Dr. van Rhee who also planned to have stem cells collected for a future stem cell transplant. Kaiser, however, denied any coverage of the treatments, claiming Afshar could get the same treatments under the Kaiser plan.
Afshar twice appealed the decision over the phone because Dr. Abdalla had "already admitted that she did not know how to treat him, and given that all of the past treatment Kaiser had offered had been ineffective." Kaiser refused, causing Afshar to return to Los Angeles where doctors administered a 12-hour course of chemotherapy using a combination of drugs that were not the same as the ones used by Dr. van Rhee, according to the complaint.
By June 8, 2012 Afshar's legs were significantly swollen and his breathing had become more labored and difficult, according to the complaint. He developed a fever and his blood pressure dropped, leading to his admittance to the intensive care unit.
On June 13, Afshar's wife Maryam was told by doctors that his condition was "without hope" and that "there was nothing else they could do," according to the complaint.
A chaplain and a palliative care representative then visited Afshar in his room and told him they believed his case was hopeless, according to the complaint.
Afshar, however, refused to accept defeat, returning to Arkansas where he once again began receiving care from Dr. van Rhee. He has since amassed over $1.8 million in medical bills, which Kaiser refuses to pay.
Afshar has been under Dr. van Rhee's care since June 17, 2012.
"This action arises out of a deliberate strategy and business practice on the part of defendants to systematically deny medically necessary care that Kaiser is unable to provide itself," the complaint states. "Based on a consistent pattern and practice, defendants routinely deny medically necessary treatment requested by members' medical professionals on invalid and unjustified and unjustifiable grounds for the sole purpose of saving money and, ultimately, cause the premature death of members, thus relieving defendants of the continuing financial obligation to provide care and treatment to desperately ill people."
Afshar is suing for breach of contract, violations of California's Business and Professions Code and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Scott C. Glovsky and Danae A. McElroy, of Pasadena, represent the plaintiff.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan fails to pay medical bills, yet Kaiser's Rawlings Group goes after patient's settlement with restaurant where he was shot
The Rawlings Group corporate headquarters. The Rawlings Group does collections for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan.
"Defendants' conduct is particularly reprehensible because it was part of a repeated corporate practice and not an isolated occurrence."
See also, "The Rawlings Group plunders its own employees as it plunders Kaiser Permanente Patients"
Click on title of article to see Courthouse News story with link to case documents.
Kaiser Stiffs Hospital, Milks Man for $, He Says
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News
March 5, 2013
LOS ANGELES (CN) - Kaiser Permanente Health Plan failed to pay a man's medical expenses, and then attempted to get its hands on his settlement money, he claims in California Superior Court.
Jesse Cox was shot by a stray bullet while waiting in line at a restaurant drive-thru, leading to a five-day stay at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills and a $300,000 medical bill that should have been paid by Kaiser, Cox says in his complaint.
Cox subsequently won a $300,000 settlement with the restaurant for failure to provide adequate safety measures for patrons, but alleges that Kaiser is illegally trying to get a big chunk of the dough.
"Not until the end of underlying litigation did defendant Kaiser, by and through its agent and joint venturer, defendant Rawlings, deceptively and unfairly claim a lien and subrogation rights to the proceeds of any settlement in the underlying personal injury action," the complaint states.
The Rawlings Group specializes in healthcare subrogation, or "recovery," services. Cox says Kaiser is using the company to obtain a portion of his settlement.
"Defendant Kaiser, by and through defendant Rawlings, has repeatedly asserted that they are entitled to $100,000 from the settlement proceeds, wholly ignoring the required reduction for costs and attorney fees, despite this being brought to their attention on multiple occasions," the complaint states.
Cox adds that Rawlings "has several times intentionally misled plaintiff's counsel into believing that they were in contact with defendant Kaiser on a regular basis and that their counsel was licensed in California," and that both Kaiser and Rawlings "knew that there was no basis for the claims they were asserting and have utterly failed to provide evidence pursuant to California Civil Code, that defendant Kaiser's lien claim is based upon the reasonable costs of medical services which were [not?] actually paid by any of the defendants herein."
Cox says he has received no proof that Kaiser has paid any of the bill. Under California law, "no lien asserted by a medical group, such as defendant Kaiser, may exceed the sum of the reasonable costs actually paid by the medical group," the complaint says.
Cox says "defendants refused to provide proof of payment actually made because in fact no payment for services was made by any of the defendants herein to any of plaintiff's underlying healthcare providers."
Cox is suing for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealings, fraud and for violation of California's Business & Professions Code. He seeks consequential, general, special, punitive and exemplary damages.
Philip J. Layfield and Jamie L. Keeton of El Segundo represent the plaintiff.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage forcibly enrolled retired federal employee who had enrolled in Nationwide
Yikes! I guess I should count my blessings that I was able to escape from Kaiser.
Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage Ripoff Report
Reported By: Barbara
Monrovia, California
February 24, 2013
Kaiser Permanente
PO Box 232400 San Diego, California 92193
Phone: 1-800-443-0815
After canceling service 12/31/2012 and arranging replacement coverage through the Office of Personnel Management as a Retired Federal Employee, Kaiser without my knowledge, request or consent enrolled me in San Diego, California.
Due to change in living situations, I was forced to cancel my Kaiser Permanente coverage aften 46+ years. I am a Federal Retiree and during the Open Season with the help of my Congresswoman's office I chose a Nationwide company and did everything necessary including closing visits with my doctors. I used the new coverage in January while I was in New York without a problem. When I came home to Southern CA late in January I found mail from Kaiser telling me that I had been approved by Medicare to have their coverage as of 2/1/2013. I checked with OPM in DC and they said to ignore it that my proper coverage was in place. I destroyed the new Kaiser Cards (3 in separate mailings) and went on with my plans to establish myself with the Doctor of my choice.
Now, I have seen the new doctor and she prepared new prescriptions (as mine were running out) and ordered lab work. I am almost 70 years old and have several serious chronic conditions which require ongoing consistent medications.
When I heard from a provider that I could not get services because Medicare is not my primary coverage I inquired further and found that Kaiser had enrolled me without any request or permission and that I could not get anything without going through them.
Here's the catch, when I had called Kaiser to have them remove their name from my record I was told that I had to request it in writing with a signature and that since it is not open season they might not recognize or honor my cancellation. I told them that I had not authorized the coverage and I was not going to sign anything that could imply that I had.
After several long calls to Medicare and Kaiser (threatening them with an official Complaint) they acknowledged that they had enrolled me in their Individual Senior Advantage Program as of 1/18/2013 because they had checked and saw that I was eligible for Medicare (so what!). After putting me on hold for a long time for them to speak to a supervisor the lady came back and told me that they were attempting to assure that I would not have a break in coverage (bull ...).
I did as Medicare Operator instructor and called them back with the information and an Escallated Complaint has been sent "up the chain". Problem is that I am getting more ill and cannot get assistance unless I go to Kaiser and if I do, that will acknowledge that I accept what they have done and I will legally becomme financially obligated to them for the rest of the year. I live on two coasts and they are not available in NY and have limited Out of Area allowances.
So, here I sit having my drug coverage (for which I have paid) not being honored and scared to death that I cannot get this straightened out before I become critically ill. Do they think because I am old, I am stupid? God only knows how many retired federal (and others) employees find themselves in this same mess. After supposedly taking care of me for over 46 years they are ready to cause me illness and possible death if I do not come back to them...
Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage Ripoff Report
Reported By: Barbara
Monrovia, California
February 24, 2013
Kaiser Permanente
PO Box 232400 San Diego, California 92193
Phone: 1-800-443-0815
After canceling service 12/31/2012 and arranging replacement coverage through the Office of Personnel Management as a Retired Federal Employee, Kaiser without my knowledge, request or consent enrolled me in San Diego, California.
Due to change in living situations, I was forced to cancel my Kaiser Permanente coverage aften 46+ years. I am a Federal Retiree and during the Open Season with the help of my Congresswoman's office I chose a Nationwide company and did everything necessary including closing visits with my doctors. I used the new coverage in January while I was in New York without a problem. When I came home to Southern CA late in January I found mail from Kaiser telling me that I had been approved by Medicare to have their coverage as of 2/1/2013. I checked with OPM in DC and they said to ignore it that my proper coverage was in place. I destroyed the new Kaiser Cards (3 in separate mailings) and went on with my plans to establish myself with the Doctor of my choice.
Now, I have seen the new doctor and she prepared new prescriptions (as mine were running out) and ordered lab work. I am almost 70 years old and have several serious chronic conditions which require ongoing consistent medications.
When I heard from a provider that I could not get services because Medicare is not my primary coverage I inquired further and found that Kaiser had enrolled me without any request or permission and that I could not get anything without going through them.
Here's the catch, when I had called Kaiser to have them remove their name from my record I was told that I had to request it in writing with a signature and that since it is not open season they might not recognize or honor my cancellation. I told them that I had not authorized the coverage and I was not going to sign anything that could imply that I had.
After several long calls to Medicare and Kaiser (threatening them with an official Complaint) they acknowledged that they had enrolled me in their Individual Senior Advantage Program as of 1/18/2013 because they had checked and saw that I was eligible for Medicare (so what!). After putting me on hold for a long time for them to speak to a supervisor the lady came back and told me that they were attempting to assure that I would not have a break in coverage (bull ...).
I did as Medicare Operator instructor and called them back with the information and an Escallated Complaint has been sent "up the chain". Problem is that I am getting more ill and cannot get assistance unless I go to Kaiser and if I do, that will acknowledge that I accept what they have done and I will legally becomme financially obligated to them for the rest of the year. I live on two coasts and they are not available in NY and have limited Out of Area allowances.
So, here I sit having my drug coverage (for which I have paid) not being honored and scared to death that I cannot get this straightened out before I become critically ill. Do they think because I am old, I am stupid? God only knows how many retired federal (and others) employees find themselves in this same mess. After supposedly taking care of me for over 46 years they are ready to cause me illness and possible death if I do not come back to them...
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Patient who commented on Internet wins in Minnesota Supreme Court against doctor who sued him for defamation
Mr. Laurion wins, Dr. McKee loses.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Laurion that patients have a right to report on the Internet their observations regarding the behavior of doctors. Patients also have the right to report their opinions to medical groups. I don't know what country Dr. McKee thought he was living in. I believe Dr. McKee proved that he has a bad attitude by hounding Mr. Laurion.
See post: Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
See Doctors Silencing Patients on Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Read the decision HERE.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Laurion that patients have a right to report on the Internet their observations regarding the behavior of doctors. Patients also have the right to report their opinions to medical groups. I don't know what country Dr. McKee thought he was living in. I believe Dr. McKee proved that he has a bad attitude by hounding Mr. Laurion.
See post: Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
See Doctors Silencing Patients on Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Read the decision HERE.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Kaiser Bungles X-Ray, Girl Suffers, Dad Says
The handling of this X-ray was accidentally bungled; Kaiser also intentionally mishandles X-rays to save money.
January 22, 2013
Kaiser Bungles X-Ray, Girl Suffers, Dad Says
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News
IRVINE, Calif. (CN) - Kaiser's delivery of an X-ray to the wrong doctor resulted in major surgery and a permanent scar for a 14-year-old girl, her father claims in Orange County Court.
Nicole Ley, now 16, had taken two bites of a barbecued hamburger during a family dinner on Jan. 10, 2010, when she felt something lodge in her throat. Attempts were made to clear the unknown object out, but parents Marc and Tina could not see anything. Nicole then began having a hard time breathing and complained of persistent pain. Marc and Tina are insured by Anthem Blue Cross, but rushed their daughter to a Kaiser Permanente hospital because it was the closest to their home.
An x-ray was taken of her throat, but Dr. Nak B. Chhiv said he did not see any foreign objects and that Nicole probably scratched her esophagus while eating the hamburger. He added she would need to "tough it out."
Nicole was cleared to go home and Chhiv told the family the radiologist would look at the x-ray to confirm his findings. They were told the radiologist would call the next day if there were any unforeseen problems.
Four days later, Nicole was still experiencing significant pain. On Jan. 15, 2010, she woke up with a 101.6 degree fever, prompting her mother to take her to the pediatrician. Dr. Michael B. Nestor, a Kaiser emergency room doctor on duty the night Nicole showed up, called while they were en route, explaining that the x-ray was mistakenly put in his in-box. He said he had passed Nicole off to Dr. Chhiv during a shift change and that the x-ray should not have been put in his in-box since he was leaving for vacation. He did not see it until four days later, when he returned.
He then informed Tina he had discovered a foreign object in her daughter's throat and she needed to get her to a hospital. Tina and Nicole raced to Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach, where a CT scan revealed the foreign body was lodged dangerously close to her carotid artery. Nicole was transported to Childrens Hospital of Orange County where she stayed for seven days. On Jan. 19, 2010, cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Brian Palafox, performed surgery to remove a metallic bristle that had migrated, penetrated through the esophagus and abutted against the carotid artery.
"If proper interpretation of abnormal x-ray findings had been communicated at an earlier date, the metallic foreign body would not have moved/migrated approximately 1 cm abutting carotid artery," the complaint states. "Nicole Ley has suffered very significant physical and emotional injuries. She has suffered with significant depression, nightmares, difficulty concentrating and became withdrawn and introverted."
She was consequently diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and has been receiving treatment from a psychotherapist, according to the complaint.
"Her school work suffered and she later switched schools," the complaint states. "She has felt very self-conscious about the scar on her neck and consulted with a plastic surgeon about scar revision."
Plaintiff is suing for negligence and is seeking general, incidental and consequential damages, in addition to medical and related expenses, and loss of earnings and earning capacity.
Ronald E. Harrington of Irvine represents Ley.
January 22, 2013
Kaiser Bungles X-Ray, Girl Suffers, Dad Says
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News
IRVINE, Calif. (CN) - Kaiser's delivery of an X-ray to the wrong doctor resulted in major surgery and a permanent scar for a 14-year-old girl, her father claims in Orange County Court.
Nicole Ley, now 16, had taken two bites of a barbecued hamburger during a family dinner on Jan. 10, 2010, when she felt something lodge in her throat. Attempts were made to clear the unknown object out, but parents Marc and Tina could not see anything. Nicole then began having a hard time breathing and complained of persistent pain. Marc and Tina are insured by Anthem Blue Cross, but rushed their daughter to a Kaiser Permanente hospital because it was the closest to their home.
An x-ray was taken of her throat, but Dr. Nak B. Chhiv said he did not see any foreign objects and that Nicole probably scratched her esophagus while eating the hamburger. He added she would need to "tough it out."
Nicole was cleared to go home and Chhiv told the family the radiologist would look at the x-ray to confirm his findings. They were told the radiologist would call the next day if there were any unforeseen problems.
Four days later, Nicole was still experiencing significant pain. On Jan. 15, 2010, she woke up with a 101.6 degree fever, prompting her mother to take her to the pediatrician. Dr. Michael B. Nestor, a Kaiser emergency room doctor on duty the night Nicole showed up, called while they were en route, explaining that the x-ray was mistakenly put in his in-box. He said he had passed Nicole off to Dr. Chhiv during a shift change and that the x-ray should not have been put in his in-box since he was leaving for vacation. He did not see it until four days later, when he returned.
He then informed Tina he had discovered a foreign object in her daughter's throat and she needed to get her to a hospital. Tina and Nicole raced to Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach, where a CT scan revealed the foreign body was lodged dangerously close to her carotid artery. Nicole was transported to Childrens Hospital of Orange County where she stayed for seven days. On Jan. 19, 2010, cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Brian Palafox, performed surgery to remove a metallic bristle that had migrated, penetrated through the esophagus and abutted against the carotid artery.
"If proper interpretation of abnormal x-ray findings had been communicated at an earlier date, the metallic foreign body would not have moved/migrated approximately 1 cm abutting carotid artery," the complaint states. "Nicole Ley has suffered very significant physical and emotional injuries. She has suffered with significant depression, nightmares, difficulty concentrating and became withdrawn and introverted."
She was consequently diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and has been receiving treatment from a psychotherapist, according to the complaint.
"Her school work suffered and she later switched schools," the complaint states. "She has felt very self-conscious about the scar on her neck and consulted with a plastic surgeon about scar revision."
Plaintiff is suing for negligence and is seeking general, incidental and consequential damages, in addition to medical and related expenses, and loss of earnings and earning capacity.
Ronald E. Harrington of Irvine represents Ley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)