Kaiser Settles Fired Social Worker's Lawsuit
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
March 19, 2014
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A social worker who claimed that Kaiser fired her for reporting a death threat has settled her civil suit, a federal judge's ruling shows.
Robin Love, a licensed clinical social worker and certified alcohol and drug counselor, sued the Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The November 2012 complaint alleged that a fellow therapist had warned Love that one of her patients had said he wanted "to murder Robin Love."
"For many months, Ms. Love requested that defendants obtain a restraining order on her behalf to protect her from the threatening patient," the complaint stated.
"Defendants failed to protect Ms. Love. When Ms. Love complained to several of Kaiser's managers about the ongoing violations of workplace safety and Kaiser's failure to protect her, defendants retaliated against Ms. Love by bringing false disciplinary charges against her, subjecting her to unlawful corrective action, and then terminating her employment."
U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed Love's whistle-blower and contract claims this past December but left intact her claims for discrimination, wrongful termination, emotional distress and other issues.
On Friday, he dismissed the case with prejudice, noting that the parties had announced a settlement after a conference with U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte.
The matter shall be restored to the calendar, however, if either party certifies within 60 days that the settlement did not occur.
Details of the settlement are unavailable. Love's attorney Jenny Huang declined to comment on the dismissal. A Kaiser spokesman noted that the voluntary settlement did not include "any admission of any wrongdoing by any of the defendants."
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Olive View-UCLA Medical Center settles in patient dumping case
Don't let this story worry you too much. These people were unworthy of blue-dot-level medical care. You're much more worthy of care in the eyes of UCLA. You'll get at least purple-dot treatment. Unless, perhaps, your health problem itself is a red-dot problem. (In case you missed it: irony alert!)
SYLMAR>> Olive View-UCLA Medical Center has agreed to pay $40,750 to settle a patient dumping case involving a man who waited in the hospital’s emergency department for more than six hours and never received care for his pain and acute appendicitis, federal officials announced Thursday.
The settlement was made between Olive View and the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services based on a case in 2011. Federal officials said the Sylmar facility violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act by “failing to provide an individual with an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department in order to determine whether he had an emergency medical condition.”
According to the complaint, a man complaining of abdominal pain waited in Olive View’s emergency department for more than six hours where he received no care. He left and received medical treatment at another hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute appendicitis among other medical issues and underwent an immediate laparoscopic appendectomy.
Olive View has since made several corrections, Olive View spokeswoman Azar Kattan said. Those include additional physicians assigned to provide rapid medical screening to patients given a triage score of at least 3. On the 1-5 scale, a triage score of 1 is most urgent, Kattan said.
She also said the computer system was modified to provide real-time alerts to the nursing staff among other actions.
“These corrective actions were accepted by the regulatory agencies involved at the time of the original citation in 2011,” Kattan said in a written statement. “We believe they have corrected the problems identified and ensure the timely assessment and treatment of patients seeking care in our emergency room.”
SYLMAR>> Olive View-UCLA Medical Center has agreed to pay $40,750 to settle a patient dumping case involving a man who waited in the hospital’s emergency department for more than six hours and never received care for his pain and acute appendicitis, federal officials announced Thursday.
The settlement was made between Olive View and the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services based on a case in 2011. Federal officials said the Sylmar facility violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act by “failing to provide an individual with an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department in order to determine whether he had an emergency medical condition.”
According to the complaint, a man complaining of abdominal pain waited in Olive View’s emergency department for more than six hours where he received no care. He left and received medical treatment at another hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute appendicitis among other medical issues and underwent an immediate laparoscopic appendectomy.
Olive View has since made several corrections, Olive View spokeswoman Azar Kattan said. Those include additional physicians assigned to provide rapid medical screening to patients given a triage score of at least 3. On the 1-5 scale, a triage score of 1 is most urgent, Kattan said.
She also said the computer system was modified to provide real-time alerts to the nursing staff among other actions.
“These corrective actions were accepted by the regulatory agencies involved at the time of the original citation in 2011,” Kattan said in a written statement. “We believe they have corrected the problems identified and ensure the timely assessment and treatment of patients seeking care in our emergency room.”
Thursday, January 30, 2014
MICRA-Protecting against frivolous lawsuits, or re-victimizing the victim
I have limited familiarity with the people who urge contempt for victims of medical malpractice. One such person is Leslie Devaney, a sometime board member of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Such organizations support MICRA's severe award limits for medical malpractice.
Ironically, Leslie Devaney wants to prevent public hospitals from giving reasonable compensation to damaged patients, she and her partner Ray Artiano forced Tri-City Hospital to give millions of public money to fired administrators (with a large chunk going to Ms. Devaney and Mr. Artiano, of course.)
So it doesn't seem that CALA membership means a person wants to protect the taxpayer. Apparently, they just want to make sure the public is NOT protected from negligent doctors and other harmful individuals.
Michelle Massey, mother of baby
who died from undiagnosed bacterial infection
MICRA-Protecting against frivolous lawsuits, or re-victimizing the victim
Ica Iova
Examiner.com
May 7, 2013
Many states including California, have adopted tort reform measures since the mid 1970’s in response to acute increases in medical malpractice insurance costs. They imposed caps on victim's compensation for noneconomic damages. California also placed limits on attorney contingency fees.
Tort reform in California [MICRA] primarily focused on capping victim compensation for noneconomic damages, also known as "pain and suffering" awards.
The law limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits to $ 250,000, and additionally limits the amount attorneys in medical malpractice cases can collect under a contingency fee arrangement to 40% of the first $ 50,000, 331/3% of the next $ 50,000, 25% of the next $ 500,000, and 15% of any amount that exceeds $ 600,000.
These limits apply regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment. If the contingency fee arrangement is based on an award of periodic payments, the court must place a total value on the payments based on the projected life expectancy of the claimant, and then calculate the contingency fee percentage.
What does all this mean for you and your family? It means that in case that you, or one of your loved ones, have suffered following an episode of medical malpractice, you’ll not be able to sue anyone, unless you can represent yourself because most likely you’ll not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case.
In other words, you are victimized twice; once by a medical professional, and then, by a system which protects the perpetrator.
I have recently interviewed one such victim; Michelle Massey’s 7-year-daughter-Jessie Marie Geyer-died in November of 2003, due to a misdiagnosed bacterial infection that could have been treated with antibiotics.
When Jessie’s parents tried to bring to justice the doctors and the hospital responsible for Jessie’s death, they found themselves obstructed by MICRA.
Jeffrey Mitchell-Michelle Massey’s lawyer-said that taking cases like this every day, could lead to economic suicide, and not very many lawyers are willing to take that chance.
It's said that MICRA is protecting doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits.
“I was so brain washed about frivolous lawsuits. When Jessie was killed I was devastated. Then I discovered what frivolous means according to MICRA. That my sweet 7-year-old daughter had no value because she was not a wage earner. Jessie's death was ‘frivolous’. I wonder if that is what you thought frivolous meant. If it were your child, or your mother, father, grandpa, brother, sister, that lost their life because of a preventable medical error, would their death be frivolous?” Michelle said.
She said that on average, 500 people die every day in this country due to medical negligence, and are denied the right to a fair trial.
The Geyers tried to fight the system, and after 3 and 1/2 years, the cap amount was spent, and they no longer had the funds to continue to fight.
To Michelle, the death of her daughter is as vivid as always.
“I remember staring at Jessie's face, tears streaming down my checks, after they said time 1:21AM, how it just lingered in my ear what seemed like for me the final word to be said. Jessie was actually dead. Then I looked at her whole face and traced her lips and mouth and eyelids.”
Michelle remembers as she was taking the gold studs from Jessie’s ears and putting them in her own ears-where they still are today-the memory of the day Jessie got her ears pierced overwhelmed her; a 6-month-old chubby Jessie, with rolls of baby-fat folding over, hit Michelle like an avalanche, realizing that she will never see her daughter growing up, going to college, or getting married.
Since her daughter’s death, Michelle, has fought tirelessly to educate the public about how MICRA needed to be changed. In 2005, she received the Consumer Advocate of the Year’s award.
She continues to be a voice, advocating to make Jessie's Law, the law of the land, and restore what she calls Medical Malpractice Victims’ Constitutional Rights.
“My ultimate goal is to reform and/or overturn MICRA in Jessie's name. We need to make this a national law, so the states can stop fighting about this ongoing issue that is just getting worse with still not one thing changed in since MICRA was put in place.” She said.
Michelle Massey wants you to join her, in her fight for justice. More information about Michelle Massey and her work can be found on her website http://www.shellybeenz.com...
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) of 1975 was a statute enacted by the California Legislature in August 1975 (and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September) which was intended to lower medical malpractice liability insurance premiums for healthcare providers in that state by decreasing their potential tort liability. MICRA's stated justification, in turn, was to keep healthcare providers as a whole financially solvent, thus lowering the cost of healthcare services and increasing their availability. MICRA's constitutionality was repeatedly challenged during the 1970s and 1980s, but most of it was eventually upheld as constitutional under rational basis review by the Supreme Court of California or the California Courts of Appeal. Almost all of MICRA is still in effect and still part of California law.
Provisions
MICRA consists of the following parts:
Damage cap - non-economic damages are limited to $250,000. Non-economic damages include claims for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, both of which permit the financial recovery for losing limbs, losing sight or hearing, the ability to walk, and all other losses that do not directly relate to economic losses.
Attorney's fee cap - attorney fees that are taken from the amount of the settlement are limited.
Time limits - shortened statute of limitations for actions against healthcare providers.
Binding arbitration.
Periodic payments - doctors are allowed to pay the award over time.
These are codified at a number of different locations in the California Codes: Business & Professions Code Section 6146, Civil Code Sections 3333.1 and 3333.2, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 667.7.
Results
A RAND report estimates that defendants' liabilities were reduced by 30% as a result of MICRA.[1] Between 1985 and 1988, malpractice premiums rose 47 percent.[2] After 1988, the insurance premiums in California experienced a decrease. It is contested as to whether this decrease was a result of Proposition 103. Proposition 103 enacted Section 1861.01 of the California Insurance Code, which explicitly required the rollback of insurance premiums by "at least 20%".
Influence
The perceived success of MICRA in helping California healthcare providers stay financially solvent in turn inspired similar tort reform initiatives in other states. A prominent example was Nevada's Question 3, which was enacted by the voters of that state in 2004 by a 60% majority. Like MICRA, Question 3 set a maximum schedule for attorney's fees, and capped noneconomic damages at a slightly higher number, $350,000. Question 3 was also known as the KODIN Initiative after its main sponsor, Keep Our Doctors In Nevada. KODIN promoted Question 3 by pointing to an alleged trend of Nevada doctors fleeing the state for states with lower malpractice premiums like California. To directly counter KODIN, the Nevada plaintiffs' bar put Questions 4 and 5 on the same ballot, and both 4 and 5 were defeated.
Controversy
Plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits and trial attorneys, particularly the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC),[6] have continuously fought against MICRA since its inception. Due to the $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, lawyers' fees are also restricted due to the attorney fee percentage cap.
In late 2013, Bob Pack, a former NetZero executive,[7] along with Consumer Watchdog and the Consumer Attorneys of California, launched a campaign to place the "Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act" [8] onto the November 2014 ballot. This campaign is largely funded by trial lawyers across California.[9]
One of the Pack Act's components would be to raise the MICRA cap to current inflation standards (approximately $1.1 million), with future annual adjustments. California's health and medical organizations, including the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, and community clinics and health centers,[10] quickly came out in opposition to the ballot measure.
Ironically, Leslie Devaney wants to prevent public hospitals from giving reasonable compensation to damaged patients, she and her partner Ray Artiano forced Tri-City Hospital to give millions of public money to fired administrators (with a large chunk going to Ms. Devaney and Mr. Artiano, of course.)
So it doesn't seem that CALA membership means a person wants to protect the taxpayer. Apparently, they just want to make sure the public is NOT protected from negligent doctors and other harmful individuals.
Michelle Massey, mother of baby
who died from undiagnosed bacterial infection
MICRA-Protecting against frivolous lawsuits, or re-victimizing the victim
Ica Iova
Examiner.com
May 7, 2013
Many states including California, have adopted tort reform measures since the mid 1970’s in response to acute increases in medical malpractice insurance costs. They imposed caps on victim's compensation for noneconomic damages. California also placed limits on attorney contingency fees.
Tort reform in California [MICRA] primarily focused on capping victim compensation for noneconomic damages, also known as "pain and suffering" awards.
The law limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits to $ 250,000, and additionally limits the amount attorneys in medical malpractice cases can collect under a contingency fee arrangement to 40% of the first $ 50,000, 331/3% of the next $ 50,000, 25% of the next $ 500,000, and 15% of any amount that exceeds $ 600,000.
These limits apply regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment. If the contingency fee arrangement is based on an award of periodic payments, the court must place a total value on the payments based on the projected life expectancy of the claimant, and then calculate the contingency fee percentage.
What does all this mean for you and your family? It means that in case that you, or one of your loved ones, have suffered following an episode of medical malpractice, you’ll not be able to sue anyone, unless you can represent yourself because most likely you’ll not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case.
In other words, you are victimized twice; once by a medical professional, and then, by a system which protects the perpetrator.
I have recently interviewed one such victim; Michelle Massey’s 7-year-daughter-Jessie Marie Geyer-died in November of 2003, due to a misdiagnosed bacterial infection that could have been treated with antibiotics.
When Jessie’s parents tried to bring to justice the doctors and the hospital responsible for Jessie’s death, they found themselves obstructed by MICRA.
Jeffrey Mitchell-Michelle Massey’s lawyer-said that taking cases like this every day, could lead to economic suicide, and not very many lawyers are willing to take that chance.
It's said that MICRA is protecting doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits.
“I was so brain washed about frivolous lawsuits. When Jessie was killed I was devastated. Then I discovered what frivolous means according to MICRA. That my sweet 7-year-old daughter had no value because she was not a wage earner. Jessie's death was ‘frivolous’. I wonder if that is what you thought frivolous meant. If it were your child, or your mother, father, grandpa, brother, sister, that lost their life because of a preventable medical error, would their death be frivolous?” Michelle said.
She said that on average, 500 people die every day in this country due to medical negligence, and are denied the right to a fair trial.
The Geyers tried to fight the system, and after 3 and 1/2 years, the cap amount was spent, and they no longer had the funds to continue to fight.
To Michelle, the death of her daughter is as vivid as always.
“I remember staring at Jessie's face, tears streaming down my checks, after they said time 1:21AM, how it just lingered in my ear what seemed like for me the final word to be said. Jessie was actually dead. Then I looked at her whole face and traced her lips and mouth and eyelids.”
Michelle remembers as she was taking the gold studs from Jessie’s ears and putting them in her own ears-where they still are today-the memory of the day Jessie got her ears pierced overwhelmed her; a 6-month-old chubby Jessie, with rolls of baby-fat folding over, hit Michelle like an avalanche, realizing that she will never see her daughter growing up, going to college, or getting married.
Since her daughter’s death, Michelle, has fought tirelessly to educate the public about how MICRA needed to be changed. In 2005, she received the Consumer Advocate of the Year’s award.
She continues to be a voice, advocating to make Jessie's Law, the law of the land, and restore what she calls Medical Malpractice Victims’ Constitutional Rights.
“My ultimate goal is to reform and/or overturn MICRA in Jessie's name. We need to make this a national law, so the states can stop fighting about this ongoing issue that is just getting worse with still not one thing changed in since MICRA was put in place.” She said.
Michelle Massey wants you to join her, in her fight for justice. More information about Michelle Massey and her work can be found on her website http://www.shellybeenz.com...
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) of 1975 was a statute enacted by the California Legislature in August 1975 (and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September) which was intended to lower medical malpractice liability insurance premiums for healthcare providers in that state by decreasing their potential tort liability. MICRA's stated justification, in turn, was to keep healthcare providers as a whole financially solvent, thus lowering the cost of healthcare services and increasing their availability. MICRA's constitutionality was repeatedly challenged during the 1970s and 1980s, but most of it was eventually upheld as constitutional under rational basis review by the Supreme Court of California or the California Courts of Appeal. Almost all of MICRA is still in effect and still part of California law.
Provisions
MICRA consists of the following parts:
Damage cap - non-economic damages are limited to $250,000. Non-economic damages include claims for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, both of which permit the financial recovery for losing limbs, losing sight or hearing, the ability to walk, and all other losses that do not directly relate to economic losses.
Attorney's fee cap - attorney fees that are taken from the amount of the settlement are limited.
Time limits - shortened statute of limitations for actions against healthcare providers.
Binding arbitration.
Periodic payments - doctors are allowed to pay the award over time.
These are codified at a number of different locations in the California Codes: Business & Professions Code Section 6146, Civil Code Sections 3333.1 and 3333.2, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 667.7.
Results
A RAND report estimates that defendants' liabilities were reduced by 30% as a result of MICRA.[1] Between 1985 and 1988, malpractice premiums rose 47 percent.[2] After 1988, the insurance premiums in California experienced a decrease. It is contested as to whether this decrease was a result of Proposition 103. Proposition 103 enacted Section 1861.01 of the California Insurance Code, which explicitly required the rollback of insurance premiums by "at least 20%".
Influence
The perceived success of MICRA in helping California healthcare providers stay financially solvent in turn inspired similar tort reform initiatives in other states. A prominent example was Nevada's Question 3, which was enacted by the voters of that state in 2004 by a 60% majority. Like MICRA, Question 3 set a maximum schedule for attorney's fees, and capped noneconomic damages at a slightly higher number, $350,000. Question 3 was also known as the KODIN Initiative after its main sponsor, Keep Our Doctors In Nevada. KODIN promoted Question 3 by pointing to an alleged trend of Nevada doctors fleeing the state for states with lower malpractice premiums like California. To directly counter KODIN, the Nevada plaintiffs' bar put Questions 4 and 5 on the same ballot, and both 4 and 5 were defeated.
Controversy
Plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits and trial attorneys, particularly the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC),[6] have continuously fought against MICRA since its inception. Due to the $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, lawyers' fees are also restricted due to the attorney fee percentage cap.
In late 2013, Bob Pack, a former NetZero executive,[7] along with Consumer Watchdog and the Consumer Attorneys of California, launched a campaign to place the "Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act" [8] onto the November 2014 ballot. This campaign is largely funded by trial lawyers across California.[9]
One of the Pack Act's components would be to raise the MICRA cap to current inflation standards (approximately $1.1 million), with future annual adjustments. California's health and medical organizations, including the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, and community clinics and health centers,[10] quickly came out in opposition to the ballot measure.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Novartis Accused of Paying Kickbacks to Boost Exjade Sales
Novartis Accused of Paying Kickbacks to Boost Exjade Sales
By Christie Smythe
Bloomberg Business Week
January 08, 2014
A Novartis AG (NOVN) unit was accused by the U.S. and a group of states of paying kickbacks to a specialty pharmacy to boost sales of Exjade, an iron-control drug that can cause kidney and liver failure.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan today unsealed a complaint filed against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. by the U.S., 26 states and the District of Columbia alleging that the drugmaker had paid kickbacks to BioScrip Inc. (BIOS:US) to encourage patients to refill prescriptions.
Separately, federal and state officials announced that the Elmsford, New York-based specialty pharmacy agreed to pay $15 million to resolve the claims against it.
Federal and state officials alleged that government health programs Medicare and Medicaid paid tens of millions of dollars in reimbursements based on false claims for the drug.
“This arrangement between Novartis and BioScrip was dangerous for patients and is against the law,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Our lawsuit against Novartis and our agreement with BioScrip send a clear message: Drug companies cannot pay pharmacies to promote drugs directly to patients.”
Kickbacks, Calls
According to the complaint, Novartis paid kickbacks to BioScrip from February 2007 to May 2012 in the form of patient referrals and rebates. To hold up its end of the bargain, BioScrip made tens of thousands of calls to patients to try to convince them to keep taking the drug, federal and state officials alleged.
Julie Masow, a spokeswoman for Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis, said in an e-mailed statement that the company disputes the allegations in the complaint related to its interactions with BioScrip and intends to defend itself.
The company “is dedicated to improving patient health and supports patient medication adherence programs,” including outreach by pharmacies, Masow said.
Exjade was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2005 to treat chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions, according to the complaint. In January 2010, the agency required the drug to feature a “black box” warning highlighting the potential for kidney failure, liver failure and gastrointestinal hemorrhage that in some cases were fatal, according to the complaint.
Increasing Refills
Novartis wanted to increase the refills of the drug because “its own market research had shown that a significant percentage of physicians and patients were opting to discontinue Exjade therapy” because of side effects, the officials said in the complaint.
In late February 2007, Novartis told BioScrip that because it generated lower levels of refills compared with other pharmacies, it had been placed on a “performance improvement plan,” according to the complaint.
Novartis “expects that the specialty pharmacies it works with conduct vital patient outreach in a manner wholly consistent with NPC’s commitment to patient care,” Masow said. “BioScrip reached out to patients using its own protocols to provide education, counseling and information about proper administration of the medicine and to fulfill prescriptions that have been prescribed by a patient’s treating physician.”
Officials are seeking triple damages against Novartis and civil penalties under the False Claims Act.
The case is ABC v. DEF, 1:11-cv-08196, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
By Christie Smythe
Bloomberg Business Week
January 08, 2014
A Novartis AG (NOVN) unit was accused by the U.S. and a group of states of paying kickbacks to a specialty pharmacy to boost sales of Exjade, an iron-control drug that can cause kidney and liver failure.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan today unsealed a complaint filed against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. by the U.S., 26 states and the District of Columbia alleging that the drugmaker had paid kickbacks to BioScrip Inc. (BIOS:US) to encourage patients to refill prescriptions.
Separately, federal and state officials announced that the Elmsford, New York-based specialty pharmacy agreed to pay $15 million to resolve the claims against it.
Federal and state officials alleged that government health programs Medicare and Medicaid paid tens of millions of dollars in reimbursements based on false claims for the drug.
“This arrangement between Novartis and BioScrip was dangerous for patients and is against the law,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Our lawsuit against Novartis and our agreement with BioScrip send a clear message: Drug companies cannot pay pharmacies to promote drugs directly to patients.”
Kickbacks, Calls
According to the complaint, Novartis paid kickbacks to BioScrip from February 2007 to May 2012 in the form of patient referrals and rebates. To hold up its end of the bargain, BioScrip made tens of thousands of calls to patients to try to convince them to keep taking the drug, federal and state officials alleged.
Julie Masow, a spokeswoman for Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis, said in an e-mailed statement that the company disputes the allegations in the complaint related to its interactions with BioScrip and intends to defend itself.
The company “is dedicated to improving patient health and supports patient medication adherence programs,” including outreach by pharmacies, Masow said.
Exjade was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2005 to treat chronic iron overload due to blood transfusions, according to the complaint. In January 2010, the agency required the drug to feature a “black box” warning highlighting the potential for kidney failure, liver failure and gastrointestinal hemorrhage that in some cases were fatal, according to the complaint.
Increasing Refills
Novartis wanted to increase the refills of the drug because “its own market research had shown that a significant percentage of physicians and patients were opting to discontinue Exjade therapy” because of side effects, the officials said in the complaint.
In late February 2007, Novartis told BioScrip that because it generated lower levels of refills compared with other pharmacies, it had been placed on a “performance improvement plan,” according to the complaint.
Novartis “expects that the specialty pharmacies it works with conduct vital patient outreach in a manner wholly consistent with NPC’s commitment to patient care,” Masow said. “BioScrip reached out to patients using its own protocols to provide education, counseling and information about proper administration of the medicine and to fulfill prescriptions that have been prescribed by a patient’s treating physician.”
Officials are seeking triple damages against Novartis and civil penalties under the False Claims Act.
The case is ABC v. DEF, 1:11-cv-08196, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Baby's Disability Blamed on Kaiser Negligence
Baby's Disability Blamed on Kaiser Negligence
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
January 02, 2014
(CN) - A Kaiser hospital botched the birth of a baby girl who now has Erb's palsy, her mother claims in a court.
Charnesha Cobb sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and the Permanente Medical Group Inc. in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of her now 2-year-old daughter, Joy Barnes.
Online medical resources describe Erb's palsy as a shoulder injury that can happen during a breach delivery or when the baby's neck is overstretched during a head-first delivery. The prognosis depends upon the extent of nerve damage.
Cobb blames Kaiser for Joy's injuries, saying in her complaint that the "defendants neglected to adequately select a competent medical staff and to periodically review the competency of its medical staff and failed to adequately monitor its staff."
As a result, "Joy Barnes has been diagnosed with Erb's palsy and is permanently disabled," the complaint states.
Cobb seeks economic and noneconomic damages, past and future medical expenses, loss of future earning and earning capacity, prejudgment interest, costs of suit and a jury trial. She is represented by Thomas Donahue and Rebecca Cucu of Donahue & Horrow in El Segundo, Calif.
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
January 02, 2014
(CN) - A Kaiser hospital botched the birth of a baby girl who now has Erb's palsy, her mother claims in a court.
Charnesha Cobb sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and the Permanente Medical Group Inc. in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of her now 2-year-old daughter, Joy Barnes.
Online medical resources describe Erb's palsy as a shoulder injury that can happen during a breach delivery or when the baby's neck is overstretched during a head-first delivery. The prognosis depends upon the extent of nerve damage.
Cobb blames Kaiser for Joy's injuries, saying in her complaint that the "defendants neglected to adequately select a competent medical staff and to periodically review the competency of its medical staff and failed to adequately monitor its staff."
As a result, "Joy Barnes has been diagnosed with Erb's palsy and is permanently disabled," the complaint states.
Cobb seeks economic and noneconomic damages, past and future medical expenses, loss of future earning and earning capacity, prejudgment interest, costs of suit and a jury trial. She is represented by Thomas Donahue and Rebecca Cucu of Donahue & Horrow in El Segundo, Calif.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Class Action lawsuit filed against Kaiser over mental health care wait times
Class Action lawsuit filed against Kaiser over mental health care wait times
By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen
Times-Herald
10/25/2013
A lawsuit served at Kaiser Permanente's Oakland headquarters Thursday alleges that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan facilities, including Vallejo's, routinely deny its members timely access to mental health services.
Kaiser officials call the suit a ploy in ongoing contract negotiations.
The Oakland-based law firm of Siegel LeWitter Malkani that works closely with the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) -- which represents Kaiser's mental health professionals and optical workers -- filed the suit earlier this month on behalf of "three named plaintiffs and thousands of other Kaiser members who have been harmed" by this alleged practice, attorney Jonathan Siegel said Thursday.
The union represents some 70 members at Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center. The firm has sued Kaiser before, Siegel said.
Kaiser officials called the suit the "NUHW's latest attempt to use inaccurate claims about our mental health care services to apply pressure in their protracted labor negotiations with Kaiser Permanente."
The union's actions do "nothing to further the negotiations that should be taking place at the table," they said.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaiser routinely violates state law by refusing to provide critical mental health services to its members within the time frame set by law.
"As a result, Kaiser members have been denied urgent services, forced to wait for long periods of time to receive needed services, discouraged from seeking services altogether, or compelled to incur out-of-pocket expenses for treatment outside of the Kaiser system," according to the suit.
The lead plaintiff, Point Richmond resident Susan Futterman, said her husband, Fred Paroutaud, killed himself after "desperate" requests for an urgent mental health appointment were delayed until his psychiatrist returned from vacation.
Los Angeles area plaintiff Megan Mortensen wound up seeking an urgent mental health appointment outside the system after Kaiser allegedly "refused" her request for a timely appointment after the loss of her brother. The third plaintiff, Acianita Lucero of Oakland, allegedly "made repeated requests for Kaiser to provide her with an urgent mental health appointment but Kaiser refused to see her within the 48 hours required by law," according to the suit.
The suit follows a report from earlier this year by the California Department of Managed Health Care which suggested Kaiser needed to reduce mental health appointment wait times. Kaiser was fined $ 4 million -- the second largest fine issued by the Department -- and issued a Cease and Desist Order to correct the problems, Siegel said.
Kaiser officials say the report did not fault Kaiser's mental health care quality or member's ability to obtain urgent or emergency mental health care.
"What was identified in the DMHC survey were some areas where our non-urgent appointment wait times and data tracking needed improvement," officials said. "We took the findings seriously, have submitted a corrective action plan to the DMHC, and have worked to correct the issues identified in the survey."
The class action lawsuit seeks compensatory and statutory damages for class members as well as an injunction requiring Kaiser to comply with the law, Siegel said.
"We're suing for Kaiser to clean up there act and provide mental health services to their clients that complies with the law," he said. "And we want damage compensation for the tens of thousands of Kaiser members who have been victimized by this."
By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen
Times-Herald
10/25/2013
A lawsuit served at Kaiser Permanente's Oakland headquarters Thursday alleges that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan facilities, including Vallejo's, routinely deny its members timely access to mental health services.
Kaiser officials call the suit a ploy in ongoing contract negotiations.
The Oakland-based law firm of Siegel LeWitter Malkani that works closely with the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) -- which represents Kaiser's mental health professionals and optical workers -- filed the suit earlier this month on behalf of "three named plaintiffs and thousands of other Kaiser members who have been harmed" by this alleged practice, attorney Jonathan Siegel said Thursday.
The union represents some 70 members at Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center. The firm has sued Kaiser before, Siegel said.
Kaiser officials called the suit the "NUHW's latest attempt to use inaccurate claims about our mental health care services to apply pressure in their protracted labor negotiations with Kaiser Permanente."
The union's actions do "nothing to further the negotiations that should be taking place at the table," they said.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaiser routinely violates state law by refusing to provide critical mental health services to its members within the time frame set by law.
"As a result, Kaiser members have been denied urgent services, forced to wait for long periods of time to receive needed services, discouraged from seeking services altogether, or compelled to incur out-of-pocket expenses for treatment outside of the Kaiser system," according to the suit.
The lead plaintiff, Point Richmond resident Susan Futterman, said her husband, Fred Paroutaud, killed himself after "desperate" requests for an urgent mental health appointment were delayed until his psychiatrist returned from vacation.
Los Angeles area plaintiff Megan Mortensen wound up seeking an urgent mental health appointment outside the system after Kaiser allegedly "refused" her request for a timely appointment after the loss of her brother. The third plaintiff, Acianita Lucero of Oakland, allegedly "made repeated requests for Kaiser to provide her with an urgent mental health appointment but Kaiser refused to see her within the 48 hours required by law," according to the suit.
The suit follows a report from earlier this year by the California Department of Managed Health Care which suggested Kaiser needed to reduce mental health appointment wait times. Kaiser was fined $ 4 million -- the second largest fine issued by the Department -- and issued a Cease and Desist Order to correct the problems, Siegel said.
Kaiser officials say the report did not fault Kaiser's mental health care quality or member's ability to obtain urgent or emergency mental health care.
"What was identified in the DMHC survey were some areas where our non-urgent appointment wait times and data tracking needed improvement," officials said. "We took the findings seriously, have submitted a corrective action plan to the DMHC, and have worked to correct the issues identified in the survey."
The class action lawsuit seeks compensatory and statutory damages for class members as well as an injunction requiring Kaiser to comply with the law, Siegel said.
"We're suing for Kaiser to clean up there act and provide mental health services to their clients that complies with the law," he said. "And we want damage compensation for the tens of thousands of Kaiser members who have been victimized by this."
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Patients who were harmed can join class action suit against Kaiser Permanente
Chance to participate:
On October 2, 2013 a class action suit was filed in Alameda County, California - alleging denial of timely and/or appropriate care.
Filed by Siegel, Lewitter, Malkani of Oakland, California
Contact Information: Latika Malkani
Phone Number: 510-452-5000
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 307
Oakland, California 94612
California Class Action Case RG13697775
Filing found here for your viewing: http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.org/pdfs/Futterman-v-KFHP.pdf
[The complaint is interesting reading, discussing the investigation of the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).]
This suit consists of all current and former Kaiser members who have either been denied access to mental health services, dissuaded from pursuing mental health services, provided with delayed access to mental health services and/or provided with inaccurate and confusing information from Kaiser regarding mental health services available to them from October 2, 2009 to the present.
(Violations of Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq., Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract)
--Vickie Travis
http://kaiserpapers.org
On October 2, 2013 a class action suit was filed in Alameda County, California - alleging denial of timely and/or appropriate care.
Filed by Siegel, Lewitter, Malkani of Oakland, California
Contact Information: Latika Malkani
Phone Number: 510-452-5000
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 307
Oakland, California 94612
California Class Action Case RG13697775
Filing found here for your viewing: http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.org/pdfs/Futterman-v-KFHP.pdf
[The complaint is interesting reading, discussing the investigation of the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).]
This suit consists of all current and former Kaiser members who have either been denied access to mental health services, dissuaded from pursuing mental health services, provided with delayed access to mental health services and/or provided with inaccurate and confusing information from Kaiser regarding mental health services available to them from October 2, 2009 to the present.
(Violations of Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq., Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract)
--Vickie Travis
http://kaiserpapers.org
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Patient: Kaiser Told Me 'Redheads Bleed More'
This patient was lucky that one person at Kaiser was looking out for her. This surgery might have had an even worse outcome if someone had tried to put her back to sleep when she awoke and saw a problem. I suggest an award for the staff member who insisted, "We can't give her any more medication."
Patient: Kaiser Told Me 'Redheads Bleed More'
(Click link to see documents)
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
August 05, 2013
ROSEVILLE, Calif. (CN) - Kaiser staff dismissed "blood pouring uncontrollably out of" a woman's hand during surgery and "unbearable" pain afterward by saying "redheads bleed more," she claims in court.
Deborah Kossick woke up during surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome to see "blood pouring uncontrollably out of her hand and extremity, while there was chaos amongst the staff conducting the surgery, one of which kept yelling, 'we can't give her any more medication,'" she says in a complaint filed in Placer County Superior Court.
"Several days after the surgery, plaintiff was in unbearable and uncontrollable pain in her right hand," which was swollen and blackened, the complaint continues. Kossick says she "advised defendants that the pain was unbearable, and she believed that something had gone wrong during the surgery, as there was too much blood. Defendants advised plaintiff that she had nothing to worry about because 'redheads bleed more' than other patients."
At a follow-up appointment with her surgeon, Steven Hatton Ryder, M.D., a month after the operation, Kossick says she complained of continuing pain, swelling and discoloration of her hand. "Defendant showed no sympathy or concern whatsoever, and, instead, told her that there was nothing more he could do for her," the complaint says.
"To this date, plaintiff Deborah Kossick continues to be in an extreme amount of pain in her right hand, which is now permanent. The hand is also swollen and blackened, which will impact her ability to work and care for herself for the remainder of her life," according to the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks general, special and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. Her husband, Robert Kossick, sued for loss of consortium. They are represented by David M. Poore of Brown Poore in Walnut Creek, Calif.
Patient: Kaiser Told Me 'Redheads Bleed More'
(Click link to see documents)
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
August 05, 2013
ROSEVILLE, Calif. (CN) - Kaiser staff dismissed "blood pouring uncontrollably out of" a woman's hand during surgery and "unbearable" pain afterward by saying "redheads bleed more," she claims in court.
Deborah Kossick woke up during surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome to see "blood pouring uncontrollably out of her hand and extremity, while there was chaos amongst the staff conducting the surgery, one of which kept yelling, 'we can't give her any more medication,'" she says in a complaint filed in Placer County Superior Court.
"Several days after the surgery, plaintiff was in unbearable and uncontrollable pain in her right hand," which was swollen and blackened, the complaint continues. Kossick says she "advised defendants that the pain was unbearable, and she believed that something had gone wrong during the surgery, as there was too much blood. Defendants advised plaintiff that she had nothing to worry about because 'redheads bleed more' than other patients."
At a follow-up appointment with her surgeon, Steven Hatton Ryder, M.D., a month after the operation, Kossick says she complained of continuing pain, swelling and discoloration of her hand. "Defendant showed no sympathy or concern whatsoever, and, instead, told her that there was nothing more he could do for her," the complaint says.
"To this date, plaintiff Deborah Kossick continues to be in an extreme amount of pain in her right hand, which is now permanent. The hand is also swollen and blackened, which will impact her ability to work and care for herself for the remainder of her life," according to the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks general, special and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. Her husband, Robert Kossick, sued for loss of consortium. They are represented by David M. Poore of Brown Poore in Walnut Creek, Calif.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Woman Blames Kaiser for Multi-Organ Failure
Woman Blames Kaiser for Multi-Organ Failure
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
July 31, 2013
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - A Kaiser patient started to bleed internally during an elective surgery to remove a mass from her kidney, and within days she was debilitated due to Kaiser's slow response, she claims in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Patricia and Joseph Moore sued Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Healthplan of the Northwest dba Kaiser Permanente for $9.5 million for medical malpractice and loss of consortium.
Within hours of the surgery Moore's abdomen was distended. Other symptoms "consistent with acute hemorrhage" followed, but it was not until shortly after midnight the next day that Kaiser "initiated their rapid transfusion protocol," according to the complaint.
Over the next two days Moore's complications escalated, including falling blood pressure, increasing abdominal distention, rapid heart beat and breathing problems, the complaint says.
"Following numerous transfusions, Patricia Moore sustained respiratory failure and was intubated. During the intubation she aspirated abdominal contents into her airway."
The next morning, "Patricia Moore was diagnosed with acute renal failure," and this was followed by removal of her left kidney and three months on a ventilator, after which she was discharged to a care facility, according to the complaint.
Moore blames Kaiser's failure to timely diagnose and surgically correct the internal bleeding for a host of problems she has experienced, including hemorrhagic shock, multisystem organ failure, acute respiratory failure, gangrene of her left leg and foot, anoxic brain injury and prolonged ventilator dependence.
The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy J. Jones and Ken L. Ammann of Salem, Ore.
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
July 31, 2013
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - A Kaiser patient started to bleed internally during an elective surgery to remove a mass from her kidney, and within days she was debilitated due to Kaiser's slow response, she claims in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Patricia and Joseph Moore sued Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Healthplan of the Northwest dba Kaiser Permanente for $9.5 million for medical malpractice and loss of consortium.
Within hours of the surgery Moore's abdomen was distended. Other symptoms "consistent with acute hemorrhage" followed, but it was not until shortly after midnight the next day that Kaiser "initiated their rapid transfusion protocol," according to the complaint.
Over the next two days Moore's complications escalated, including falling blood pressure, increasing abdominal distention, rapid heart beat and breathing problems, the complaint says.
"Following numerous transfusions, Patricia Moore sustained respiratory failure and was intubated. During the intubation she aspirated abdominal contents into her airway."
The next morning, "Patricia Moore was diagnosed with acute renal failure," and this was followed by removal of her left kidney and three months on a ventilator, after which she was discharged to a care facility, according to the complaint.
Moore blames Kaiser's failure to timely diagnose and surgically correct the internal bleeding for a host of problems she has experienced, including hemorrhagic shock, multisystem organ failure, acute respiratory failure, gangrene of her left leg and foot, anoxic brain injury and prolonged ventilator dependence.
The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy J. Jones and Ken L. Ammann of Salem, Ore.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Woman with 'shy bladder' syndrome sues Iowa hospital
Woman with 'shy bladder' syndrome sues Iowa hospital
April 28, 2013
Associated Press
DES MOINES, Iowa – A woman who sought a job as an administrator at Iowa Methodist Medical Center is now suing the hospital, saying it failed to make accommodations for her shy bladder syndrome.
Jennifer Conner, who graduated from Des Moines University in May 2012 with a master's degree in health care administration, applied for a job as an organ transplant financial coordinator with the hospital, the Des Moines Register reported. Her lawsuit says she was offered the job June 22, with the stipulation that she take and pass a drug test.
Conner was diagnosed in her teens with the anxiety condition paruresis, or shy bladder syndrome, that leaves her unable to urinate in public restrooms or near other people.
Conner's lawsuit says she has managed the condition by running water or flushing a toilet in public restrooms to help mask the sound of her urination.
But when she reported to the hospital's designated facility for a drug test, she was put in a room with no running water and asked to provide a urine sample, according to her lawsuit. Nurses at the facility increased her anxiety by knocking on the door seeking her urine sample, she said.
Conner's lawsuit says she asked the facility and Iowa Methodist officials to make other arrangements for her, including taking a blood-based drug test or using a catheter to extract urine, and offered to pay the cost of such accommodations. They refused. Iowa Methodist officials told her she had until the end of the day to produce a urine sample at the facility or she would be considered as having failed the test.
Shy bladder syndrome is considered a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, said Tom Foley, Conner's attorney.
A spokeswoman for UnityPoint, the health system that oversees Iowa Methodist, declined to comment to The Des Moines Register.
Conner's lawsuit asks the court to issue an order to keep Iowa Methodist from discriminating against those with disabilities. She is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages, including those for lost wages and benefits, attorneys' fees, emotional distress and pain and suffering.
April 28, 2013
Associated Press
DES MOINES, Iowa – A woman who sought a job as an administrator at Iowa Methodist Medical Center is now suing the hospital, saying it failed to make accommodations for her shy bladder syndrome.
Jennifer Conner, who graduated from Des Moines University in May 2012 with a master's degree in health care administration, applied for a job as an organ transplant financial coordinator with the hospital, the Des Moines Register reported. Her lawsuit says she was offered the job June 22, with the stipulation that she take and pass a drug test.
Conner was diagnosed in her teens with the anxiety condition paruresis, or shy bladder syndrome, that leaves her unable to urinate in public restrooms or near other people.
Conner's lawsuit says she has managed the condition by running water or flushing a toilet in public restrooms to help mask the sound of her urination.
But when she reported to the hospital's designated facility for a drug test, she was put in a room with no running water and asked to provide a urine sample, according to her lawsuit. Nurses at the facility increased her anxiety by knocking on the door seeking her urine sample, she said.
Conner's lawsuit says she asked the facility and Iowa Methodist officials to make other arrangements for her, including taking a blood-based drug test or using a catheter to extract urine, and offered to pay the cost of such accommodations. They refused. Iowa Methodist officials told her she had until the end of the day to produce a urine sample at the facility or she would be considered as having failed the test.
Shy bladder syndrome is considered a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, said Tom Foley, Conner's attorney.
A spokeswoman for UnityPoint, the health system that oversees Iowa Methodist, declined to comment to The Des Moines Register.
Conner's lawsuit asks the court to issue an order to keep Iowa Methodist from discriminating against those with disabilities. She is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages, including those for lost wages and benefits, attorneys' fees, emotional distress and pain and suffering.
Infection Ate Shoulder, Kaiser Patient Claims
Infection Ate Shoulder, Kaiser Patient Claims
By TISH KRAFT
Courthouse News Service
July 25, 2013
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (CN) - Kaiser's failure to diagnose and treat a woman's oozing bone infection resulted in part of her shoulder being eaten away, she claims in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. Billie Jo and Ron Bonolis have sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States Inc. and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group for malpractice and loss of consortium.
After Mrs. Bonolis had shoulder surgery, her Kaiser doctor thought she had an infection of the shoulder tissue for five months, when it actually was osteomyelitis, a bone infection, her complaint says. Within a month of the surgery, an MRI report suggested that the problem may be osteomyelitis, but no further testing was done, according to the complaint.
Three months after the surgery, and after several courses of antibiotics and attempts to clean out the surgical area, an infection consultant reported that a piece of bone used as an "anchor" during the surgery, was positive for MRSA, a "superbug" resistant to antibiotics, according to the complaint.
The infection had gone so long unchecked that it had eaten away the humoral head (the ball in the socket), and her new doctor was unable to estimate how many surgeries it would take to get rid of the painful infection, according to the complaint.
Once more of the bone had been removed to get rid of the infection, and Mrs. Bonolis was able to have her shoulder replaced, she went through a painful recovery and has suffered great mental anguish, in part due to knowing that she could have died from a superbug infection.
Mrs. Bonolis has a limited range of motion in her dominant arm and is no longer able to write normally, crochet, swim or take care of her grandchildren, among other things. Also, she needs help with personal hygiene, such as washing and combing her hair.
The new doctor told her it is unlikely that she will ever have full use of the right shoulder, the complaint says.
Roy L. Mason represents the plaintiffs, who are seeking $75,000.
By TISH KRAFT
Courthouse News Service
July 25, 2013
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (CN) - Kaiser's failure to diagnose and treat a woman's oozing bone infection resulted in part of her shoulder being eaten away, she claims in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. Billie Jo and Ron Bonolis have sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States Inc. and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group for malpractice and loss of consortium.
After Mrs. Bonolis had shoulder surgery, her Kaiser doctor thought she had an infection of the shoulder tissue for five months, when it actually was osteomyelitis, a bone infection, her complaint says. Within a month of the surgery, an MRI report suggested that the problem may be osteomyelitis, but no further testing was done, according to the complaint.
Three months after the surgery, and after several courses of antibiotics and attempts to clean out the surgical area, an infection consultant reported that a piece of bone used as an "anchor" during the surgery, was positive for MRSA, a "superbug" resistant to antibiotics, according to the complaint.
The infection had gone so long unchecked that it had eaten away the humoral head (the ball in the socket), and her new doctor was unable to estimate how many surgeries it would take to get rid of the painful infection, according to the complaint.
Once more of the bone had been removed to get rid of the infection, and Mrs. Bonolis was able to have her shoulder replaced, she went through a painful recovery and has suffered great mental anguish, in part due to knowing that she could have died from a superbug infection.
Mrs. Bonolis has a limited range of motion in her dominant arm and is no longer able to write normally, crochet, swim or take care of her grandchildren, among other things. Also, she needs help with personal hygiene, such as washing and combing her hair.
The new doctor told her it is unlikely that she will ever have full use of the right shoulder, the complaint says.
Roy L. Mason represents the plaintiffs, who are seeking $75,000.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Suicidal Patient Escaped From Kaiser, Mom Says
Suicidal Patient Escaped From Kaiser, Mom Says
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
May 31, 2013
ROSEVILLE, Calif. (CN) - A suicidal patient escaped through an unlocked door at a Kaiser hospital while awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility, his parents claim in court.
Brian and Suzanne Amsbaugh sued Kaiser and Securitas Security Services for wrongful death and premises liability. Their son, Corey Amsbaugh, was diagnosed at Kaiser Roseville's emergency room with "psychosis, paranoia and suicidal ideation," the complaint says. "Health care providers and/or others at Kaiser Roseville determined that decedent was a 'high risk for suicide' and detained decedent," involuntarily, pending transfer to a psychiatric facility, according to the complaint.
"While waiting for the transfer to a psychiatric facility, decedent was placed, put, brought to, detained or otherwise kept in a designated room at Kaiser Roseville, chosen by defendants, to prevent his escape and the Kaiser Roseville's security personnel were summoned for 'bedside patient observation' to prevent decedent from escaping," the complaint continues. However, the next day "decedent walked out of the hospital room, through an unlocked door, escaped from Kaiser Roseville and committed suicide," according to the complaint.
The Amsbaughs allege Kaiser and Securitas "created, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have known, that unless reasonable inspections, repairs, modifications, supervision, control, monitoring and other appropriate measures were made and/or undertaken, such dangerous and defective conditions endangered the safety of patients."
Plaintiffs are represented by Werner Meissner of San Pedro.
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
May 31, 2013
ROSEVILLE, Calif. (CN) - A suicidal patient escaped through an unlocked door at a Kaiser hospital while awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility, his parents claim in court.
Brian and Suzanne Amsbaugh sued Kaiser and Securitas Security Services for wrongful death and premises liability. Their son, Corey Amsbaugh, was diagnosed at Kaiser Roseville's emergency room with "psychosis, paranoia and suicidal ideation," the complaint says. "Health care providers and/or others at Kaiser Roseville determined that decedent was a 'high risk for suicide' and detained decedent," involuntarily, pending transfer to a psychiatric facility, according to the complaint.
"While waiting for the transfer to a psychiatric facility, decedent was placed, put, brought to, detained or otherwise kept in a designated room at Kaiser Roseville, chosen by defendants, to prevent his escape and the Kaiser Roseville's security personnel were summoned for 'bedside patient observation' to prevent decedent from escaping," the complaint continues. However, the next day "decedent walked out of the hospital room, through an unlocked door, escaped from Kaiser Roseville and committed suicide," according to the complaint.
The Amsbaughs allege Kaiser and Securitas "created, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have known, that unless reasonable inspections, repairs, modifications, supervision, control, monitoring and other appropriate measures were made and/or undertaken, such dangerous and defective conditions endangered the safety of patients."
Plaintiffs are represented by Werner Meissner of San Pedro.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Kaiser Whistleblower Case Steams Forward
Kaiser Whistleblower Case Steams Forward
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
Courthouse News Service
May 09, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The Permanente Medical Group must face a former employee's claim that she was fired after complaining about sub-standard care, a federal judge ruled.
Mirabel Ortiz claims that The Permanente Medical Group-a division of Kaiser Permanente-fired her after she raised concerns that the way managers handled the orthopedics department harmed patients. Kaiser claimed it terminated Ortiz for committing "personal improprieties," according to Ortiz's first amended complaint.
As a member of SIEU-UHW, Ortiz says collective bargaining agreements between Kaiser and the union mandate a progressive discipline process, which hospital officials failed to follow. She filed suit in San Mateo County court against TPMG and her manager, Cindy Lambdin, claiming wrongful termination, retaliation for whistleblowing and breach of employment contract as well as infliction of emotional distress.
Earlier this year, Kaiser successfully moved the action to federal court since many of Ortiz's claims involve breaches of a collective bargaining agreement. The healthcare giant then sought to dismiss the action for non-suit.
And while U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Ortiz failed to follow procedural grievance requirements under the collective bargaining agreement-by Ortiz's own admission-enough questions exist as to whether Kaiser retaliated for protesting unsafe conditions for the action to move forward.
"The first amended complaint alleges that plaintiff 'protested about the unsafe and unhealthy working conditions at her place of employment, including complaints that defendant Lambdin was running the orthopedics department in such a way as to be harmful to patients, among other things.'" Illston wrote. "The court concludes that plaintiff has alleged facts that add up to more than a sheer possibility that defendants discharged plaintiff in retaliation for making complaints."
Illston rejected Kaiser's claim that Ortiz failed to follow administrative procedure in pursuing her whistleblower action, namely by failing to file a grievance with the labor commissioner. She noted that the permissive legislative language of the statute and four examples in case law do not impose such restrictions on allegations of labor code violations.
Though Illston found Ortiz's claims of infliction of distress are tied to her failed contract claim, the wrongful discharge claim connects Kaiser's alleged whistleblower retaliation and should be tried.
Ortiz can amend her complaint to cure deficiencies in the contract action, Illston concluded.
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
Courthouse News Service
May 09, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The Permanente Medical Group must face a former employee's claim that she was fired after complaining about sub-standard care, a federal judge ruled.
Mirabel Ortiz claims that The Permanente Medical Group-a division of Kaiser Permanente-fired her after she raised concerns that the way managers handled the orthopedics department harmed patients. Kaiser claimed it terminated Ortiz for committing "personal improprieties," according to Ortiz's first amended complaint.
As a member of SIEU-UHW, Ortiz says collective bargaining agreements between Kaiser and the union mandate a progressive discipline process, which hospital officials failed to follow. She filed suit in San Mateo County court against TPMG and her manager, Cindy Lambdin, claiming wrongful termination, retaliation for whistleblowing and breach of employment contract as well as infliction of emotional distress.
Earlier this year, Kaiser successfully moved the action to federal court since many of Ortiz's claims involve breaches of a collective bargaining agreement. The healthcare giant then sought to dismiss the action for non-suit.
And while U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Ortiz failed to follow procedural grievance requirements under the collective bargaining agreement-by Ortiz's own admission-enough questions exist as to whether Kaiser retaliated for protesting unsafe conditions for the action to move forward.
"The first amended complaint alleges that plaintiff 'protested about the unsafe and unhealthy working conditions at her place of employment, including complaints that defendant Lambdin was running the orthopedics department in such a way as to be harmful to patients, among other things.'" Illston wrote. "The court concludes that plaintiff has alleged facts that add up to more than a sheer possibility that defendants discharged plaintiff in retaliation for making complaints."
Illston rejected Kaiser's claim that Ortiz failed to follow administrative procedure in pursuing her whistleblower action, namely by failing to file a grievance with the labor commissioner. She noted that the permissive legislative language of the statute and four examples in case law do not impose such restrictions on allegations of labor code violations.
Though Illston found Ortiz's claims of infliction of distress are tied to her failed contract claim, the wrongful discharge claim connects Kaiser's alleged whistleblower retaliation and should be tried.
Ortiz can amend her complaint to cure deficiencies in the contract action, Illston concluded.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Judge feels sorry for hospital that hired thugs to silence doctor, sets aside jury verdict punishing hospital
Larry Anderson is now CEO of Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside, California.
"The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons."
The Nightmarish Saga of Michael Fitzgibbons
The case pitting the whisteblowing doc against Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. appears to be over
OC Weekly News
Feb 21 2013
On June 28, 2006, Santa Ana police arrested Dr. Michael Fitzgibbons, an infectious-diseases specialist at Western Medical Center in Santa Ana, for allegedly waving a gun in traffic after they found a pistol and a pair of black gloves in his car. There are still many questions surrounding the incident: Who were the mystery callers who dialed 911, reporting the suspect was a man in a white medical coat driving a brown Toyota Camry? How were police able to find the vehicle so quickly in the hospital's parking lot several blocks away? Why would a soft-spoken doctor who'd just won a whistleblowing lawsuit celebrate by pointing a gun at strangers in traffic?
These questions may never be answered. But according to a jury trial that just ended at the Orange County Superior Courthouse in Santa Ana, there's one fact upon which everyone agrees: The alleged road-rage incident in question never happened. Instead, somebody planted the gun and gloves in Fitzgibbons' car. On Feb. 13, a jury went a step further, agreeing with Fitzgibbons' claim that he'd been framed by his employer in retaliation for an email he sent to colleagues questioning the company's financial outlook. The jury awarded him a whopping $5.7 million in damages.
In his successful lawsuit against the company, Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. (IHHI), Fitzgibbons had sought more than $46.8 million, arguing that his arrest at the hospital—and a series of subsequent strange events that nearly killed a family member—nearly destroyed his medical practice and left him permanently scarred with post-traumatic stress disorder. Lawyers for IHHI tried to convince jurors that Fitzgibbons had somehow set himself up in a bizarre ploy to appear as an unstable martyr, a strategy the jury took less than a day to reject.
This surreal saga began in 2005, a year after IHHI took over the cash-strapped Western Med and three other Orange County hospitals from the scandal-plagued Tenet Corp. As chief of the hospital's medical staff, Fitzgibbons was concerned that patient care might suffer under IHHI because the company just defaulted on a $50 million loan; in May of that year, he sent a pointed email to colleagues raising that concern. When IHHI officials got wind of this, they promptly sued him for slander and interfering with business practices. Fitzgibbons countersued, arguing that IHHI's lawsuit violated his free speech; a judge agreed with the doctor and tossed out the company's suit in June 2006.
Two weeks after the [dafamation case] decision, Santa Ana police arrested Fitzgibbons for the alleged gun-waving, but he was released after the department impounded his car and fingerprinted and strip-searched him at the police station. Because prosecutors had no eyewitnesses, his fingerprints weren't on the gun and DNA taken from the gloves failed to show a match, the doctor was never charged with a crime. But when he went to pick up his car at the impound lot on July 5, he quickly saw something that hadn't been in the vehicle when the police had found the gun—a plastic sack full of pills, each one stamped with the Playboy-bunny logo. Figuring someone was hoping to frame him yet again, Fitzgibbons immediately handed the bag over to his attorney, who flushed the pills down the toilet.
His troubles weren't over yet. On July 16, his daughter's car flipped on the 22 freeway. Miraculously, neither she nor her two passengers was injured, but as Fitzgibbons pulled out of his driveway, he realized one of his tires was flat. Although authorities ruled the crash an accident, Fitzgibbons was suspicious enough to hire a private crash investigator, who found a two-inch slash in one of the tires (see "Car Trouble," Aug. 4, 2006). Irvine police refused to investigate his claims, however, and Fitzgibbons tried to move on with his life.
Yet controversy and lawsuits continued to circulate around IHHI. The company's main lender, Medical Capital Holdings, turned out to be a Ponzi scheme whose investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while the lender's executives used the cash to finance lavish parties and even purchase a multimillion-dollar private yacht. In yet another bizarre twist, IHHI chief executive officer Bruce Mogel personally pressured the lender to obtain a $5 million loan for an Internet-porn advertising firm, E-Mark, that appeared to be a phony company (see "New Complications In the IHHI Saga," July 30, 2009).
One of the lawsuits swirling around IHHI led to an under-oath deposition of Larry B. Anderson, IHHI's vice president, which provided the first clue about the mysterious road-rage incident involving Fitzgibbons. According to Anderson, shortly after Fitzgibbons won his lawsuit against IHHI, Mogel told him that the doctor needed to be "humbled." Mogel, Anderson added, then proceeded to brag that he had a friend named Mikey Delgado, a weight-lifting thug who had Santa Ana cops on his payroll and could cause trouble for Fitzgibbons or any other doctor who interfered with the company.
Mogel instructed Anderson to issue a $10,000 check to Delgado's webpage-design company, Form Labs, which never did any work for IHHI, whose own investigators later determined it to be a front company with nothing to show for itself but a post-office-box address in Scottsdale, Arizona, where Mogel lives. After he cut the check and Fitzgibbons was arrested, Anderson suspected the mysterious Delgado had planted the gun in the doctor's car. Those suspicions were confirmed, he adds, when Mogel appeared to relish in Fitzgibbons' plight, even remarking, "People don't know how powerful I am."
Court Reverses Run-Away Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict
An Orange County judge has reversed the jury verdict that found Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor.
by Enterprise Counsel Group, lawyers for IHHI
24-7PressRelease
May 10, 2013
In February, it was widely reported an Orange County jury found a hospital chain, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (IHHI), liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor. (Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/13; Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/8). The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons.
Yesterday, Judge Gregory H. Lewis of the Orange County Superior Court set aside the jury's verdict in its entirety. In doing so, the Court granted judgment for IHHI. The judgment states, "Plaintiff Dr. Fitzgibbons will take nothing from Defendant IHHI" and "Defendant IHHI [will] recover from Dr. Fitzgibbons its cost of suit."
Judge Lewis explained, "after full consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the court determined the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence." Judge Lewis also determined "it is more probable than not" the jury engaged in misconduct prejudicial to IHHI. Finally, Judge Lewis found the jury's verdict appeared "to be a product of passion and prejudice instead of an evaluation of the extent of [Dr. Fitzgibbons'] emotional distress."
"Needless to say, this is a huge relief for a company dedicated to putting its money toward the best possible patient care, not paying millions of dollars to a single doctor who hired a contingency lawyer to complain he was distressed, even though the doctor in question admittedly never missed a single day of work or presented evidence of the slightest economic loss," says David A. Robinson, IHHI's lead trial attorney. Per Robinson: "As noted in the Court's order, 'at worst' Dr. Fitzgibbons claimed 'some other doctors poked fun at him.' That is hardly 'severe' emotional distress justifying taking money from patient care to make a single doctor and his lawyer rich."
One reason the Court found the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence is the Court rejected Dr. Fitzgibbons' claim that IHHI ratified its former CEO's alleged conduct. Per Robinson: "The evidence showed Dr. Fitzgibbons' entire case rested on the testimony of one man, Larry Anderson. Anderson admitted his conjecture that his former boss, Mogel, might have hired a thug was 'without meat' and 'without substance.' Indeed, this is why Anderson claimed he kept this story a complete secret from everyone else at IHHI while Anderson worked there. Anderson never got around to telling anyone about this admitted speculation until almost two and a half years later, and then under suspicious circumstances. How could IHHI have ratified conduct that Anderson admittedly first concealed, then later claimed was only speculation?"
Enterprise Counsel Group, A Law Corporation (ECG) is a business law firm specializing in trial, appellate, transactional, labor and real estate matters...
"The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons."
The Nightmarish Saga of Michael Fitzgibbons
The case pitting the whisteblowing doc against Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. appears to be over
OC Weekly News
Feb 21 2013
On June 28, 2006, Santa Ana police arrested Dr. Michael Fitzgibbons, an infectious-diseases specialist at Western Medical Center in Santa Ana, for allegedly waving a gun in traffic after they found a pistol and a pair of black gloves in his car. There are still many questions surrounding the incident: Who were the mystery callers who dialed 911, reporting the suspect was a man in a white medical coat driving a brown Toyota Camry? How were police able to find the vehicle so quickly in the hospital's parking lot several blocks away? Why would a soft-spoken doctor who'd just won a whistleblowing lawsuit celebrate by pointing a gun at strangers in traffic?
These questions may never be answered. But according to a jury trial that just ended at the Orange County Superior Courthouse in Santa Ana, there's one fact upon which everyone agrees: The alleged road-rage incident in question never happened. Instead, somebody planted the gun and gloves in Fitzgibbons' car. On Feb. 13, a jury went a step further, agreeing with Fitzgibbons' claim that he'd been framed by his employer in retaliation for an email he sent to colleagues questioning the company's financial outlook. The jury awarded him a whopping $5.7 million in damages.
In his successful lawsuit against the company, Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. (IHHI), Fitzgibbons had sought more than $46.8 million, arguing that his arrest at the hospital—and a series of subsequent strange events that nearly killed a family member—nearly destroyed his medical practice and left him permanently scarred with post-traumatic stress disorder. Lawyers for IHHI tried to convince jurors that Fitzgibbons had somehow set himself up in a bizarre ploy to appear as an unstable martyr, a strategy the jury took less than a day to reject.
This surreal saga began in 2005, a year after IHHI took over the cash-strapped Western Med and three other Orange County hospitals from the scandal-plagued Tenet Corp. As chief of the hospital's medical staff, Fitzgibbons was concerned that patient care might suffer under IHHI because the company just defaulted on a $50 million loan; in May of that year, he sent a pointed email to colleagues raising that concern. When IHHI officials got wind of this, they promptly sued him for slander and interfering with business practices. Fitzgibbons countersued, arguing that IHHI's lawsuit violated his free speech; a judge agreed with the doctor and tossed out the company's suit in June 2006.
Two weeks after the [dafamation case] decision, Santa Ana police arrested Fitzgibbons for the alleged gun-waving, but he was released after the department impounded his car and fingerprinted and strip-searched him at the police station. Because prosecutors had no eyewitnesses, his fingerprints weren't on the gun and DNA taken from the gloves failed to show a match, the doctor was never charged with a crime. But when he went to pick up his car at the impound lot on July 5, he quickly saw something that hadn't been in the vehicle when the police had found the gun—a plastic sack full of pills, each one stamped with the Playboy-bunny logo. Figuring someone was hoping to frame him yet again, Fitzgibbons immediately handed the bag over to his attorney, who flushed the pills down the toilet.
His troubles weren't over yet. On July 16, his daughter's car flipped on the 22 freeway. Miraculously, neither she nor her two passengers was injured, but as Fitzgibbons pulled out of his driveway, he realized one of his tires was flat. Although authorities ruled the crash an accident, Fitzgibbons was suspicious enough to hire a private crash investigator, who found a two-inch slash in one of the tires (see "Car Trouble," Aug. 4, 2006). Irvine police refused to investigate his claims, however, and Fitzgibbons tried to move on with his life.
Yet controversy and lawsuits continued to circulate around IHHI. The company's main lender, Medical Capital Holdings, turned out to be a Ponzi scheme whose investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while the lender's executives used the cash to finance lavish parties and even purchase a multimillion-dollar private yacht. In yet another bizarre twist, IHHI chief executive officer Bruce Mogel personally pressured the lender to obtain a $5 million loan for an Internet-porn advertising firm, E-Mark, that appeared to be a phony company (see "New Complications In the IHHI Saga," July 30, 2009).
One of the lawsuits swirling around IHHI led to an under-oath deposition of Larry B. Anderson, IHHI's vice president, which provided the first clue about the mysterious road-rage incident involving Fitzgibbons. According to Anderson, shortly after Fitzgibbons won his lawsuit against IHHI, Mogel told him that the doctor needed to be "humbled." Mogel, Anderson added, then proceeded to brag that he had a friend named Mikey Delgado, a weight-lifting thug who had Santa Ana cops on his payroll and could cause trouble for Fitzgibbons or any other doctor who interfered with the company.
Mogel instructed Anderson to issue a $10,000 check to Delgado's webpage-design company, Form Labs, which never did any work for IHHI, whose own investigators later determined it to be a front company with nothing to show for itself but a post-office-box address in Scottsdale, Arizona, where Mogel lives. After he cut the check and Fitzgibbons was arrested, Anderson suspected the mysterious Delgado had planted the gun in the doctor's car. Those suspicions were confirmed, he adds, when Mogel appeared to relish in Fitzgibbons' plight, even remarking, "People don't know how powerful I am."
Court Reverses Run-Away Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict
An Orange County judge has reversed the jury verdict that found Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor.
by Enterprise Counsel Group, lawyers for IHHI
24-7PressRelease
May 10, 2013
In February, it was widely reported an Orange County jury found a hospital chain, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (IHHI), liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a doctor. (Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/13; Campbell, Orange County Register, 2/8). The doctor in question, Michael Fitzgibbons, alleged IHHI's former CEO, Bruce Mogel, hired a thug with alleged ties to the Santa Ana police to, among other things, frame him on a false gun brandishing charge. The jury returned a verdict of $5.7 million for Dr. Fitzgibbons.
Yesterday, Judge Gregory H. Lewis of the Orange County Superior Court set aside the jury's verdict in its entirety. In doing so, the Court granted judgment for IHHI. The judgment states, "Plaintiff Dr. Fitzgibbons will take nothing from Defendant IHHI" and "Defendant IHHI [will] recover from Dr. Fitzgibbons its cost of suit."
Judge Lewis explained, "after full consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the court determined the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence." Judge Lewis also determined "it is more probable than not" the jury engaged in misconduct prejudicial to IHHI. Finally, Judge Lewis found the jury's verdict appeared "to be a product of passion and prejudice instead of an evaluation of the extent of [Dr. Fitzgibbons'] emotional distress."
"Needless to say, this is a huge relief for a company dedicated to putting its money toward the best possible patient care, not paying millions of dollars to a single doctor who hired a contingency lawyer to complain he was distressed, even though the doctor in question admittedly never missed a single day of work or presented evidence of the slightest economic loss," says David A. Robinson, IHHI's lead trial attorney. Per Robinson: "As noted in the Court's order, 'at worst' Dr. Fitzgibbons claimed 'some other doctors poked fun at him.' That is hardly 'severe' emotional distress justifying taking money from patient care to make a single doctor and his lawyer rich."
One reason the Court found the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence is the Court rejected Dr. Fitzgibbons' claim that IHHI ratified its former CEO's alleged conduct. Per Robinson: "The evidence showed Dr. Fitzgibbons' entire case rested on the testimony of one man, Larry Anderson. Anderson admitted his conjecture that his former boss, Mogel, might have hired a thug was 'without meat' and 'without substance.' Indeed, this is why Anderson claimed he kept this story a complete secret from everyone else at IHHI while Anderson worked there. Anderson never got around to telling anyone about this admitted speculation until almost two and a half years later, and then under suspicious circumstances. How could IHHI have ratified conduct that Anderson admittedly first concealed, then later claimed was only speculation?"
Enterprise Counsel Group, A Law Corporation (ECG) is a business law firm specializing in trial, appellate, transactional, labor and real estate matters...
Friday, May 17, 2013
Kaiser Nurse: High-Risk Job, No Training, Fired
It's possible that Dissanayake and Giles simply didn't want to work with AIDS and hepatitis patients.
Kaiser Nurse: High-Risk Job, No Training, Fired
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
May 14, 2013
SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - When Kaiser assigned an urgent care nurse to care for patients whose conditions were beyond the scope of her experience and training, she asked for training but was disciplined and fired instead, she says in a complaint filed in Orange County Superior Court.
Amali Dissanayake, RN, worked in Kaiser's urgent care clinic, where she "was responsible for checking patients in, taking vital signs, and following general physician orders," according to the complaint. When the lead nurse in another department, the Nurse Clinic, went on medical leave, Dissanayake was assigned to fill her position. "As lead nurse in the Nurse Clinic, plaintiff was responsible for taking care of surgical outpatients such as cancer patients, patients with staph infections, and patients with open wounds. These types of patient cases were different from the typical flus and common colds plaintiff was accustomed to handling on the urgent care floor," the complaint states.
Dissanayake says in her complaint that when she spoke to the Department Administrator, Jennifer Viquez, about her concerns, "Ms. Viquez was aghast at plaintiff's concerns and asked 'You don't know how to do simple dressing changes?' When plaintiff tried to explain that the job required more than simple dressing changes, Ms. Viquez said she would schedule Melissa Giles, RN to supervise and train plaintiff in the Nurse Clinic."
However, the complaint says that when Dissanayake reported to the Nurse Clinic for training, "Melissa Giles admitted that she was not trained for the Nurse Clinic and did not feel comfortable working on the floor either," asked that her name be left out of any discussions, and left early for the day.
Viquez rebuffed Dissanayake's next attempt to discuss the problem, according to the complaint. "Despite plaintiff's complaints regarding her lack of training, Kaiser repeatedly assigned her to work in the Nurse Clinic for the next four months. On a handful of occasions, plaintiff was assigned to work the Nurse Clinic alongside a supervisory RN. However, during these shifts, plaintiff and the supervisory RN did not work together. Both nurses were assigned their own separate patients to treat simultaneously," the complaint states.
In Jan. 2012, Dissanayake was called into a meeting and told that another nurse had reported that she failed to properly assess a patient the previous month, the complaint continues. In March, "plaintiff was issued a Corrective Action-Level III from Kaiser for alleged 'sub-standard performance' involving patient care," for the December incident, although "Level I" is normal for a first corrective action, according to the complaint.
In May, Dissanayake was given a "Last Chance Agreement" setting forth a six-month progress plan, the complaint states. In June she was put on "paid investigatory suspension," and in July she was fired, according to the complaint.
"At the time of plaintiff's termination, plaintiff had worked for defendant Kaiser for approximately 10 years. Prior to Nov. 23, 2011, the day that plaintiff voiced her concerns regarding her lack of training to work in the Nurse Clinic, plaintiff had never been disciplined, counseled, or given a poor performance review while employed by Kaiser."
Plaintiff is represented by Joel Baruch and Nikki Fermin of Irvine, Calif.
Kaiser Nurse: High-Risk Job, No Training, Fired
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News
May 14, 2013
SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - When Kaiser assigned an urgent care nurse to care for patients whose conditions were beyond the scope of her experience and training, she asked for training but was disciplined and fired instead, she says in a complaint filed in Orange County Superior Court.
Amali Dissanayake, RN, worked in Kaiser's urgent care clinic, where she "was responsible for checking patients in, taking vital signs, and following general physician orders," according to the complaint. When the lead nurse in another department, the Nurse Clinic, went on medical leave, Dissanayake was assigned to fill her position. "As lead nurse in the Nurse Clinic, plaintiff was responsible for taking care of surgical outpatients such as cancer patients, patients with staph infections, and patients with open wounds. These types of patient cases were different from the typical flus and common colds plaintiff was accustomed to handling on the urgent care floor," the complaint states.
Dissanayake says in her complaint that when she spoke to the Department Administrator, Jennifer Viquez, about her concerns, "Ms. Viquez was aghast at plaintiff's concerns and asked 'You don't know how to do simple dressing changes?' When plaintiff tried to explain that the job required more than simple dressing changes, Ms. Viquez said she would schedule Melissa Giles, RN to supervise and train plaintiff in the Nurse Clinic."
However, the complaint says that when Dissanayake reported to the Nurse Clinic for training, "Melissa Giles admitted that she was not trained for the Nurse Clinic and did not feel comfortable working on the floor either," asked that her name be left out of any discussions, and left early for the day.
Viquez rebuffed Dissanayake's next attempt to discuss the problem, according to the complaint. "Despite plaintiff's complaints regarding her lack of training, Kaiser repeatedly assigned her to work in the Nurse Clinic for the next four months. On a handful of occasions, plaintiff was assigned to work the Nurse Clinic alongside a supervisory RN. However, during these shifts, plaintiff and the supervisory RN did not work together. Both nurses were assigned their own separate patients to treat simultaneously," the complaint states.
In Jan. 2012, Dissanayake was called into a meeting and told that another nurse had reported that she failed to properly assess a patient the previous month, the complaint continues. In March, "plaintiff was issued a Corrective Action-Level III from Kaiser for alleged 'sub-standard performance' involving patient care," for the December incident, although "Level I" is normal for a first corrective action, according to the complaint.
In May, Dissanayake was given a "Last Chance Agreement" setting forth a six-month progress plan, the complaint states. In June she was put on "paid investigatory suspension," and in July she was fired, according to the complaint.
"At the time of plaintiff's termination, plaintiff had worked for defendant Kaiser for approximately 10 years. Prior to Nov. 23, 2011, the day that plaintiff voiced her concerns regarding her lack of training to work in the Nurse Clinic, plaintiff had never been disciplined, counseled, or given a poor performance review while employed by Kaiser."
Plaintiff is represented by Joel Baruch and Nikki Fermin of Irvine, Calif.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Is $2 million paid to a doctor in Arkansas really making any difference in the length of Jalal Afshar's life? I suspect not.
Two months ago I wrote about this case here. I am not at all a fan of Kaiser Permanente, and I know that Kaiser turns a profit by failing to provide life-saving treatments. It achieves its billions of yearly profit through "treatment guidelines" that cause practitioners to fail to appropriately diagnose and treat illnesses.
But I am suspicious of this particular case. I suspect that some charlatan in Arkansas offered hope to Mr. Afshar in exchange for $2 million dollars.
I did a little research and found this information on the American Cancer Society website:
"Infection with HIV is the only clear-cut risk factor for CD. Castleman disease is much more common in people with this infection, particularly in those who have developed the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)...The cause of Castleman disease (CD) is not known for sure, but doctors suspect it is related to problems with the way a person's immune system is working...A virus seems to be involved in at least some cases of CD. Human herpes virus type 8(HHV-8) is found in the lymph node B cells of many people who are HIV-positive and have multicentric CD. This virus is also known as Kaposi sarcoma-related herpes virus(KSHV) because it has also been found in people with Kaposi sarcoma (a rare type of cancer). In fact, some people with CD also have Kaposi sarcoma."
I suspect that Mr. Afshar will live exactly as long with his $2 million Arkansas treatment as he would have lived without it.
Man Files $2M Lawsuit, Says Kaiser Refused To Cover Life-Saving Treatment
May 13, 2013
CBSLA.com
A Pasadena man is suing Kaiser Permanente for $2 million alleging breach of contract and unfair business practices after he says they gave up on him and refused to provide or cover the cost of life-saving care.
Kaiser doctors diagnosed 58-year-old Jalal Afshar with Castleman disease, a rare and often deadly disease that targets the lymph nodes.
...A former Kaiser employee, Afshar said the non-profit medical group initially granted his request to see an out-of-network specialist in Arkansas.
“It was like, you know, finding your life again,” he said.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaiser ultimately declined to pay for his care, claiming that services were available within his existing plan to treat the disease.
“Kaiser, in bad faith, unreasonably denied medical care that Jalal needed to save his life,” said his attorney, Scott Glovsky.
Afshar continued his treatment out-of-network. Six months later, he is on the way to recovery, but owes $2 million in health care costs.
“He would be dead for sure because they had given up on him,” said his wife, Maryam.
[Maura Larkins comment: I have not seen any evidence that Mr. Afshar was given a prognosis of six months to live. Kaiser simply said it didn't have a treatment to offer him. This doesn't mean he was expected to die right away. It only means that Kaiser was not planning to interfere with the course of nature.]
“We should care about people more about their lives than making money,” said Afshar.
“When I was there, they were clearing a couple of billion dollars of pure profit every quarter,” he said.
Kaiser declined an interview, but released a statement Monday.
The statement reads in part:
“We dispute the allegations included in the lawsuit…We did not give up on our member. Respecting patient privacy, we cannot provide details about the treatment options which were made available and being pursued…We will fully address the lawsuit in the proper judicial forum.”
But I am suspicious of this particular case. I suspect that some charlatan in Arkansas offered hope to Mr. Afshar in exchange for $2 million dollars.
I did a little research and found this information on the American Cancer Society website:
"Infection with HIV is the only clear-cut risk factor for CD. Castleman disease is much more common in people with this infection, particularly in those who have developed the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)...The cause of Castleman disease (CD) is not known for sure, but doctors suspect it is related to problems with the way a person's immune system is working...A virus seems to be involved in at least some cases of CD. Human herpes virus type 8(HHV-8) is found in the lymph node B cells of many people who are HIV-positive and have multicentric CD. This virus is also known as Kaposi sarcoma-related herpes virus(KSHV) because it has also been found in people with Kaposi sarcoma (a rare type of cancer). In fact, some people with CD also have Kaposi sarcoma."
I suspect that Mr. Afshar will live exactly as long with his $2 million Arkansas treatment as he would have lived without it.
Man Files $2M Lawsuit, Says Kaiser Refused To Cover Life-Saving Treatment
May 13, 2013
CBSLA.com
A Pasadena man is suing Kaiser Permanente for $2 million alleging breach of contract and unfair business practices after he says they gave up on him and refused to provide or cover the cost of life-saving care.
Kaiser doctors diagnosed 58-year-old Jalal Afshar with Castleman disease, a rare and often deadly disease that targets the lymph nodes.
...A former Kaiser employee, Afshar said the non-profit medical group initially granted his request to see an out-of-network specialist in Arkansas.
“It was like, you know, finding your life again,” he said.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaiser ultimately declined to pay for his care, claiming that services were available within his existing plan to treat the disease.
“Kaiser, in bad faith, unreasonably denied medical care that Jalal needed to save his life,” said his attorney, Scott Glovsky.
Afshar continued his treatment out-of-network. Six months later, he is on the way to recovery, but owes $2 million in health care costs.
“He would be dead for sure because they had given up on him,” said his wife, Maryam.
[Maura Larkins comment: I have not seen any evidence that Mr. Afshar was given a prognosis of six months to live. Kaiser simply said it didn't have a treatment to offer him. This doesn't mean he was expected to die right away. It only means that Kaiser was not planning to interfere with the course of nature.]
“We should care about people more about their lives than making money,” said Afshar.
“When I was there, they were clearing a couple of billion dollars of pure profit every quarter,” he said.
Kaiser declined an interview, but released a statement Monday.
The statement reads in part:
“We dispute the allegations included in the lawsuit…We did not give up on our member. Respecting patient privacy, we cannot provide details about the treatment options which were made available and being pursued…We will fully address the lawsuit in the proper judicial forum.”
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Wells Fargo will pay $105m to settle OC fraud case regarding Medical Capital Holdings (MedCap)
Wells Fargo will pay $105m to settle OC fraud case
By The Associated Press
May 3, 2013
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Wells Fargo Bank will pay $105 million to settle a lawsuit that held it liable for an Orange County fraud scheme that cost investors as much as $1 billion.
The Orange County Register says the settlement was filed Tuesday.
Wells and Bank of New York Mellon were trustees of investor funds for Tustin-based Medical Capital Holdings. MedCap claimed to sell safe investments but authorities say it gambled on risky ventures such as unlicensed hospitals.
Regulators closed the firm in 2009. Its president pleaded guilty to wire fraud.
The investor lawsuit claimed Wells Fargo and Mellon ignored warning signs that MedCap was a fraud. The banks argued that they followed the terms of their contracts.
Mellon settled its case for $114 million.
By The Associated Press
May 3, 2013
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Wells Fargo Bank will pay $105 million to settle a lawsuit that held it liable for an Orange County fraud scheme that cost investors as much as $1 billion.
The Orange County Register says the settlement was filed Tuesday.
Wells and Bank of New York Mellon were trustees of investor funds for Tustin-based Medical Capital Holdings. MedCap claimed to sell safe investments but authorities say it gambled on risky ventures such as unlicensed hospitals.
Regulators closed the firm in 2009. Its president pleaded guilty to wire fraud.
The investor lawsuit claimed Wells Fargo and Mellon ignored warning signs that MedCap was a fraud. The banks argued that they followed the terms of their contracts.
Mellon settled its case for $114 million.
Has Kaiser achieved its position through illegal tactics such as mislabeling employees to cut costs?
Kaiser avoided paying overtime wages and giving breaks by falsely labeling employees as managers, violating the California Labor Code.
Kaiser Uses Title Alone for Tax Status, Class Says
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News Service
May 07, 2013
SAN DIEGO, Calif. (CN) - Certain Kaiser Foundation Hospital Inc. employees were paid an exempt-status salary, but performed non-exempt tasks, according to a San Diego Superior Court class action lawsuit.
Lead plaintiff Adam Hardesty was employed at a San Diego County Kaiser hospital as a "project manager" from August 2012 to February 2013.
Hardesty states in his complaint that despite the title, employees had little to no authority, never served in a supervisory role and were otherwise "engaged in a type of work that required no exercise of independent judgment or discretion as to any matter of significance."
Instead, Kaiser project managers performed a "finite" set of non-exempt tasks that included transcribing written and electronic prescriptions, completing patient profile entries and notes, sending requests to doctors for medication refills and were even expected to troubleshoot the pharmacy computer system, all on top of "daily debriefing" conference calls.
"As a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, Kaiser unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every project manager as exempt based on job title alone, failed to pay the required overtime compensation and otherwise failed to comply with all labor laws with respect to these project managers," the complaint states.
Hardesty alleges Kaiser operates the scheme to save money and be more competitive in the health care industry. "To successfully compete against the other health care service providers, Kaiser substantially reduced its labor costs by placing the burden of overtime work on a smaller number of salaried employees that Kaiser classified as exempt from overtime wages and other related benefits . . . the requirement to pay overtime wages extends beyond the benefits individual workers receive because overtime wages discourage employers from concentrating work in a few overburdened hands and encourages employers to instead hire additional employees," the complaint states.
In addition, the complaint alleges Kaiser did not provide the class compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and did not provide accurate and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages, hourly rates for regular and overtime hours or the corresponding hours worked at each hourly rate.
Hardesty is suing for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws under California's Business and Professions code. He wants the court to enjoin Kaiser from continuing its practice of labeling employees as exempt by title only, to order Kaiser to correctly calculate and pay all wages due, and to disgorge "ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for restitution" according to proof.
Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug and Aparajit Bhowmik, of La Jolla, Calif., represent the plaintiff.
Kaiser Uses Title Alone for Tax Status, Class Says
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News Service
May 07, 2013
SAN DIEGO, Calif. (CN) - Certain Kaiser Foundation Hospital Inc. employees were paid an exempt-status salary, but performed non-exempt tasks, according to a San Diego Superior Court class action lawsuit.
Lead plaintiff Adam Hardesty was employed at a San Diego County Kaiser hospital as a "project manager" from August 2012 to February 2013.
Hardesty states in his complaint that despite the title, employees had little to no authority, never served in a supervisory role and were otherwise "engaged in a type of work that required no exercise of independent judgment or discretion as to any matter of significance."
Instead, Kaiser project managers performed a "finite" set of non-exempt tasks that included transcribing written and electronic prescriptions, completing patient profile entries and notes, sending requests to doctors for medication refills and were even expected to troubleshoot the pharmacy computer system, all on top of "daily debriefing" conference calls.
"As a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, Kaiser unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively classified every project manager as exempt based on job title alone, failed to pay the required overtime compensation and otherwise failed to comply with all labor laws with respect to these project managers," the complaint states.
Hardesty alleges Kaiser operates the scheme to save money and be more competitive in the health care industry. "To successfully compete against the other health care service providers, Kaiser substantially reduced its labor costs by placing the burden of overtime work on a smaller number of salaried employees that Kaiser classified as exempt from overtime wages and other related benefits . . . the requirement to pay overtime wages extends beyond the benefits individual workers receive because overtime wages discourage employers from concentrating work in a few overburdened hands and encourages employers to instead hire additional employees," the complaint states.
In addition, the complaint alleges Kaiser did not provide the class compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and did not provide accurate and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages, hourly rates for regular and overtime hours or the corresponding hours worked at each hourly rate.
Hardesty is suing for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws under California's Business and Professions code. He wants the court to enjoin Kaiser from continuing its practice of labeling employees as exempt by title only, to order Kaiser to correctly calculate and pay all wages due, and to disgorge "ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for restitution" according to proof.
Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug and Aparajit Bhowmik, of La Jolla, Calif., represent the plaintiff.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Kaiser surgeon, or surgical resident, bungles colostomy closure, patient passes stool through vagina
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)