plaintiff ’s eyes during any of the three vis- its probably would have revealed impaired visual fields, which is universally accepted as a sign of a brain tumor, especially in the presence of a headache complaint. Funduscopic examination during the three visits may also have revealed papailledema, which is often caused by craniopharyngioma, and optic atrophy, which is caused by chronic hydrocephalus. All experts agreed that if diagnostic studies were performed during any of the three visits, plaintiff ’s tumor would have been detected.
Injuries and Damages: According to plaintiffs’ experts, if plaintiff ’s tumor and associated hydrocephalus had been appro- priately diagnosed by defendants, plaintiff ’s intracranial pressure could have been relieved by steroids and ultimately his tumor could have been drained and partially or, possibly, completely removed during a non-emergent surgical proce- dure.
Even if he was managed post-operatively with radiation, only pin- point radiation with minimal side effects would have been required. If his condi- tion had been timely diagnosed by defendants, plaintiff would have made a
good recovery and would most likely have returned fully to his normal function. Defendants’ experts disputed this optimis- tic outcome and were prepared to testify that plaintiff would not have been able to return to work and would have sustained some permanent, albeit comparably mi- nor, cognitive deficits had his condition been detected during any of the three vis- its.
Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and cognitive disability. Although he is occasionally responsive (nods head yes or shakes head no) to his wife, plaintiff is otherwise unable to speak. He is unable to bath or dress himself. He can occa- sionally eat finger foods and can occasionally hold a fork with his left hand. Otherwise, he requires assistance with eating and drinking. He is dependent on others for transfers between his bed and a wheelchair and can not operate the wheel- chair independently and requires head, neck and trunk support. He must be turned every two hours to prevent skin breakdown. He is unable to perform bowel and bladder functions without the assistance of care givers. He must have constant care. Plaintiff ’s past medical expenses total
approximately $356,618.48 and he will incur substantial expenses in fulfilling his basic life care needs for the remainder of his lifetime. If plaintiff were brought home, as his family prefers, the present value of his future medical expenses and life care needs would be $5,755,974. If he remains in a nursing home, the present value of his future medical expenses and life care needs would be $3,950,533. Plaintiff ’s vocational losses were projected to be $8855,654.
Experts Witness(es) Plaintiff Experts: Withheld upon request
Defendant Experts: Withheld upon re- quest
Outcome of Case: A confidential settle- ment for a substantial amount was reached between the parties shortly before trial.
Settlement: Confidential
Special Comment: When plaintiff was admitted to anonymous non-party hos-
(Continued on page 52)
Winter 2003
Trial Reporter
51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60