Med-mal case against Kaiser goes to trial when arbitration clause is beaten. $28 million gross. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  In August of 2008, when plaintiff was 16, she started to experience back pain. It grew worse and in January 2009, she began experiencing radiating pain down her right leg. In February 2009, plaintiff went to the family chiropractor, who was not affiliated with defendant Kaiser. The treatments were unsuccessful and, because the chiropractor was concerned about the cause of plaintiff's pain, he urged her to go to Kaiser  Permanente to seek an MRI. Plaintiff and her mother went to Kaiser Permanente in Woodland Hills and saw plaintiff's primary care physician and a physical medicine specialist on March 12 and 24, 2009. Conservative treatment was begun but no MRI was ordered.  

  During a telephone call with plaintiff's primary care physician on June 16, 2009, plaintiff's mother laid out the history of plaintiff's conservative care and begged the doctor for an MRI. The doctor ordered the MRI., which was performed on July 2, 2009.

  The MRI revealed that the cause of plaintiff's pain was a large, aggressive malignant tumor in her pelvis known as pelvic osteosarcoma. Thereafter, plaintiff had to undergo radical surgery to amputate her right leg, remove half her pelvis and fuse her spine.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That Kaiser physicians refused to give plaintiff an MRI from March 12 until it was performed on July 2, 2009, which would have revealed plaintiff’s cancer much sooner and could have spared plaintiff the loss of her leg.

  That between March and June 2009, plaintiff and her mother repeatedly requested an MRI from plaintiff's treating physicians at Kaiser Permanente; that both doctors refused to order an MRI, failed to document the MRI request in the medical records.

  That plaintiff Anna Rahm presented with numerous "red flags" during her initial visits to Kaiser in March 2009, including severe nighttime pain, severe or progressive neurologic deficit, major motor weakness, clumsy gait or falling, fever, and failure to improve in 6 weeks with conservative treatment. Her symptoms progressed with additional "conservative" treatments suggested by Kaiser, including yoga, pilates, oral steroids, muscle relaxants, ibuprofen, acupuncture, physical therapy, rest, ice and heat. 

  As a result of the MRI delay, plaintiff's aggressive tumor grew and spread to a location that eventually required the amputation when it was ultimately discovered in July 2009.

  Plaintiff contended that if her cancer had been diagnosed in March 2009, instead of July 2009, her right leg would have been spared and she would have required a much less extensive surgery. Additionally, that she would have much different care needs in the future. Due to the aggressive, doubling nature of osteosarcomas, plaintiff's tumor grew significantly during the four month delay. This growth required the amputation surgery when the cancer was finally diagnosed in July 2009.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  That in March 2009 plaintiff's chiropractor had ordered an X-ray of plaintiff's spine, which was read as normal.That plaintiff had no red flags when she presented in March 2009.  Thus, she had to pursue conservative treatment first, including medications, physical therapy, weight loss, and consider an epidural steroid injection. That her prior treatment outside of Kaiser, including chiropractic care, did not count as "conservative treatment" to plaintiff's treating physicians at Kaiser because it was not under Kaiser's watch.

  SCPMG argued (and defendant's doctors testified at trial) that neither plaintiff nor her mother asked for an MRI before June 2009 and that plaintiff and her mother caused delays in plaintiff's care because they went to acupuncture, yoga, and pilates, all outside of Kaiser, instead of attending physical therapy at Kaiser in April and early May 2009.

  Further, that plaintiff only saw each treating physician once between March and July 2009; the other communications were all telephonic.

  As to causation, by the time plaintiff presented to SCPMG, her tumor was already in a location and of a size that required the amputation surgery. In other words, an earlier diagnosis in March 2009 would not have changed plaintiff's surgical outcome.