Plaintiff claims delayed diagnosis/repair of perforation during surgery. Defense. Los Angeles County.
Summary
Patient says surgeon failed to timely diagnose and repair a perforation that followed abdominal surgery.
The Case
- Case Name: Lucas v. Marcus
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC643151
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, May 08, 2019
- Date Action was Filed: Thursday, December 08, 2016
- Type of Case: Medical Malpractice
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Armen Tamzarian
-
Plaintiffs: Charles LucasKaren Lucas
-
Defendants: Daniel Marcus, M.D.
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: Defense.
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 7 days.
- Jury Deliberation Time: 1 hour.
- Jury Polls: 10-2
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Girardi Keese by David N. Bigelow, Kelly Winter Weil and Carlos Urzua, Los Angeles.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McBride & Peabody, by John C. Kelly and Patrick J. Goethals, Long Beach. (For Daniel Marcus, M.D.)
The Experts
-
Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Barry N. Gardiner, M.D.
-
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
David Joseph Lourié, MD, FACS, FASMBS.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
In September 2015, plaintiff suffered a bowel perforation following abdominal surgery.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff alleged delay in diagnosis and repair.
-
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant timely diagnosed the injury following appropriate workup and timely repaired the bowel perforation.
Injuries and Other Damages
-
Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Bowel perforation, prolonged hospitalization and subsequent surgery.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $15,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $70,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $195,000
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff §998 Demand: $300,000
- Plaintiff Demand during Trial: $780,000
- Defendant §998 Offer: Waiver of costs.
Additional Notes
Defendant hospital was also named in the lawsuit, but won their motion for summary judgment.