At trial, nurse admits the incorrect administration of drug during surgery.
The Case
- Case Name: Mahmood v. National Surgical Centers Stockton LLC
- Court and Case Number: San Joaquin County Superior Court / STK-CV-UMM-2023-0000467
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, April 30, 2026
- Date Action was Filed: Friday, January 20, 2023
- Type of Case: Medical Malpractice
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Jayne C. Lee
- Plaintiffs:
Asif Mahmood, 59Rubina Mahmood, 54
- Defendants:
National Surgical Centers Stockton, LLC (employer and surgical center)Kate Omosun-Fadal (nurse)
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $6,970,000
- Net Verdict or Award: $4,000,959
- Award as to each Defendant:
Jury award was against defendant surgical center. Defendant nurse Kate Omosun-Fadal was not on the verdict form and there were no jury findings against Kate Omosun-Fadal individually, but she stipulated at trial that she committed a medication error and that the medication error occured in the course and scope of her employment with National Surgical Centers LLC.
Results of the court's post-trial motion as of August 26, 2026:Post-trial, judgment was found against National Surgical Centers LLC only.With regards to Asif Mahmood: Asif's economic damages were reduced by a $1,839,041 offset as a result of the pre-trial settlement with Dr. Raina and Stockton Cardiology Complete Health Care, Inc.. ($5,370,000 minus $1,839,041 offset = $3,530,959); His non-economic damages were reduced from $1,000,000 to $470,000 pursuant to MICRA. After all reductions, his net judgment is $4,000,959.With regards to Rubina Mahmood: Rubina's loss of consortium claim was reduced from $600,000 down to $470,000 pursuant to MICRA.Cost bill and motions to tax costs are forthcoming. - Economic Damages:
Past medical expenses: $210,000
Future medical expenses: $2,500,000
Future attendant care services: $1,700,000
Past wage loss: $360,000
Future wage loss: $600,000
- Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $500,000
Future; $500,000
Loss of consortium (spouse): $600,000
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 9 days
- Jury Deliberation Time: 3 days
- Jury Polls: 10-2 on causation of injury
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Sadiq Law Firm, P.C. by Shafeeq Sadiq and Anis Guedoir, Stockton.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP by Douglas S. de Heras.
The Experts
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Christopher Stephenson, M.D., physical medicine and rehabilitation, Sacramento.
Tamara Stiep, M.D., neurology, San Francisco.
Diana Bubanja, CLCP, life care planning, Pleasant Hill.
- Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Stephen Reich, M.D., neurology, Baltimore, MD.
Zachary Threlkeld, M.D., neurology, Palo Alto.
Derrick Olzack, CLCP, life care planning, Atwater.
- Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Craig M. Enos, CPA, economics, Sacramento.
- Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Erik Volk, MA, CPA, economics, Walnut Creek.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
The case stems from a medication error that occurred on January 27, 2022 during a routine angioplasty. Plaintiff Asif Mahmood was 56 years old at the time, and was suffering from coronary heart disease. He had a quadruple bypass in October 2021, but still could not walk for more than a block due to blockage in his lower leg. This angioplasty was supposed to clear the blockage so he could return to his work as a car salesman. He had been off work since the bypass.
The procedure was performed at National Surgical Centers Stockton, LLC. The cardiologist sought to increase Mr. Mahmood’s blood pressure slightly from 90 mmHg. He ordered the nurse to administer “50 NEO.” (neosynephrine, a blood pressure increaser). The dosage was supposed to be diluted in saline and administered in micrograms. Instead, the nurse administered 3 milligrams straight from the vial, or 60 times the intended dose. She stopped administering when Mr. Mahmood’s blood pressure increased rapidly.
The actual blood pressure increase was disputed. Plaintiffs claimed it reached 300 mmHg. Defense argued it reached 240 mmHg. The increase resulted in a medical emergency. The cardiologist administered Nitroglycerine to reduce the blood pressure, dropping it down to 70. Once stabilized, plaintiff was transported to the emergency room.
The surgical nurse, Kate Omosun-Fadal, was on probation with the nursing board at the time of the incident. She admitted liability at trial.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
That the nurse committed a medication error when she administered the wrong dosage of “Neo.” The sudden increase in blood pressure caused plaintiff’s blood vessels in his brain to constrict, in a process called “vasoconstriction.” The subsequent decrease in blood pressure, combined with the constricted vessels, caused a caused a lack of oxygen to the brain, resulting in a hypoxic brain injury.
- Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant surgical center admitted that a medication error occurred, but argued that it resulted in a “transient” blood pressure fluctuation, with no loss of consciousness, cardiac arrest, pulmonary arrest, stroke, or coma. It therefore could not have caused brain injury.
Injuries and Other Damages
- Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Plaintiff claimed he suffered a hypoxic brain injury that left him with balance issues within a few days of the incident, combined with “lightning fast” twitches (myoclonus) within six months of the incident. He was diagnosed with “Lance Adams Syndrome,” a rare syndrome that usually occurs after cardiac arrest, pulmonary arrest, or coma due to lack of oxygen to the brain. Plaintiff is now wheelchair bound and needs 24/7 assistance for his daily needs.
Defendants’ expert testified that plaintiff does not have Lance Adams Syndrome, but instead has a “Functional Neurologic Disorder.” In other words, the blood pressure fluctuation did not cause any damage to plaintiff’s brain. Instead, he was suffering from a brain-signaling malfunction that could not be tied to the transient blood pressure fluctuation.
-
Both parties agreed that plaintiff was unemployable. Plaintiff argued that but for the incident, he would have been able to return to his work as a finance manager at the Toyota dealership, the position he held prior to COVID. Defendants argued that his wage loss should be limited to internet sales, the position he returned to after COVID.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $221,071
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $1,663,113 and $6,788,776 for attendant care.
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $876,774
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $1,589,753
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff §998 Demand: $4,000,000 on January 30, 2025 (to nurse per defense counsel)
- Plaintiff Final Demand before Trial: $8,000,000
- Plaintiff Demand during Trial: $10,000,000
- Defendant §998 Offer: $2,000,000 on May 2, 2025
- Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $2,000,000
- Defendant Offer during Trial: None
Additional Notes
A confidential settlement was reached with the cardiologist and an order for good-faith settlement was signed on June 6, 2025. The cardiologist was not on the verdict form and defendants are entitled to a set off for the economic damages paid in the settlement.
Defendant National Surgical Centers Stockton, LLC contends that plaintiff will not be able to recover C.C.P. §998 costs against it because plaintiff’s C.C.P. § 998 was made only to Kate Omosun-Fadal, individually; and Kate Omosun-Fadal was not on the verdict form and there were no jury findings against Kate Omosun-Fadal individually. (Per plaintiff's counsel: This was not an issue for the jury to decide since defense counsel and the nurse stipulated at trial that she had committed a medication error and that the medication error occured in the course and scope of her employment with National Surgical Centers LLC.)
Insurer: Admiral Insurance Company.
It is plaintiff's position that the $2 million policy is "open" because of an unreasonable failure to accept a policy limits demand.
Defendant disputes that its policy was “open” because plaintiff never made a demand within the policy limits and had accepted defendant’s policy limits offer of $2,000,000; but later unreasonably reneged on his agreement to accept defendant’s policy limits offer of settlement.
Per plaintiff's counsel:
At settlement conference in 2025, defense counsel falsely stated, in chambers, that their $2M policy was an “eroding” policy, and that since the defense costs were $200K, he could only offer $1.8M to resolve.
Plaintiff then requested to review the entire policy. Defense counsel offered $1.9M, in exchange for not producing the policy. When that offer was rejected, defense counsel offered the full $2M, with no offset for defense costs. When plaintiff requested the updated declarations page, defense counsel accidentally emailed the entire policy language, which confirmed that the policy was not an "eroding" policy.
Defense counsel then presented a release with a confidentiality and non-disparagement clause, neither of which were ever discussed in negotiations. Plaintiffs agreed to sign the release, except for the confidentiality and non-disparagement clause. Defense counsel responded that “confidentiality is nonnegotiable," which served as a rejection of the policy limits demand.