 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. Laws2/27/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff Angela Reed, who suffered from back pain, sued defendant George Laws, M.D., for medical malpractice, on the ground that he misdiagnosed her condition as fibromyalgia in 1998. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff appeals. She contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and that it erred by granting summary judgment on the alternative ground that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had breached the standard of care.
Plaintiff also appeals from the trial court's denial of her motions for a new trial and to tax costs.
None of plaintiff's contentions have merit. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. The Underlying Facts
Plaintiff experienced back pain after she lifted bar stools at work on August 8, 1998.
Two weeks later, on August 25, plaintiff consulted defendant about her back pain. Between August 25, 1998 and November 17, 1998, defendant saw plaintiff on four occasions.
During her last appointment with defendant, on November 17, 1998, plaintiff complained that she was experiencing intense back pain and "couldn't lift anything." Plaintiff also asked defendant "if there wasn't some kind of further testing he could do" and asked for pain medication. Defendant told plaintiff that she had fibromyalgia and said, " here's nothing I can give you for pain," and "I seriously doubt you have anything wrong with your spine." Defendant prescribed physical therapy.
Plaintiff did not "like" defendant's diagnosis of fibromyalgia, but she proceeded with the course of physical therapy recommended by defendant. Her symptoms calmed.
The next year, in May 1999, plaintiff's back pain flared up again. She went to the hospital emergency room on July 13, 1999, and was examined by Dr. Dykes, who told her that she might have a ruptured disc. Dr. Dykes told plaintiff that she should be examined by "a specialist, a neurologist or someone who would order MRI[']s[ ]."
Plaintiff followed the recommendation. Two days later, she was examined by Pramila Gupta, M.D., a neurologist, who told plaintiff that she should have had an MRI performed right after her 1998 injury , and ordered the test.
On August 2, 1999, plaintiff was examined by Daniel Bullock, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and medical examiner qualified to assess her condition for purposes of processing her workers' compensation claim. Dr. Bullock told plaintiff that she was not suffering from fibromyalgia. Instead, he diagnosed her as suffering from a "cumulative trauma" to her lower back, a herniated disc in her thoracic spine, some loss of the normal fluid content in the discs in her lumbar spine, and some degenerative disease in her lumbar spine. He reviewed her recent MRI and opined that her condition could have been caused by her injury at work the preceding year. And he subsequently became plaintiff's treating physician.
II. Plaintiff's Action
On August 24, 2000 -- over one year after Dr. Bullock had told her that she was not suffering from fibromyalgia -- plaintiff filed this action.
The operative (second amended) complaint alleged that defendant "misd
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|