 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vohra v. Regents of the University of California2/4/2002
Deepak Vohra appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Regents of the University of California and Dr. Jeffrey Milliken in his wrongful death action. Finding none of his arguments have merit, we affirm.
I.
In July 1995, Deepak Vohra's 69-year-old mother, Shakuntala Vohra, was admitted to University of California at Irvine Medical Center's emergency room. She had been experiencing chest pain, nausea, and vomiting for approximately 14 hours. She was diagnosed as suffering from an acute myocardial infarction and sent to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for tests. The results showed serious heart problems, requiring emergency surgery.
Milliken, a cardothoracic surgeon performed the surgery, which included a coronary artery bypass. After the operation, Shakuntala developed pneumonia, hypotension, depressed thyroid function, low blood pressure, and she required kidney dialysis. She passed away on October 3, 1995.
In July 1996, Deepak sought damages for wrongful death due to medical negligence from Milliken and the Regents of the University of California (collectively and singularly referred to as Milliken). Milliken moved for summary judgment, asserting the treatment given to Shakuntala was within the applicable standard of care and did not contribute to her death.
Deepak filed an opposition, maintaining there were triable issues of material fact and requesting a continuance to allow the parties to complete discovery. He explained he had not received all the medical records requested. A few days later, Deepak untimely filed a declaration from an expert in "invasive cardiology," Kevin B. Rapeport, who declared, "Based on my experience, training and education and upon my review of the records of decedent herein, it is my medical opinion that there are serious questions as to whether defendants herein . . . acted within the standard of care in the community for cardiothoracic surgeons and internists in rendering care and treatment to the decedent. [ ] . . . t is my professional opinion that acts and omissions on the part of defendants contributed to or caused the death of the decedent." In his reply, Milliken argued the expert's declaration failed to establish he or the hospital were medically negligent or were a substantial factor in bringing about the decedent's death. The court agreed and granted the summary judgment motion.
A few weeks later, Deepak filed a motion for reconsideration claiming Rapeport, after "a more thorough review" of the medical records, was now able "to point, with specificity, to acts and omissions by defendants falling outside the standard of care . . . ." He submitted a new declaration from Rapeport delineating the following negligent acts: (1) "The procedures performed on decedent before surgery were unduly lengthy. This delay in performing cardiac surgery jeopardized the decedent's chance of meaningful recovery." (2) Tests showed decedent had an occluded left and right artery "as well as a mild to moderately diseased diagonal branch," but "bypass surgery was only performed on the mild to moderately diseased diagonal branch." (3) "The surgical repair of Ventricular Septal Defect was performed inadequately and unsatisfactorily. . . . pon discovery of the inadequacy of the repair . . . no second operative repair . . . was ever undertaken." (4) Decedent was not properly diagnosed or treated for her thyroid problem after surgery. Rapeport concluded, " t is my professional opinion that acts and omissions on the part of defendants set forth above both contributed to and caused the death of the decedent and further, failed to meet the standard of care in the community for cardiothoracic surgeons
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|