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 Action: Medical Malpractice
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Armen Tamzarian
Plaintiffs:
Charles Lucas
Karen 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.

Print this Verdict

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.