$______ VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - ORTHOPEDIST'S NEGLIGENCE - FAILURE TO ADDRESS CARTILAGE INJURY WHILE DEFENDANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON PERFORMING OPEN REDUCTION TO TREAT NFL PLAYER'S FRACTURED ANKLE - LOSS OF CAREER.

• Pages: 2-3

Summaries with Trial Analysis

$30,900,000 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – NURSING HOME NEGLIGENCE –

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERS SEVERE BEDSORE IN JUST 2 WEEKS AT

DEFENDANT’S FACILITY – FAILURE TO PROPERLY AND ADEQUATELY STAFF FACILITY –

WRONGFUL DEATH OF 86-YEAR-OLD MALE.

Sacramento County, CA

In this medical malpractice action, the estate of

the decedent maintained that the defendant long-

term care facility negligently cared for the

decedent and in just 2 short weeks allowed the

decedent to develop a severe and painful bedsore

that contributed to his death the following year.

The defendant facility denied all allegations of

negligence.

In 2017, the plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the

defendant long term care facility, following hip sur-

gery. In the two weeks that the decedent resided at

the facility he developed a pressure wound on his

heel down to his bone that he had to live with until his

death in 2018. The wound was extremely painful and

contributed to the decedent’s decline and ultimate

death.

The estate alleged that the facility failed to provide

proper care to the decedent, failed to rotate or turn

the decedent, failed to properly train their staff in skin

breakdown prevention and grossly understaffed their

facility for the sake of profits. The decedent died in

March of 2018 from complication related to his

wound. He is survived by his wife and 8 adult children.

The defendant facility denied all allegations of negli-

gence and injury and maintained that the decedent

was treated properly in accordance with all medical

standards.

A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs awarding $5.9

million in compensatory damages plus $25 million in

punitive damages for a total of 30.9 million.

REFERENCE

TheEstateofSamRios,Jr.vs.PineCreekCareCen

-

ter, Plum Healthcare Group, LLC and Daisy Holdings.

Case no. 34-2018-00244263, 01-24-23.

Attorney for plaintiff: Jay Renneisen of Law Offices of

Jay P. Renneisen in Walnut Creek, CA. Attorney for

defendant: William C. Wilson of Wilson Getty, LLP in

San Diego, CA.

COMMENTARY

An appeal has been filed by the defendant. The defense maintains

that the record reflects that the plaintiff presented to the defendant

with red heels that were properly monitored and cared for by the

defendant staff. Medical records indicate that upon discharge the

decedent’s heels were still noted to be red but did not show any

signs of breakdown. In addition, the decedent left Pine Creek with

a considerably better ability to walk than when he arrived from the

hospital following hip surgery. The case remains in active litigation

with post-trial motions, and a planned appeal.

$28,500,000 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – ORTHOPEDIST’S NEGLIGENCE –

FAILURE TO ADDRESS CARTILAGE INJURY WHILE DEFENDANT ORTHOPEDIC

SURGEON PERFORMING OPEN REDUCTION TO TREAT NFL PLAYER’S FRACTURED

ANKLE – LOSS OF CAREER.

New York County, NY

This was a medical malpractice/informed consent

case involving a then 25-year-old NFL player on

the NY Giants. The plaintiff contended that the

defendant orthopedic surgeon, who performed an

open reduction to treat an ankle fracture

sustained in a game the previous day, negligently

failed to tell him that the he also suffered a

osteochondral shear injury involving cartilage,

negligently failed to address the cartilage injury

and negligently cleared the plaintiff for a full

return to practice, despite the continuing

vulnerability caused by the cartilage. The plaintiff

contended that as a result, he suffered severely

increased pain in the ankle, could not run or

jump, and could not resume his career. The jury

was aware that the defendant passed away after

testifying in discovery.

The evidence revealed that the plaintiff suffered a

trimalleolar fracture in a game. The defendant per-

formed an open reduction the following day. The de-

fendant indicated in discovery that he was aware of

the cartilage injury from diagnostic films. The defen-

dant also admitted that he did not inform the plaintiff

or his family of the cartilage injury, nor did he surgi-

cally address the cartilage injury during surgery. Sev-

2

Volume 38, Issue 3, March 2023

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now