Lawsuits involving Kaiser Permanente in California

Kaiser Permanente will pay $1.8 million to the family of a man who suffered a brain aneurysm after his headache was wrongly attributed to grief.

In 2005, 45-year-old Ted Blackwell visited a Kaiser clinic in Orange County with a headache and neck pain. According to the binding arbitration document, doctors attributed his symptoms to grief over the death of his brother eight days earlier.

Blackwell returned to the clinic two days later, still in pain. According to the document, his daughter requested a CT scan because of her father's disorientation but doctors decided that wasn't necessary.

Two days later, Blackwell collapsed and underwent surgery at Hoag Hospital for bleeding in his brain. He suffered permanent brain damage and is unable to work, according to his attorney James McElroy of Del Mar.

CASE #: INC067929 TIME: 8:30
CATEGORY: Medical Malpractice
CASE NAME: ALARIO VS PHAM
HEARING: Hearing on OSC re why unserved parties should not be dismis
on Complaint of ALARIO.

PARTIES: FIRMS/ATTORNEY'S
Plaintiff: EDWARD G. ALARIO POHLSON & MOORHEAD
CAROL ALARIO POHLSON & MOORHEAD

Defendant: CHRISTOPHER PHAM DO DAVIS, GRASS, GOLDSTEI
DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AGAJANIAN MCFALL WEISS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
DESERT MEDICAL GROUP/OASIS IPA

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside
www.riverside.courts.ca.gov Page: 100

HONORABLE - JUDGE H. Morgan Dougherty

Jayant Patel - McCLELLAN v. PATEL, (Or. 2006) - http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.info/patelcivilcase.html
"Specifically, Kaiser defendants allege that plaintiff makes the following "administrative negligence" claims: Ian McClellan died following abdominal surgery performed by defendant Jayant Patel, M.D. Complaint, 1. The Kaiser defendants were "jointly engaged in the practice of medicine and the delivery of other healthcare services. Id. at 5. The collective defendants granted Dr. Patel surgical privileges and held Dr. Patel out to the public and plaintiff as a competent physician, specially skilled in performing abdominal surgery on children. Id. Defendant Patel was hired by the Kaiser defendants in 1989, and the Kaiser defendants were aware of at least eight medical malpractice lawsuits, some of which involved wrongful death cases and Dr. Patel's care. Id. at 11. In 1997, the Kaiser defendants began conducting an internal review of approximately 80 potential malpractice incidents involving Dr. Patel. As a result of that internal review, plaintiff alleges the Kaiser defendants restricted defendant Patel's surgical privileges in the summer of 1998, limiting his ability to perform certain abdominal procedures as well as placing other requirements on defendant Patel. Id. at 14."

Arrindell worked for the Capital Area Permanente Medical Group, P.C. (CAPMG), which recruits, employs, supervises, and compensates physicians for the purpose of providing physicians, under contract, to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. Each eligible physician is allowed to purchase two shares of CAPMG stock after twenty-four months of service, a third share after thirty-six months, and a fourth share after forty-eight months of service. The bylaws of CAPMG provide that in making the determination of whether to recommend a physician for shares, the Board of Directors (Board) considers a physician's written performance appraisal.

LARRY T. WIGGINS
v.   Record No. 1542-95-4
OPINION BY
JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF
FAIRFAX PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

MAY 14, 1996
AND
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

SEVERO CAUSING, JR., RUTH GALLENERO, PETE CAUSING, MAY LEYRIT CAUSING,
CHRISTINA CAUSING, KAYRA CAUSING, MAY CAUSING, IRENE DEANON, LAURIE
MICHELLE DEANON,JAN MICHAEL DEANON, HEATHER JOY DEANON, ESTRELLA CAMPOS,
BOY CAMPOS, JEANNANE CAMPOS, JEFFREY CAMPOS, LUNA POSA, TONY POSA,
MARK POSA, CHRISTIE POSA, CARMEN AVILA, RUBY CAUSING PANUNCIALMAN,
AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF SOTERO CAUSING,

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ARASH KHARESTAN, M.D.,
GERALD BECKHAM, M.D., HUGH GREATHOUSE, M.D. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Nichols vs. Kaiser - $1,100,000 against Kaiser Permanente
John P. Blumberg, Esq. and Nancy G. Wanski, Esq. of Blumberg Law Corporation, Long Beach represented the Nichols Family.
She and her husband decided not to have more children and plaintiff made plans to undergo a tubal ligation. Kaiser tested the plaintiff's blood on June 4, 2001 and determined that she was 10 weeks pregnant. The plaintiff was never notified that she was pregnant and the report was never placed in the chart. On June 27 the plaintiff met with the physician for a pre-op consultation. The doctor ordered a urine test for pregnancy and the sample was provided by the patient, however Kaiser performed the test. At this point the plaintiff was approximately 13 weeks pregnant. On the day of the tubal ligation surgery, the nursing staff printed a copy of the June 4, 2001 pregnancy test and put it in the chart. The doctor testified that her custom and practice was not to review the chart before performing tubal ligation surgery, but to rely on the nursing staff to tell her if the pregnancy test was positive. She said that the nurses neither told her that the urine test had not been performed nor that the previous labs had been positive for pregnancy. Plaintiff was given a general anesthetic and the doctor began the laparoscopic procedure. She noted during the surgery that the uterus was enlarged, but presumed that it was a fibroid, since she believed that the pregnancy test had been negative. The doctor told plaintiff’s husband that the operation went fine but that she found a fibroid uterus.
The story just gets worse. This is another Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Story.

CCP §998 was amended, effective January 1, 1998, to include medical malpractice arbitrations within its scope, and in particular, provisions for reimbursement of costs. Until this last year, Kaiser has argued that the amendment to CCP §998 impaired the obligation of existing contracts and therefore was not enforceable, and that the vested substantial rights of the contracting parties were protected from legislative impairment.

Kaiser has changed its position. In an August 21, 2000, letter, senior counsel, Angel A. Santos, stated, "Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. will no longer object to California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 demands on the basis of inapplicability to the Kaiser arbitration [system]..."

I urge any plaintiff's attorney involved in a Kaiser arbitration to make appropriate statutory offers to compromise.

"California Supreme Court to Hear Kaiser Case" (Los Angeles Times, November 3, 1995) explains problems that can occur when health plan contracts restrict a patient to using binding arbitration to resolve malpractice or other claims against a plan in lieu of a jury trial. Binding arbitration favors the health plan by allowing delays in the hearing dates so that patients must spend more to pursue resolution. The California Supreme Court will hear the appealed case of a man who was not diagnosed properly with lung cancer over a five year period and tried to use the binding artibration against Kaiser without success. The decision of the lower court found the company's "arbitration process to be corrupt... in general."

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, under the leadership of consumer activist Jamie Court, charged Kaiser Permanente with false advertising, in a lawsuit filed on March 16, 1999. According to the suit, Kaiser has spent $60 million a year on television and print ads that emphatically state that only doctors, not insurance administrators, make decisions about patient care at Kaiser. The slogan was “In the hands of doctors.” The consumer group alleges that Kaiser physicians are under constant pressure to curtail medical costs. The company has reduced Kaiser’s medical budget, pushed doctors to reduce the number and length of hospitalizations, and tied physicians’ compensation to business quotas limiting patient expenses, according to the suit. The action was filed in State Superior Court in San Francisco on behalf of the nearly 500,000 members who joined the health plan from 1996 to 1998.