Doctor Hit With $26M Malpractice
But huge award may exceed California damages cap
By BILL KISLIUK
An Alameda County jury has awarded a little girl $26 million in a medical malpractice case, bringing home what appears to be among the largest verdicts of its kind in Northern California history.
But the verdict reached Wednesday is unlikely to stand in its entirety because it exceeds California's cap for "pain and suffering" damages.
A jury before Superior Court Judge John Kraetzer in Hayward gave the sum to 8-year-old Stephanie Wright, whose early signs of spinal meningitis doctors failed to diagnose in 1987.
In Wright v. St. Rose Hospital, HI680812, the plaintiff's attorneys alleged that two doctors at the Hayward hospital neglected in perform laboratory tests on Wright - then less than a year old - that could have revealed that her ear infection had become dangerously complicated. As a result of the meningitis,
Wright is now a spastic quadriplegic with brain damage and severe developmental problems, according to plaintiff's attorney Randall Scarlett. She can neither sit up nor cat with out assistance, and requires extensive in-home care.
The $26 million verdict was levied against Dr. Richard Pattee, an emergency room physician who opted not to administer the tests when Wright was 9 months old. Dr. Peter Hacker, who had treated Wright earlier was found not liable. Both physicians were represented by Stephen Lacey of Oakland's Lucey & Watkins.
The hospital, represented by partner John Dittoe of Oakland's Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, reached a confidential settlement while the six-week trial was in progress.
Jurors awarded Wright $17 million for future medical costs, $6 million for pain and suffering, $3 million for future wage loss and $53,000 for existing medical liens.
But the $6 million for pain and suffering will likely be slashed by the trial court at the hearing next month. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act,
MICRA, caps pain-and-suffering damages in California at $250,000.
In addition, the $17 million tab for future expenses may not represent the actual costs to the defendant. Medical malpractice lawyers not involved in the case suggest that after factoring in actual up-front costs to enhance current care, and annuity funds or other mechanisms for paying the award over the patient's lifetime, defendants may actually spend between one-quarter and one-half of the total sum.
Jury Verdicts Weekly, a Santa Rosa-based publication that tracks large trial awards, states that the highest medical malpractice verdict in its databank for the last six years is a 1989 award of $18,788,233 in a case against a San Jose Hospital.
STANDARD OF CARE
Scarlett, of San Francisco's Brown, Monzione, Fabbro, Zakaria & Scarlett, said he was "ecstatic for Stephanie Wright. This verdict will ensure that she can receive care and improve the quality of her life."
He said the case pivoted on the issue of when Wright's condition worsened to the point that laboratory tests would have indicated that she suffered from meningitis. Both sides presented medical experts who offered testimony on the standard of card for emergency room physicians under the circumstances.
During closing arguments, Scarlett said he suggested the jury compensate Wright with between $12 million and $46 million.
In addition to a hearing scheduled for Nov. 13 on reducing the award under MICRA, Scarlett said he expects defense counsel to argue that the award is improper because it dramatically exceeds the amount of Pattee's malpractice insurance, which Scarlett contends is $1 million.
Defense counsel Lucey declined to comment on insurance issues or the specifics of reducing the award. He said he is "reviewing [the verdict] for appeal purposes. We believe the doctors met the standard of care, and we don't feel the evidence supports the verdict."
Reporter Bill Kisliuk's e-mail address is kisliuk@counsel.com
