Victories

Trial Attorneys: Evan A. Guze, Esq. of Fraser, Watson & Croutch, LLP and Stephen A. Rosa, Esq. of West & Rosa, LLP
Case #: BC693486
Court: LA Superior - Long Cause, Dept. "16"
Judge: Hon. J. Stephen Czuleger
Date: April 9, 2024 to May 6, 2024

After six years of litigation and two prior mistrials, defense counsel Stephen Rosa at West & Rosa, LLP and Evan Guzé at Fraser, Watson & Croutch, LLP finally obtained a unanimous 12-0 defense verdict in a catastrophic birth injury case on behalf of Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital.

Throughout three separate trials, plaintiff presented ever-shifting theories. In the most recent trial, plaintiff alleged there was a delay in timely assembling the operating team to perform an "emergency" c-section. Plaintiff claimed, had he been delivered earlier, he would not have sustained a hypoxic ischemic brain injury which resulted in severe cerebral palsy. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the "30 minute decision to incision" standard applied and that it was therefore negligent of the hospital for delivery to have occurred later. Consistent with the two previous trials, plaintiff claimed that allegedly "missing" records would have supported the case by demonstrating a severe decline in oxygenation to the fetus just prior to delivery.

During plaintiff's case in chief, defense counsel was able to successfully demonstrate that plaintiff lacked a coherent theory as they failed to identify precisely who acted negligently by not timely assembling the surgical team. Specifically, defense counsel showed that there were no criticisms of the involved nursing team. Further, the notion that there were "missing" records was disproved, including through extensive supportive testimony from defendant's risk manager, manager of health information technology and manager of medical records.

Through world-class experts such as neonatologist Philippe Friedlich, M.D., maternal-fetal medicine specialist David Miller, M.D. and perinatal nurse instructor Anne Taylor, RN, the defense was able to effectively distill and explained complex obstetrical concepts that were crucial to a successful outcome. For instance, understandable testimony was provided on SARNAT scoring, the nuances of APGAR scoring, differences between arterial vs. cord blood gasses, the benefits and advances in newborn hypothermic cooling, etc. During jury polling, it was learned that this testimony by defendant's experts was key to the unanimous verdict, as there was no doubt in the jury's mind that plaintiff had failed to meet his evidentiary burden with such complex medicine.

Just prior to trial, plaintiff demanded $20 million, which increased to $24 million after plaintiff's opening statement. In closing, plaintiff blackboarded total damages of approximately $140 million at future value, including a claim for $17.6 million in lost earnings and $62.7 million for medical expenses. The jury deliberated for approximately 7.5 hours before reaching their unanimous verdict.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Evan A. Guze, Esq.
Case #: BC617242
Court: LA Superior - Long Cause, Dept. "89"
Judge: Hon. Ruth A. Kwan
Date: January 5, 2023 - February 21, 2023

Stephen Fraser and Evan Guze represented The Regents of the University of California (Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center) and urogynecologist Christopher Tarnay, M.D. in this lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Bianca Dickerson and her husband Taly Williams, who sought damages for loss of consortium. Co-defendant Tristan Bickman, M.D. was represented by LaFollette Johnson.

Plaintiff alleged that, as a result improper positioning during delivery of her second child, she sustained extensive gynecologic injuries (including sulcal and perineal lacerations), neurologic injuries (including pudendal neuralgia, sciatica and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, or "CRPS"), orthopedic injuries (including a labral tear) and psychiatric injuries (including PTSD and Major Depression). Detailed expert testimony from both plaintiff and defense was presented at trial of the involved body mechanics, maternal labor positioning and corresponding nursing support. Despite plaintiff's claims of forced extension of her hip resulting in hyperflexion which caused the alleged labral tear, the defense was able to successfully demonstrate how the involved anatomy belied plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff further claimed that Dr. Tarnay, who saw her for three follow up appointments, subsequently failed to intervene and was the "last best" opportunity to prevent a permanent worsening of her injuries. Specifically, she alleged that Dr. Tarnay performed an "incomplete" exam of her posterior vagina resulting in a "missed" sulcal laceration which she claimed later developed into several neuromas. Had this laceration been timely identified, it was alleged that Dr. Tarnay could have surgically intervened to ultimately prevent development of CRPS. Through extensive testimony from three urogynecologists and three gynecologists, the jury learned that surgical intervention was not indicated during the exemplary course of conservative care provided by Dr. Tarnay.

This protracted case took almost seven years to bring to trial due to COVID delays but also a constant expansion of theories of liability by plaintiff, including attempts to introduce inflammatory allegations of racially motivated disparate treatment and amended pleadings adding claims for fraud and punitive damages against the co-defendant. Counsel asked the jury to award over $17 million dollars in economic damages for loss of earnings, earnings capacity, future medical care and household services. As a former Director for attorney support services, plaintiff blackboarded a six-figure salary and claimed that she was completely unable to participate in the labor force due to her injuries. Without calling defense experts in economics and life care planning, the defense was able establish through cross-examination of plaintiffs’ numerous experts that plaintiff was still able to work and, in fact, was traveling around the country for various speaking engagements.

Over the course of this almost six-week jury trial in Stanley Mosk Long-Cause, testimony was provided by seventeen experts from across the country (plaintiffs). The parties themselves also provided in-depth testimony, including five days with plaintiff on the stand and multiple days of complex medical anatomy as presented by Drs. Tarnay and Bickman. Further, extensive trial briefing was provided on cutting-edge developments in the law, including based on Klein vs. Zimmer (2022) 79 Ca.App.5th 123 and Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163, Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, Markow v. Rosner (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1027, Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308.

Ultimately, the jury returned a defense verdict across the board, voting 11-1 for The Regents, 10-2 for Dr. Tarnay and 9-3 for Dr. Bickman. In polling the jurors after trial, the defense was commended for its clear, succinct breakdown of complicated medical concepts and terminology, and was also praised for being exceptionally well-prepared to rebut the extensive claims presented.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Karen Lee, Esq.
Case #: BC639927
Court:  Los Angeles Superior Court, Van Nuys, Department "C"
Judge:  Hon. James E. Blancarte
Date:     3/10/2022 to 3/17/2022 (7 day Jury Trial)

In this lawsuit against UCLA, brought by veteran trial lawyer Ian "Buddy" Herzog on behalf of NCIS television director Michael Zinberg, Plaintiff alleged that he did not give his informed consent to a multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Upon presenting at the outpatient imaging center, Mr. Zinberg claimed that he learned, for the first time, that the MRI ordered by prostate oncologist Dr. Schulz, involved contrast administration. After learning this, Mr. Zinberg became very apprehensive and spoke with the MRI technologist regarding his concerns. Mr. Zinberg claimed that during their discussion, the MRI technologist informed him that the risk of having a reaction to gadolinium-based contrast was “one in one million.” The MRI technologist then called the 4th year radiology resident, Dr. Ronnie Chen into the room to discuss plaintiff's concerns. Mr. Zinberg alleged that Dr. Chen also told him that there were no realistic concerns re contrast and that chance of having a reaction to contrast was “one in ten million." Mr. Zinberg experienced an anaphylactic reaction to the gadolinium-based contrast that was administered, became unresponsive and 911 had to be called and he was transferred to UCLA Santa Monica where fortunately he was treated and recovered.

We argued that neither the MRI technologist nor the radiology resident told Mr. Zinberg that the chance of having a reaction to contrast was “one in one million” and that the radiology resident fully explained the risks and benefits of receiving contrast prior to the procedure, even going so far as to give Mr. Zinberg the option of proceeding without contrast. The defense maintained that at all times, the MRI technologist and radiology resident were within the standard of care, as Mr. Zinberg was appropriately and adequately advised of the risks and benefits of contrast and gave his informed consent to the procedure. Mr Zinberg sought at least $400,000 to $600,000 in damages for the mental and emotional distress he claims to have experienced as a result of the reaction he experienced.
The verdict was a unanimous 12-0 after 70 minutes of deliberation.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Evan A. Guze, Esq.
Court:  Los Angeles Superior Court, Van Nuys Courthouse
Date:     Fall 2021

Deliberations started at approximately 9:05 a.m.; soon thereafter, the first question/request of the day was received from the jurors, asking for a read-back of the entirety of the defendant doctor's testimony. The Court sent that request back for clarification/specification, however, the point quickly became moot thereafter when, at about 9:45 a.m., one of the jurors came forward with “irreconcilable differences” with his fellow jurors. This juror had had previous confrontations and was even overheard shouting at other jurors in the jury room on Monday (through the closed door). When this juror came forward yesterday, the Court heard his explanation and asked him if he was able to set aside his differences to continue deliberating. The juror responded that he could not do so, and was therefore excused, bringing us down to one remaining alternate.

Almost immediately after the confrontational juror was excused, another juror came forward to voluntarily report that his sister-in-law, with whom he lives, had just tested positive for COVID. The Court asked him the mandated questions about his exposure, at which time he volunteered that he had only received one of two doses of the vaccine. Since the Court’s decision-tree for handling potential exposure only had binary “yes” or “no” options for vaccine status, the Court had to take a recess to speak with the presiding judge and the Court’s COVID policy coordinator as to how to proceed here. The jurors were asked to remain outside and pause their deliberations. Just before the recess, the presiding juror came into the courtroom to thank the Court for its understanding as to the issues with the confrontational juror, and to inform the Court that several of the remaining jurors were concerned about COVID exposure. It was at this time, with a mistrial looming, that Ross emailed me and instructed me to accept plaintiff’s demand for $1 million.

After the lengthy morning recess, the Court returned and advised that it had been instructed to excuse the COVID-exposed juror. The plan was to seat the last alternate and return after the lunch recess. During lunch, plans were also made for the jurors to spread out in an open, available courtroom elsewhere in the building. However, after the lunch recess, one juror did not return. This particular juror had seemed COVID-averse throughout the trial, coming in every day double masked with an N95 face mask, gloves and a hat. She called the clerk and left a voicemail stating that she would not be returning, but that she was available if the Court had any questions.

Faced with 11 jurors, the Court asked counsel for suggestions on how to proceed. Plaintiff’s counsel demanded that the Court contact the juror who had not returned, to which the Court, clearly exasperated and fed-up with plaintiff’s counsel, responded that it would not do so. Counsel were then asked if they would stipulate to proceeding with 11 jurors. Plaintiff’s counsel promptly agreed, but counsel for the co-defendant hospital (after speaking with his claims representative and risk manager) declined. Accordingly, the Court called in the 11 remaining jurors and declared a mistrial.

The jurors were polled after they were excused. They had voted the afternoon before that the doctor was not negligent by a vote of 10-2 and actually filled in that portion of the Special Verdict.  However, the COVID averse juror had returned yesterday morning and requested that they reconsider the issue of Dr. Lee’s negligence, which is what prompted the requested a read back of his entire trial testimony. The remaining jurors advised us that they felt the question of the doctor’s negligence was decided and likely would not have been changed after a readback.

Previously, plaintiff’s prior demand at mediation was a non-negotiable $5 million.  During trial, the doctor's insurance company reached out and inquired if a resolution within the $1 million policy was of interest.  Counsel’s response was to demand $10 million with 48 hours to respond.  In light of this history, the resolution on behalf of the doctor can be conservatively be termed a “win.”

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Marijana Kral, Esq.
Case #: 19STCV18697
Court:  Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica, CA, Department "I"
Judge:  Hon. H. Chester Horn
Date:     1/21/2020 to 1/29/2020 (7 day Jury Trial including jury selection)

In Summary:
Steve Fraser and Marijana Kral represented a Board Certified surgeon along with a major Los Angeles medical center in this claim for wrongful death based on medical negligence brought by the surviving wife of a 69-year-old patient who died while undergoing revision surgery for hiatal hernia repair. The procedure began laparoscopically but later converted to an open procedure. Significant scarring was encountered from a prior hiatal hernia repair with Nissen fundoplication. A splenic bleed occurred and was controlled, Billowing of the chest suggested a pneumothorax which was subsequently discovered to be an aortic bleed. The aortic bleed was temporarily controlled, massive transfusions provided, and CPR performed; however the patient did not regain a perfusable heart rhythm and, ultimately, died.

Plaintiff and her liability experts contended defendants failed to meet the standard of care when performing surgery on the patient, causing him to hemorrhage, suffer cardiac arrest, and die. Specifically, plaintiff contended the surgeon was negligent in his failure to timely convert to an open procedure when it was recognized that the anatomy of the hiatal hernia was distorted and scarred from the previous surgery. Plaintiff further contended the surgeon failed to use proper surgical technique and caused an aortic bleed and the patient's death. Plaintiff sought general damages, loss of household services, and loss of pension benefits in excess of $1 million.

At trial, plaintiff's expert surgeon testified the surgeon needed to call in a vascular surgeon when he encountered the splenic bleed and failure to do so was a breach in the standard of care.  Plaintiff's vascular surgeon expert opined that the surgeon needed to call a vascular surgeon when he encountered and temporarily gained control of the splenic bleed, and that a reasonable vascular surgeon would have repaired the splenic artery by 1 of 2 methods but not the method chosen by the surgeon. Plaintiff's experts used an animation to show the jury the surgeon's errors based on plaintiff's theory of the case. After less than 2 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 12-0 verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon and medical center.

Demand: $500,000 via CCP 998 Offer
Offer:       $29,999 via CCP 998 Offer
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq. Second Chair: Ashley S. McGill, Esq.
Case #: GC 050656
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Downtown, Department 42
Judge: Hon. Holly Kendig
Date: 8/15/19 – 8/30/19 (11 days of actual trial including jury selection)

In Summary:

Steve Fraser represented One of California's largest Medical Groups in this medical negligence claim brought by a then a 49-year old female plaintiff, alleging that an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion ("ACDF") surgery performed by former defendant and Medical Group employee injured her spinal cord resulting in paralysis.

In April 2015, after a December 2014 MRI revealed degenerative disk disease, former defendant neurosurgeon and Medical Group employee performed an ACDF surgery at plaintiff's C5-C6 levels. Plaintiff testified she felt 'awesome' after this surgery. Subsequently, A March 30, 2016 CT Myelogram found extruded disc material at C6-C7 levels indicative of plaintiff's worsening condition. As a result of these findings plaintiff presented on May 12, 2016 for subsequent ACDF surgery, but this time for her C6-C7 level. It was this ACDF at plaintiff's C6-C7 level that gave rise to the litigation. During the surgery, Medical Group's neurosurgeon, while in the process of removing the herniated disc material, encountered an intradural disk extrusion, a medical rarity only previously reported 37 times in medical literature. While removing the disk material that was protruding into the dura, the neurosurgeon encountered a cerebrospinal fluid leak, another oddity at the cervical spine levels. In response, the neurosurgeon appropriately sealed the leak and confirmed it to be sufficient and concluded the surgery. Immediately following surgery, plaintiff experienced neurological deficits and paralysis, which despite ongoing therapy and treatments, continues to experience in some degree today.

Plaintiff's sole medical expert neurosurgeon Dr. Aaron Filler testified that there was no intradural disc extrusion as indicated in the surgeon's operative report (dictated while the patient was still in the operating room) and based on intraoperative imaging taken. He further posited that the neurosurgeon's use of the sharp Freer elevator punctured plaintiff's dura and caused the spinal cord injury. Additionally, Dr. Filler testified that the intraoperative imaging itself captured the alleged harm-causing event as it in fact evidenced the sharp Freer elevator being plunged blindly through the dura. Dr. Filler provided standard of care, causation, and damages opinions.

Former defendant neurosurgeon and Medical Group employee, who settled out of the case prior to trial, testified that the surgical tool used was the blunt Penfield-4 dissector instrument and not a sharp Freer elevator as alleged by Dr. Filler. This notion was confirmed by both defense experts, neurosurgeon Raed Ali, M.D. and neuroradiologist Matthew Lotysch, M.D. Additionally, Dr. Ali testified that based on his experience and the authoritative world literature, a cervical intradural disk herniation (CIDH), although very unusual, does and can occur in the absence of negligence. Dr. Lotysch testified that, contrary to plaintiff's expert testimony, the intraoperative image and measurements based on the same evidenced the blunt Penfield-4 tool was not and could not have pierced the dura as opined by plaintiff's expert. Dr. Lotysch further testified that plaintiff's pre-operative imaging, when reviewed from various cross-section viewpoints, revealed both a worsening degenerative disk disease and the extruded disc herniation.

Damages: Plaintiff’s life care planner Jan Roughan testified as to future medical care costs, which was then relied upon as a basis for plaintiff’ economist Henry Kahrs’ testimony. After obtaining testimony from Ms. Roughan wherein she repeatedly confirmed she did not perform a reasonability assessment of future cost of care expenses included in her life care plan and, further, was instructed not to do so by plaintiff’s counsel, defense moved to strike her life care plan. Specifically, defense cited to Corenbaum, Markow, Ochoa, and Howell, and each case’s interpretation of Evidence Code section 801(b)’s reasonableness requirements related to admissibility of evidence. The court agreed with defense and found that the lack of any reasonableness analysis in Ms. Roughan’s opinion on future medical cost analysis resulted in a lack of reasonable basis for her expert opinion and, therefore, meant that her testimony must be excluded under Evidence Code section 801(b). Additionally, defense moved to strike Mr. Kahrs’ testimony relying on the inadmissible future medical costs identified by Ms. Roughan. Because Mr. Kahrs’ calculations were based exclusively on information provided by Ms.Roughan, the Court found they possessed the same foundational fatal flaws. As a result, all testimony related to plaintiff’s future costs of care were striken.

After less than 3 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a 10-2 verdict in favor of the defendant Medical Group.

Of note, codefendant neurosurgeon, who was an employee of defendant Medical Group, settled prior to trial.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Michelle M. Gu, Esq.
Case #: 30-2012-00610492-CU-MM-CJC
Court: Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, CA, Department 'C 21'
Judge: Hon. Deborah Servino
Date:    10/2/17 to 10/23/17 (9 day Jury Trial including jury selection)

In Summary:
Steve Fraser represented a board certified neurosurgeon in this medical negligence claim brought by a 50-year old female plaintiff who underwent a staged anterior interbody fusion followed by posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw and rod instrumentation by defendant neurosurgeon which subsequently failed requiring revision of the instrumented fusion. Plaintiff contended that the surgery performed was not medically necessary (the degree of curvature of plaintiff's scoliotic spine was not of such a magnitude that surgery was urgent, nor was her scoliosis in such a rapid progression that it required urgent intervention to stop the progression), failure to determine the patient’s bone quality prior to taking her to surgery was below the standard of care, failure to properly evaluate plaintiff before being taken to surgery, and the levels of the surgery and the surgical approach was below the standard of care which led to her being paraplegic. After 1 ½ hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 12-0 verdict in favor of the defendant neurosurgeon.

Demand: $1,000.000.00 via CCP 998 Offer
Offer:       None
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorney: Louise Douville, Esq, Matthew Yarvis, Esq.
Case # BC599013
Court: LASC
Judge: Hon. Edward Simpson
Date: July 2019
In Summary:

Plaintiff was admitted to defendant hospital after a catastrophic fall resulting in a traumatic subdural hematoma that required emergent intervention. A left sided craniotomy for evacuation of subdural hematoma was performed after which the plaintiff was discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility for an anticipated 6 week stay. Plaintiff was readmitted to defendant hospital two months later due to worsening headaches and findings of an intracranial hemorrhage and an extra axial fluid collection. He underwent a repeat craniotomy during which pus was found under the bone flap in the epidural space. This epidural empyema was evacuated and a wire mesh cranioplasty was completed using titanium mesh, as the infected bone flap was no longer usable. Four years later plaintiff underwent a left frontal craniotomy due to complaints of discomfort prior the prior craniotomy site. Plaintiff underwent emergent surgical evacuation of a traumatic subdural hematoma in August 2010. He underwent a repeat craniotomy four months later due to infection. Four years later he complained of pain from his prior craniotomy site and underwent a frontal craniotomy revision at another hospital. The allegation of negligence was limited to the readmission for the repeat craniotomy. Plaintiff contended defendants were negligent in the use of/application of titanium mesh during a repeat craniotomy asserting that the mesh was improperly manipulated causing the mesh to breakdown necessitating revision, and that he never consented to the use of the titanium mesh.

Result: Defense verdict 11-1

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Karine Mkrtchyan, Esq.
Case #: GC 050656
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pasadena, CA, Department ‘R’
Judge: Hon. Edward C. Simpson
Date:    10/6/15 – 10/20/15 (8 days of actual trial including jury selection)

In Summary:

Steve Fraser, Esq. and Karine Mkrtchyan, Esq. represented a southern California hospital in this medical negligence claim brought by plaintiff, then a 49-year old female, alleging that she was overprescribed pain medication, combined with sleeping pills and muscle relaxants, and was improperly monitored during a September 2011 hospitalization, subsequent to her back surgery. Plaintiff claimed that during her stay at hospital on September 23, 2011, she suffered a respiratory arrest, resulting in an irreversible anoxic brain injury. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered from seizures or epileptic episodes, as well as from cognitive issues, such as memory loss, difficulty concentrating, and inability to work as a Real Estate Agent.

Defendant hospital’s pharmacology expert Raffi Simonian, Pharm. D., and nursing expert, Davina Leary, R.N. testified that all the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff by defendant hospital, by and through its nursing and ancillary staff complied with the standard of care in the community during plaintiff’s admission to the hospital. Furthermore, defendant hospital argued at trial that despite plaintiff’s claim, she did not have a respiratory arrest. Defendant hospital further argued at trial that there is no objective neurologic evidence of a cognitive deficit due to a neurologic event during plaintiff’s postoperative hospital course. Defendant’s neurologist, Andrew Woo, M.D. opined that that his examination of this patient did not indicate any objective findings to correlate her alleged cognitive deficits and attributed her symptoms to Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS.) After almost 2 days of deliberation the jury returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of the defendant hospital.

Demand: None
Offer:        Waiver of costs via pre-trial CCP 998
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorney: Todd E. Croutch, Esq.
Case #: OAH 2014090130
Court: Office of Administrative Hearings, Los Angeles, CA
Judge:
Date:    6/1/15 – 6/3/15 (3 day bench trial)

In Summary:

Todd Croutch  represented the North Los Angeles County Regional Center ( NLACRC) in an action between it and  its transportation vendor, Southland Transit Inc. regarding its alleged improper billing for transporting aides.  In sum,  Southland  provides transportation services to the NLACRC’s developmentally disabled clients, some of whom have aides that accompany them on the bus because of their condition.  Southland purportedly overbilled NLACRC for transporting aides. Southland initially claimed it provided the aides. Later, Southland admitted it did not provide the aides, but claimed it was proper for it to bill for transporting the aides.  The court found  Southland was not allowed to charge for transporting aides, and such charges were improper.

Demand:
Offer:        
Verdict:    Ruling in favor of NLACRC

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Karine Mkrtchyan, Esq.
Case #: 56-2013-00430262-CU-MM-VTA
Court: Ventura County Superior Court, Ventura, CA, courtroom ‘43’”
Judge: Hon. Kevin G. DeNoce
Date:    5/26/15 – 6/11/15 (6 days of actual trial including jury selection)

In Summary:

Steve Fraser represented obstetrician & gynecologist Terry S. Cole, M.D. in this medical negligence claim brought by Theresa Murray, who underwent a laparoscopic, converted to open left ovarian cyst and ovary removal by defendant Dr. Terry S. Cole, which lead to a perforation of the sigmoid colon, which lead to peritonitis, sepsis, and a second corrective surgery, and a lengthy and difficult course at Community Memorial Hospital . Plaintiff contended 1.) Dr. Cole should not have done the surgery laparoscopically, since he knew of her prior extensive surgical history, and should have anticipated adhesions; 2.) Dr. Cole should have utilized an accepted alternative method due to prior adhesions; 3.) after attempting the procedure laparoscopically, and then converting it to a laparotomy, he should have detected the leak, by carefully inspecting the site of the laparoscopic entry, near the sigmoid colon, and; 4.) after detecting the leak, he should have repaired the wound, or consulted with a general surgeon, intraoperatively on November 16, 2011. The defense argued that 1.) Dr. Cole had no reason to believe that plaintiff would have had any adhesions in the umbilical area, since the prior surgeries were performed in the upper abdominal area; 2.) Dr. Cole’s preferred method of surgery via the Veress needle is an accepted method by the obstetrical surgeons in the community; 3.) Dr. Cole had no reason to believe that there was a leak intraoperatively, since he carefully irrigated the abdomen, before completing the surgery; 4.) the perforation of a sigmoid colon is a known complication of a left oophorectomy performed by Dr. Cole; and 5.) Ms. Murray was likely suffering from a diverticulosis at the time of her surgery by Dr. Cole. After 3 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 12-0 verdict in favor of the defendant Terry Cole, M.D.

Demand: None
Offer:        Waiver of costs via pre-trial CCP 998
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Todd E. Croutch, Esq.,
Case #: BAC1300910
Court: Riverside Superior Court
Judge: Hon. Commissioner David E. Gregory
Date:    3/13/2015

In Summary:

Todd Croutch represented Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park, LLC in this Unruh Act claim brought by Carl L. Barnum, III. In 2012, plaintiff Carl L. Barnum, III allegedly visited defendant Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park’s property for purposes of evaluating the location as suitable for a change of residence. He alleged that he was disabled and denied full and equal access to Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park’s property on February 23, March 15, September 7 and December 15 of 2012 because there were no designated parking spaces for disabled persons. Barnum sued Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park for violations of the Unruh Act, pursuant to Civil Code sections 51 and 52. He alleged that he was disabled within the meaning of Government Code section 12926(m). Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park contended that Barnum was not disabled, and the evidence demonstrated that he picks and chooses the times for which he is “disabled.” Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park argued that videos, photographs and testimony at trial demonstrated that any alleged disability did not limit a major life activity, such as walking. Finally, Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park argued that plaintiff did not personally encounter an alleged violation within the meaning of Civil Code § 55.56(c) and was not deterred from access within the meaning of Civil Code §55.56(d). Commissioner David E. Gregory returned a defense judgment for Villa Calimesa Mobile Home Park, LLC following a 4 day bench trial.

Demand: $15,000 at trial
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Defense

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: 30-2013-00670041-CU-MM-CJC
Court: Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, Department “C-21”
Judge: Hon. David McEachen
Date:  2/25/15 – 3/26/15

In Summary:

Steve Fraser represented internist Samy A. Younis, M.D. in this medical negligence claim brought by Gheorghe Berbecel, Ph.D., for Dr. Younis’ alleged failure to refer Mr. Berbecel for a colonoscopy resulting in a delayed diagnosis of Stage IIIc rectal cancer in June 2012.  Mr. Berbecel claimed that at his first visit with Dr. Younis on March 8, 2010, when Mr. Berbecel was 49 years old, Dr. Younis breached the standard of care by failing to recommend he undergo a colonoscopy.  Mr. Berbecel claimed that at his second visit with Dr. Younis on January 10, 2011, when Mr. Berbecel was 50 years old, Dr. Younis again breached the standard of care by failing to recommend he undergo a colonoscopy.  Mr. Berbecel further claimed Dr. Younis’ staff never mentioned a colonoscopy nor asked him about a colonoscopy prior to his diagnosis of rectal cancer.  Mr. Berbecel claimed he will have a recurrence of cancer, which will cause him to incur $365,000 in future medical expenses, cause him to lose up to $4 million in future earnings, and cause his premature death.  The defense argued that Dr. Younis did recommend Mr. Berbecel undergo a colonoscopy on March 8, 2010, and on January 10, 2011, but Mr. Berbecel failed to follow Dr. Younis’ medical advice.  The defense also argued that Mr. Berbecel is not likely to have a recurrence of cancer.  After 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 12-0 verdict in favor of the defense.

Demand: In excess of $4 million at trial.  Policy limits demand pursuant to CCP 998 prior to trial.
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: BC 489805
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court – Chatsworth – Dept F 44
Judge: Hon. Graciela L. Freixes
Date: 8/25/14 – 9/4/14

In Summary:

Steve Fraser represented interventional cardiologist Naveen Sharma, M.D. in a wrongful death claim based on alleged medical malpractice brought by the adult children of Vanouhi Bedrosian, a 59-year-old female. Ms. Bedrosian underwent left heart catheterization performed by Hugo Riffel-Dalinger, M.D., at Glendale Adventist Medical Center on September 9, 2011. Ms. Bedrosian subsequently suffered a retroperitoneal bleed when the catheter sheath was removed. Dr. Sharma stabilized Ms. Bedrosian with pressors, fluids, and blood and stayed by her bedside for two hours, prior to leaving the hospital. She died in the early morning hours of September 10, 2011. Plaintiffs claimed that Dr. Sharma should have brought Ms. Bedrosian back to the catheterization lab to stop the bleeding. The defense medical experts testified that Dr. Sharma treated Ms. Bedrosian within the standard of care and there was a greater than 50% chance that Ms. Bedrosian would have died from previous damage to her heart, no matter what treatment Dr. Sharma rendered. After just 24 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned unanimous (12-0) verdict in favor of Dr. Sharma.

Demand: $435,000.00 at trial
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: 30-2011-00470764
Court: Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, Dept. C17
Judge: Hon. Craig Griffin
Date: 4/1/14 – 5/9/14

In Summary:

Steve Fraser represented orthopedic spine surgeon, Raed Ali, M.D., in a wrongful death claim based on alleged medical malpractice brought by the wife and children of Michael Spence, a 62-year-old male.  Mr. Spence underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed by Dr. Ali at St. Jude Medical Center.  Mr. Spence complained of pain, difficulty swallowing, hoarse voice, and breathing issues during his post-operative hospital admission.  He was discharged home two days after surgery, experienced breathing difficulties at home, and was taken via ambulance to the emergency room approximately two hours after being discharged.  In the emergency room, multiple attempts to intubate Mr. Spence failed; he eventually underwent a tracheotomy, and expired as a result of asphyxia due to a post-operative hematoma blocking his airway.  Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Spence exhibited signs and symptoms of a post-operative hematoma while in the hospital, was not safe for discharge home, required additional work-up and imaging, and would have survived had he remained in the hospital.  Following a month long trial, Mr. Fraser obtained a 12-0 defense verdict on behalf of Dr. Ali, less than three hours after the jury began its deliberations.

Demand: $270,000 pre-trial via C.CP. 998, $380,000.00 at trial
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: VC055158
Court: LASC, Norwalk Department K
Judge: Hon. Robert Higa
Date: 2/5/2013 – 3/7/2013

In Summary:

A 39-year-old self employed tow truck driver presented to the emergency room of  Downey Regional Medical Center complaining of back pain with bilateral pain radiating down his legs, and a resolving buttock abscess. He was seen by the defendant emergency room physician, who obtained a history that the patient experienced the onset of back pain during sexual activity. A physical examination was performed, laboratory tests revealed an elevated white blood cell count, and spinal x-rays showed fecal retention and degenerative changes. The patient was diagnosed with sciatica and a resolving buttock abscess. The patient was discharged with general discharge instructions as well as specific sciatica aftercare instructions. The patient was ambulatory upon discharge and throughout the day. Later that same day he took a nap and, when he awoke, he could not feel or move his legs.

The patient was transported via ambulance to White Memorial Medical Center and was diagnosed with acute paraplegia. A spinal MRI in the early morning hours of the following day was concerning for an epidural abscess. Approximately 15 hours later, the patient underwent neurosurgery with evacuation of the epidural spinal abscess at White Memorial Medical Center. Plaintiff contended that the emergency room physician at Downey Regional Medical Center breached the standard of care by failing to order a spinal MRI, failing to perform appropriate physical, neurological, and motor strength testing, failing to take his temperature, failing to appreciate the significance of his buttocks abscess, failing to appreciate the significance of his elevated white blood cell count, and failing to diagnose an epidural spinal abscess. Plaintiff further alleged that the hospital’s nursing staff breached the standard of care by failing to take and record his temperature. Mr. Figueroa is a wheelchair-bound paraplegic.

Demand: Plaintiff served a CCP 998 demand for $999,000.00 on the emergency room physician.
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Defense 12-0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Alexander M. Watson
Case #: BC462870
Court: LASC/ Central Department 36
Judge: Hon. Gregory Alarcon
Date:   Trial 10/17/12 – 11/08/12, Verdict 11/9/12

In Summary:

A physician in China presented to USC underwent elective spinal surgery for a progressive condition known as Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (OPLL). Plaintiff underwent a C3-4 anterior discectomy and fusion, which was complicated by a cerebro-spinal fluid leak, which caused the surgeon to abort the procedure. The patient developed numerous complications after surgery, and on the 10th post-operative day, became completely paralyzed, causing the need for a second surgery. The second surgery did not improve plaintiff’s condition, however, and in fact it became worse. Plaintiff currently resides in a skilled nursing facility with 24 hour care. Plaintiff, through his Guardian ad Litem alleged that the neurosurgeon, and the hospital staff fell below the standard of care with respect to spinal surgery which was performed and the patient’s development of post-operative complications and blood pressure fluctuations. 

Demand: Pre-trial C.C.P. 998: $ 2,499,999.00. At trial, plaintiff asked the jury to award $ 5,500,000.00
Offer:        None
Verdict:    10-2 Defense

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: BC467000
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court – Central District, Dept: 50
Judge: Joseph P. Kalin
Date: 9/21/12 – 10/9/2012

In Summary:

In 2003, a 40 year old patient underwent a laparotomy procedure to help with adhesions caused by prior surgeries. Following the surgery, plaintiff suffered pain for several years. In 2010, plaintiff underwent another laparotomy with another doctor. That doctor found a foreign object in plaintiff’s body from the 2003 surgery. Plaintiff subsequently sued defendants alleging defendants were negligent in performing the 2003 surgery and leaving an unintended foreign body. Defendant argued that the “foreign body” was a therapeutically placed piece of gortex mesh.

Demand: $300,000 (combined offer to defendant doctor and defendant hospital)
Offer:     $50,000 (combined offer by defendant doctor and defendant hospital)   
Verdict:    12 – 0 defense

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Todd E. Croutch
Plaintiff Counsel: Patricia Glaser of Glaser, Weil et al
Case #: AAA # 721400122607JENF Civil # BC373224 F&F # CF0537
Court: AAA Arbitration
Judge: Stephen Strick
Opposing Counsel: Patricia Glaser and Kerry Garvis Wright of Glaser Weil, LLP
Date: Four arbitration installments between June 2009 and May 10, 2011

In Summary:

Plaintiff case, wherein client reality television producer sued his former partners for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in connection with. dispute over their reality TV production partnership and agreement related thereto.

Demand: $6,500,000
Offer:        $2,250,000
Verdict:    In excess of $8 million for client and paid in full.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #:   SC 099812 – F&F # UC0563
Court:  Los Angeles Superior Court – Santa Monica, Department “N”
Judge:  Craig D. Karlan
Date:     2/28/11 – 3/25/11

In Summary:

33-year-old, male, alleging medical and neurosurgical mismanagement to his lumbar spine resulting in development of an epidural abscess. Further, alleged failure to timely diagnose and evacuate abscess pressing on spinal cord ultimately rendering plaintiff with permanent neurological injury and inability to return to work.

Demand: Many made throughout the course of discovery. The last written demand was $1,550,000. Damages of $3,600,000 requested during trial.
Offer:        C.C.P. §998 offers of dismissal in exchange for waiver of costs and malicious prosecution as to multiple client physicians. Separately, an offer of $350,000 was made as to hospital client.
Verdict:    Defense verdict – 10 -2 on negligence and 11-1 on causation as to Hospital client and 12-0 as to remaining client physician.

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: 30-2009 00126390
Court: Orange County Superior Court – Dept C-20
Judge: David R. Chaffee
Date: 2/2/11 – 2/23/11

In Summary: 

77-year-old, man, alleged during cardiac catheterization procedure, our client cardiologist supervise and/or negligently inserted a guidewire up the aorta and into the renal artery, thereby puncturing the kidney resulting in massive subcapsular hematoma and subsequent retroperitoneal bleed producing renal failure, life long dependency on peritoneal dialysis and shortened life expectancy.

Demand: Final demand: $837,733.98
Offer:        C.C.P. §998 offer to compromise for a waiver of costs and malicious prosecution.
Verdict:    10-2 Defense Verdict

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Case #: BC355695
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court – Central, Department 39
Judge: 
Date: 4/22/10 – 4/29/10

In Summary:

58-year-old, woman, alleged failure and/or delayed diagnosis of high grade lesion in the right superficial femoral artery resulting in failed angioplasty, extended compromised blood circulation to the right lower leg producing gangrene in her toes, ultimately requiring a forefoot transmetatarsal amputation.

Demand: C.C.P. §998 demand of $89,090
Offer:        C.C.P. §998 offer of dismissal in exchange for waiver of costs
Verdict:    Awarded non-suit following plaintiff’s case

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Terrance Steinhart & Tonisito Umali
Case #: CIV 246582
Court: Ventura Superior Court, Department 42
Judge: Henry J. Walsh
Date: 2008, Trial length: 10 days

In Summary:

19-year-old, male, admitted to psychiatric unit for treatment of depression and suicidal ideation. He attempted suicide by tying clothes together and hanging from bathroom door, resulting in hypoxic brain injury and permanent persistent vegetative state.

Demand: $2,500,000
Offer:        Waiver of costs for dismissal
Verdict:    Defense Verdict

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq., Alexander M. Watson
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Moses Lebovits & Michael Plonsker
Case #: BC 321091
Court: Glendale Superior Court, Department E
Judge: Laura A. Matz
Date: 2008, Trial duration: 25 days

In Summary:

Alleged professional negligence resulting in wrongful death of 54-year-old, famous male actor/comedian from failure to timely diagnose and treat enlarged aorta producing an ascending aortic dissection and death prior to commencement of emergency surgery. Alleged loss of potential earnings of $80 million. 

Demand: $2,000,000 Policy Limits. Prior to trial plaintiff received $12,000,000 in settlements from other defendants
Offer:        Waiver of costs for dismissal
Verdict:    Defense Verdict

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Peter Lindborg & Mark Angelucci
Case #: EC 038791
Court: Glendale Superior Court, Department E
Judge: Laura Matz
Date: 2006, Trial duration: 8 days

In Summary:

Professional liability, battery and loss of consortium stemming from plaintiff who presented for vasectomy and mistakenly received a circumcision. Admitted liability, case tried on damages.

Demand: C.C.P. §998 of $1,000,000
Offer:        C.C.P. §998 of 199,000
Verdict:    $20,000 award, but cost bill was $20K+, plaintiff received $0

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Philip Michaels & Shirley Watkins
Case #: YC 04994
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 4
Judge: Warren I. Ettinger
Date: 2006, Trial duration: 3 days

In Summary:

Alleging failure to diagnose and timely treat rare cancer in a 28-year-old, female, 1st year OB-GYN resident with a potential loss of earnings exposure of $8 million.

Demand: $2,500,000 to our client. Prior to trial plaintiff received $4,000,000 arbitration award and undisclosed settlements from other defendants
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Plaintiff dismissed on 3rd day of trial

Trial Attorneys: Stephen C. Fraser, Esq.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barton Friedman
Case #: GC033795
Court: Pasadena Superior Court, Department S
Judge: DeVanon
Date: 2006, Trial duration: 6 days

In Summary:

Alleged professional negligence and wrongful death of 77-year-old, woman post CABG surgery, who pulled out her mediastinal chest tubes and ensanguinated.

Demand: $250,000
Offer:        None
Verdict:    Non-suit

Lawyers from Fraser Watson & Croutch successfully defended one of the nation's top healthcare institutions and its attending physicians against claims made by a 33-year-old male, patient. The patient alleged medical negligence related to a lumbar spine surgery, the post-operative development of an epidural abscess, and a delayed surgical evacuation of the abscess pressing on his spinal cord, ultimately rendering the patient with permanent neurological injury and the inability to return to work.

A Fraser Watson & Croutch lawyer’s client cardiologist, in the process of performing a coronary angiogram, was accused of negligently perforating a patient’s kidney with a guidewire while navigating the guidewire up the aorta towards the coronary arteries when the guidewire took a detour into the renal artery.

An OB-GYN client of lawyers from Fraser Watson & Croutch, who specializes in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility was sued by a patient who alleged she sustained a bowel perforation during a laparoscopic salpingectomy performed by our client.