$550K Med Mal Settlement for Negligent UCI Surgery

Case Background

In September 2021, a medical malpractice lawsuit began in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, concerning alleged negligence during a complex surgical procedure. The Plaintiffs, Tanisha R. Jackett and her husband Kelvin Jackett, filed the complaint against The Regents of the University of California and a group of unnamed medical professionals and product providers. The dispute focused on the quality-of-care Tanisha Jackett received at the University of California Irvine Medical Center in October 2020. The Plaintiffs asserted that the negligence of the healthcare providers caused severe and lasting injuries, prompting the demand for a jury trial to resolve the matter.

Cause

The heart of the lawsuit concerned the care and treatment Tanisha Jackett received related to a major reconstructive operation.

Medical Negligence in Surgery

The complaint alleged that the healthcare providers had failed to possess or exercise the skill and knowledge required of competent professionals in the field. Specifically, on or around October 31, 2020, the Defendants performed a Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) flap procedure on Mrs. Jackett. The surgery lasted for nearly twenty hours. The Plaintiffs contended that the medical staff negligently performed the procedure and provided subsequent care. The negligence centered not only on the technical execution of the surgery but also on the positioning of Mrs. Jackett during the long operation.

Failure of Care and Diagnosis

The Plaintiffs maintained that the Defendants failed to correctly diagnose and render proper care and treatment, and also failed to prescribe and administer medicine and drugs appropriately for her condition. They had hired the medical professionals and the hospital for competent service, and they believed the Defendants did not uphold that standard.

Injury

The alleged negligence resulted in significant physical harm to Tanisha Jackett and emotional damage to her husband.

Physical Injuries to Tanisha Jackett

Immediately upon waking from the nearly twenty-hour surgery, Mrs. Jackett complained of debilitating headaches. Physicians diagnosed her with occipital neuralgia, an injury that stemmed from her positioning during the long procedure. She experienced hair loss at the back of her head following the surgery, and swelling remained present in the area. The complaint stated that Mrs. Jackett continued to suffer from ongoing complaints directly related to the negligently performed surgery.

Loss of Consortium to Kelvin Jackett

As a result of his wife’s severe injuries, Kelvin Jackett suffered his own damages. Before the incident, Mrs. Jackett was able to perform her duties as a spouse, but the injuries prevented her from doing so. Consequently, their marital harmony was severely disrupted, and Mr. Jackett lost the companionship and services of his spouse, a loss known legally as loss of consortium.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs asked the Court for judgment against all Defendants and sought several forms of monetary relief. The exact amounts would conform to proof presented at the time of trial.

General and Special Damages

The Plaintiffs demanded general damages to compensate for pain, suffering, and distress. They also sought medical and other special damages, both past and future, to cover the costs associated with the corrective treatment and necessary care Mrs. Jackett required due to the injuries.

Financial Loss

In addition to physical and emotional compensation, the Plaintiffs requested loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity that resulted from Mrs. Jackett’s inability to work. They also requested the Court award them the costs they incurred during the lawsuit.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit commenced in September 2021, and the Defendant, The Regents of the University of California, answered the complaint a month later, formally denying all accusations.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Tanisha R. Jackett | Kelvin Jackett.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michelle B. Hemesath

Defendant(s): The Regents of the University of California | DOES 1 through 50.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Louise M. Douville | Matthew A. Yarvis

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The initial filings clearly established the battle lines the parties had drawn for the subsequent litigation.

Claims

Counsel for the Jackett family argued that the physicians and staff acted negligently when they failed to meet the established standard of care for medical professionals in the community. They contended that the injuries Mrs. Jackett suffered were a direct and foreseeable result of the improper care and positioning during the lengthy procedure.

Defense

The Regents of the University of California issued a general denial, refuting each and every allegation in the complaint. Their defense raised several affirmative counterarguments. They asserted that the lawsuit was barred by California’s Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice cases. Furthermore, should the Court find them negligent, they stated that any non-economic damages could not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars as mandated by California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). The defense also argued that they were not liable if the result was caused by the natural course of the underlying disease or condition, or if the injuries were the natural or expected result of reasonable treatment. Finally, they raised the argument of comparative negligence, contending that the Plaintiffs' own lack of care contributed to their injuries, which would reduce any potential recovery.

Settlement

The complex and costly nature of medical malpractice litigation often drove parties toward negotiated resolutions. In the matter of Jackett v. The Regents of the University of California, the parties reached a comprehensive pre-trial settlement. This agreement concluded all claims Tanisha Jackett brought for medical negligence and all claims Kelvin Jackett asserted for loss of consortium. The Defendant, The Regents of the University of California, agreed to pay a total of $550,000 to resolve the lawsuit. The final settlement represented a resolution that the parties negotiated to provide compensation to the Plaintiffs while avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a lengthy jury trial. The resolution discharged the Defendants from further liability concerning the allegations, thus ending the legal dispute.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com