Preview
F LE
coum 0FDCALIF
l
SUPERIOR
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARD‘ESIA
0er DIVISION
STEVEN w. BURT, SB# 214750 MN 0 5 2922
Office of Steven W. Burt
qu
ups w. 76'“ BV . .
Street
Los Angeles, CA 90044-2409 Ephan'e Reed.
Deputy
Teiephone: (323) 41 84878
FaCSimile: (3 10) 861-0832
Email: sburt@sburtlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,
LINDA A. CHAPMAN
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION
10
n LINDA A. CHAPMAN, Case No.: c1vs321 10756
12 Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF LINDAA. CHAPMAN'S
SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F DISPUTED
13 VS-
;
FACTS IN OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT
14
DR. FAITH LEE-JACKSON’S MOTION FOR
DR. FAITH LEE—JACKSON; and DOES ONE
through ONE HUNDRED,
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE
inclusive
Is ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
Defendants
ADJUDICATION
16
17
Date: January 17,2022
18 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept; S30
19
Assigned for All Pre-Trial Purposes to:
20 Hon. Brian S. McCarville, Dept. S30
21
Action Filed: 05/03/2021
Trial Date: 05/30/2023
22
23
24
T0 DEFENDANT, DR. FAITH LEE-JACKSON, M.D. AND HER ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD:
26
Plaintiff, Linda A. Chapman (hereinafier refened to as “Plaintiff’ or “Mrs. Chapman”) hereby submits
27
the fallowing Separate Statement of Disputed Facts.
28
I
fendant’s Und' '
te F ts Pflnfifl’s Resume agd
nEvi Sgnngmm
Ewan
Plaintiff Linda A. Chapman (hereinafier
Undisputed.
referred to as "Plaintiff or "Ms.
Chapman")
alleges causes of action for
medi cal malpractice
and fraudulent misrepresentatio
n against Dr.
Lee-Jackson. (Plaintiff‘s First
Amended
Complaint; Notice of Lodging
Evidence in
Support, Exhibit, "Ex."),
( A.)
ISSUE ONE-MEDICAL MALPRACTI
CE
Ms. Chapman transferred her care from
Loma Disputed. Mrs. Chapman lsaw the Defendant
Linda University to San Bemard
ino Medical on August 6, 2010, for a new patient
Group, Inc. ("SBMG"), becoming
a new patient consultation and Septemtier
10 of Dr. Lee-Jackson on Augu 9. 2010, for a
st 6, 20H). From Well Woman physical
2010 to 2020, Ms. Chapman rout em.
Over the course
inely appeared ofthe IO years that Mrs. Cha
l l
for both annual wellness pman was under
exams as well as the Defendant’s care, monitori
routine monitoring ng exams were
12 exams every three to six scheduled every six months not
months. Ms. three months.
Chapman had a multitude of In 2010, at the time she initi
chronic medical conditions incl ated Dr.
l3 uding Jackson's services, Mrs. Chapman had
hypertension, chronic hyperten not
sive kidn ey been diagnosed with chronic hyperten
14 dise sive
ase, proteinuria secondar to
y hypertension, kidney disease, proteinuria secondar
chronic kidney disease (“CKD”), y to
15 gIaucoma, hypertension or chronic kidn
obesity, fibromyalgia, dependen ey disease. None
t leg edema, of the aforementioned conditions are
urinary urgency, incontinency denoted
16 , and leakage with in records outlining Mrs. Chapman's medical
microhematuria (blood in urine
). (Declmtion history while she
17 of Richard A. Johnson,
was the patient of Dr. Jamie
MD. ("Johnson dccl."), Osborn ax Lorna Linda University Health
116m); Notice ofLodging Evidence in
18 Support, Care. The conditions documented
Ex. B, for Mrs.
Batm 5-6.)
Chapman while under the care of Dr. Osbo
l9
rn
are as follows: supravcnm’cular
tachycardia,
between I994 and 200]; deep venous
20
thrombosis and pulmonary embo
lism;
21 fibromyalgia; hypertension; dependen
t leg
edema; urinary incontinence with som
e
22 leakage and urge incontinence.
0n
September 2, 2010, Mrs. Chapma
23 n gave a
specimen for laboratory testing orde
red by
24 the Defendant. The tests results sho
w Mrs.
Chapman’s GFR (Glometular Filtr
ation Rate)
25 at 77. This is the fimt indication ofchronic
kidney disease in Mrs. Chapman’s medical
26
history. At the time of the September 9, 201
0,
27 physical, the Defendant did not disc
uss a
kidney diagnosis with Mrs. Chapman. In
the
28
Preview
F LE coum 0FDCALIF l SUPERIOR COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARD‘ESIA 0er DIVISION STEVEN w. BURT, SB# 214750 MN 0 5 2922 Office of Steven W. Burt qu ups w. 76'“ BV . . Street Los Angeles, CA 90044-2409 Ephan'e Reed. Deputy Teiephone: (323) 41 84878 FaCSimile: (3 10) 861-0832 Email: sburt@sburtlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, LINDA A. CHAPMAN SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION 10 n LINDA A. CHAPMAN, Case No.: c1vs321 10756 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF LINDAA. CHAPMAN'S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F DISPUTED 13 VS- ; FACTS IN OPPOSITION To DEFENDANT 14 DR. FAITH LEE-JACKSON’S MOTION FOR DR. FAITH LEE—JACKSON; and DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE inclusive Is ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Defendants ADJUDICATION 16 17 Date: January 17,2022 18 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept; S30 19 Assigned for All Pre-Trial Purposes to: 20 Hon. Brian S. McCarville, Dept. S30 21 Action Filed: 05/03/2021 Trial Date: 05/30/2023 22 23 24 T0 DEFENDANT, DR. FAITH LEE-JACKSON, M.D. AND HER ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD: 26 Plaintiff, Linda A. Chapman (hereinafier refened to as “Plaintiff’ or “Mrs. Chapman”) hereby submits 27 the fallowing Separate Statement of Disputed Facts. 28 I fendant’s Und' ' te F ts Pflnfifl’s Resume agd nEvi Sgnngmm Ewan Plaintiff Linda A. Chapman (hereinafier Undisputed. referred to as "Plaintiff or "Ms. Chapman") alleges causes of action for medi cal malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentatio n against Dr. Lee-Jackson. (Plaintiff‘s First Amended Complaint; Notice of Lodging Evidence in Support, Exhibit, "Ex."), ( A.) ISSUE ONE-MEDICAL MALPRACTI CE Ms. Chapman transferred her care from Loma Disputed. Mrs. Chapman lsaw the Defendant Linda University to San Bemard ino Medical on August 6, 2010, for a new patient Group, Inc. ("SBMG"), becoming a new patient consultation and Septemtier 10 of Dr. Lee-Jackson on Augu 9. 2010, for a st 6, 20H). From Well Woman physical 2010 to 2020, Ms. Chapman rout em. Over the course inely appeared ofthe IO years that Mrs. Cha l l for both annual wellness pman was under exams as well as the Defendant’s care, monitori routine monitoring ng exams were 12 exams every three to six scheduled every six months not months. Ms. three months. Chapman had a multitude of In 2010, at the time she initi chronic medical conditions incl ated Dr. l3 uding Jackson's services, Mrs. Chapman had hypertension, chronic hyperten not sive kidn ey been diagnosed with chronic hyperten 14 dise sive ase, proteinuria secondar to y hypertension, kidney disease, proteinuria secondar chronic kidney disease (“CKD”), y to 15 gIaucoma, hypertension or chronic kidn obesity, fibromyalgia, dependen ey disease. None t leg edema, of the aforementioned conditions are urinary urgency, incontinency denoted 16 , and leakage with in records outlining Mrs. Chapman's medical microhematuria (blood in urine ). (Declmtion history while she 17 of Richard A. Johnson, was the patient of Dr. Jamie MD. ("Johnson dccl."), Osborn ax Lorna Linda University Health 116m); Notice ofLodging Evidence in 18 Support, Care. The conditions documented Ex. B, for Mrs. Batm 5-6.) Chapman while under the care of Dr. Osbo l9 rn are as follows: supravcnm’cular tachycardia, between I994 and 200]; deep venous 20 thrombosis and pulmonary embo lism; 21 fibromyalgia; hypertension; dependen t leg edema; urinary incontinence with som e 22 leakage and urge incontinence. 0n September 2, 2010, Mrs. Chapma 23 n gave a specimen for laboratory testing orde red by 24 the Defendant. The tests results sho w Mrs. Chapman’s GFR (Glometular Filtr ation Rate) 25 at 77. This is the fimt indication ofchronic kidney disease in Mrs. Chapman’s medical 26 history. At the time of the September 9, 201 0, 27 physical, the Defendant did not disc uss a kidney diagnosis with Mrs. Chapman. In the 28