Preview
David E. Smith (SBN 72703)
1234567009
Elisa R. Zitano (SBN 91819)
SMITH ZITANO LAW FIRM, LLP Electironicoauy
Pcm‘wc‘sa" “3"”
641 Fulton Avenue, Suite 200 F Su erior Court of
u3/13/2020
g
Sacramento, CA 95825 County of eaLlgdifiI§°F°filmLmEm
Telephone: (916) 333-5933 Bye / [Una
lillna‘u
°'
(916) 3335338 FEB
Facsimile:
E 0 8 2021
Em"
Attorneys for Plaintiffs D K' er. Clerk D
ED PETERS and OLIVIA PETER§V Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
ED PETERS and CASE NO. 20-CIV-00938
ll
OLIVIA PETERS
12
COMPLAINT
slay Q G 2 8 ?
13 Plaintiffs,
v. a1.Medical Malpractice
l4
.
,2. Elam v. College Park Hospital
3. Loss of Consortium
'
15 LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D.,
OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
16
OROVILLE HOSPITAL
17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
18
.
Defendants.
l9
20 PLAINTIFFS ED PETERS and OLIVIA PETERS complain of Defendants, and each of
21 them, and as and for a First Cause of Action allege as follows:
I.
22
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23
(Medical Negligence against all Defendants)
24
1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
25
otherwise, of the Defendants, DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who
26
therefore sue such Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs will amend this complaint
27
to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are
28
COMPLAINT
1
informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants, DOES l through 50,
234567009
inclusive, (is responsible under law in some manner, negligently, in warranty, strictly, or
otherwise, for the events and happenings herein referred to and proximately thereby caused
injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as herein alleged.
2. Plaintifi‘s are now, and at all timesherein mentioned were, citizens of and residents
within the State of California, and the Defendants, and each of them, are now, and at all times
herein mentioned were citizens of and residents within the State of California and the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.
3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times herein
mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, principal or employer of each of the
10
remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the course and scope of said
11
relationships, and each Defendant has authorized, ratified and approved the acts of each of the
12
remaining Defendants.
l3
4. That Defendants, OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL
14
and DOES 1 through 50 are now, and at all times herein mentioned were, individuals or
15
California business entities, corporations, associations, partnerships or other type of business
16
entities, and Plaintiff will ask leave to insert the correct designation when same has been
17
ascertained. Defendants, and each of them, are licensed health care providers, either hospitals,
18
physicians, nurses or otherwise, or hospital administrators, or hospital directors or hospital board
l9
of directors members and at all times mentioned herein, were and are, licensed to provide or
20
supervise health care services within the State of California.
21
5. Defendant, LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D., is a medical doctor licensed to practice
22 in the State of California and is a resident of of San Mateo. Fmther,
Hillsborough, County
23 LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. has a business with
plaintiffs allege that Defendant, relationship
24 Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 1
through
25 25 inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned
26 herein Defendant LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. was either a principal, independent contractor,
27
28
COMPLA INT
agent, and/or a physician employee of Defendant OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
2
OROVILLE HOSPITAL and/or DOES 26 through 50.
34567009
6. That Defendants, LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. and DOES 1
through 25, and each
of them, at all times mentioned herein, held themselves out as physicians and surgeons, nurses
medical groups, acute care hospitals and/or other health care providers, and that they further held
themselves out as possessing that degree of medical, nursing and other health care provider
education, skill, knowledge and experience as other health care providers practicing in the
community.
7. From on or about March 26, 2016 and continuing through on or about July 12,
10 2019, and continuing thereafter, Defendants, and each of them, negligently cared for, diagnosed,
11
and treated Plaintiff, ED PETERS, and failed to exercise the standard of care and skill ordinarily
and reasonably required of physicians, surgeons, hospitals, nurses, etc. by, without limitation,
12
negligently failing to timely diagnose and medically and surgically treat his medical condition of
13
prostate cancer, thereby proximately causing substantial personal injuries, including but not
14
limited to progression of prostate cancer, incomplete prostatectomy, bladder and urinary tract
15
injuries, and urinary tract infections as well as other damages as alleged herein.
16
8. The specific acts of negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, include but
l7
are not limited to the following:
18
19 a) Between on or about March 26, 2016, and July 12, 2019, Dr. LIONEL FOSTER
negligently performed multiple medical examinations and negligently performed
20 EDWARD PETERS
multiple urologic surgical procedures upon including but not
limited to an open radical prostatectomy on June 29, 2016 and a multitude of
21
cystoscopies and bladder neck dilatations at Oroville Hospital. As a result of the
22 above-described medical negligence of Dr. LIONEL FOSTER, and each of you
and your agents and and medical providers, MR. PETERS has
employees suffered
23 permanent and severe injuries.
24
b) Negligent performance of an open radical prostatectomy on June 29, 2016;
25
c) Negligent suturing of the proximal prostatic urethra to the distal urethra, involving
26 the bladder neck, with incomplete posterior anastomosis, resulting in development
of a severe and chronic urethral stricture;
27
28
COMPLAINT
d) Negligent, continuing and repeat failure, from on or about June 29, 2016 until on
or about July 12, 2019, to refer plaintiff ED PETERS to other, more qualified and
2 more to examine and evaluate the plaintiff and to
experienced, urologic surgeons
undertake a permanent surgical reconstruction of his urethra;
34567009
e) Negligent performanCe of multiple painful and avoidable cystoscopy procedures
upon Plaintiff ED PETERS between on or about June 29, 2016 until on about July
12, 2019;
f) Negligent misrepresentation on multiple occasions to Plaintiff ED PETERS that
reconstructive available
'
there were no reasonable alternative surgical procedures
from other urologic surgeons that would offer potentially permanent resolution of
his injuries;
9. As a proximate result of the medical negligence of the Defendants, and each of
them, Plaintiff ED PETERS has suffered great physical injuries and pain and suffering, as well as
10
that nature, type and degree of emotional injury and upset that is foreseeable fiom these specific
11
physical injuries, all to his general damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
12
limits of the Court, and he is entitled to prejudgment interest on the-amount when determined
13
from the date of Plaintiffs Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise.
14
10. That as a further proximate result of the said negligence of the Defendants, and
15
each of them, Plaintiff was required to and did employ, physicians, surgeons, nurses and
16
caretakers to examine, treat and care for him. The exact amount of such expense is unknown to
17
Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will ask leave to amend his pleading to set forth the exact
18
amount thereof when the same is ascertained by him, and any and all prejudgment interest from
.
19
the date of said injuries.
20 11. That as a further result of the said of the and
proximate negligence Defendants,
21 each of them, Plaintiff will in the fiiture require medical, surgical, nursing and attendant care and
22 will require physicians, surgeons and attendants to examine, treat and care for him. The exact
23 amount of such expense is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will ask leave to amend
24’ his pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same is ascertained by him, and any
25 and all prejudgment interest from the date of said injuries.
'
26 ///
///
27
///
28
COMPLAINT
12. Plaintiff did not discover the wrongful acts, omissions and misconduct and
234567009
negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, as outlined above until on or about July 12,
I
2019, and there may still be additional facts and additional causes of action about which he
remains ignorant even as of this date, and for which Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this.
complaint in the future.
13. Plaintiff served a written CCP §364 Notice of this claim of which he is currently.
knowledgeable, or has reason to suspect or believe, on or about November 20, 2019.
II.
SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION
Elam v. College Park Hospital, I32 Cal.App.3d 332
10
11
(As to Defendants OROVILLE‘HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 11-50, inclusive)
12
14. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaffirm each and every paragraph and allegation above
13
as if fully rewritten herein.
14
15. Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and
15
16 DOES 26-50, including hospital administrators, hospital directors and members of the hospital
17 board of directors inclusive, at all times mentioned herein, owed a legal duty to its patients to
18' exercise reasonable care in selecting, hiring, training, reviewing, supervising, and periodically
19
evaluating the competency of its employee physicians, staff physicians and surgeons, and other
20
health care providers it permits to treat patients and to perform surgical procedures within its
21
facilities,and to develop and enforce hospital policies to monitor its physicians and health care
22
providers and to track their performance, mistakes, avoidable injuries, surgical complications
23
24 and deaths.
25 ///
I
26 ///
27
///
28
COMPLAINT
l 16. Defendant LIONEL FOSTER, J R., M.D. and DOES 1-25, at all times mentioned
234567009 of the
herein, were members of the medical stafi‘ of defendant hospital or employees medical
group and were negligently and continuously granted full staff privileges and full surgical
privileges by Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and
DOES 26 - 50.
17. At all times mentioned herein,.Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26- 50, knew or should have known that by allowing
Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, to treat patients and to perform surgical procedures
within its facilities, including but not limited to OROVILLE HOSPITAL, that it would place
those patients at risk of injury.
18. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 -50, and their officers, agents, administrators, members
of the hospital board of directors and employees were negligent in the following aspects and
i
events:
a. Negligent failure to perform the essential background investigau'on
regarding Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, necessary to ensure that they possess
appropriate medical and surgical skills;
b. Negligent failure to carefully monitor medical and surgical activities and
procedures of each of these Defendants;
c. Negligent failure to ensure the competency of its staff physicians,
surgeons, employees, nurses, operating room personnel and other medical providers and
staff through carefiil selection and diligent peer and administrative review;
///
///
COMPLAINT
d. Negligent failure to monitor the extraordinarily high rate of surgical
2
34567009
complications and hospital readmissions experienced by surgical patients of Defendants
FOSTER and DOES 1 —
25;
e. Negligent failure to promptly investigate multiple reports and oral and
written complaints by patients and family members of patients regarding unnecessary
and negligently performed surgeries and unnecessary hospital readmissions for treatment
of complications;
f. Negligent failure to monitor civil court filings for evidence of medical
10 FOSTER and DOES 1-25 so as
negligence actions filed and litigated against Defendants
11
to keep informed of all active medical negligence litigation against such defendants and
12
so as to perform necessary investigations as to the factual circumstances of such suits;
13
g. Negligent failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate multiple reports
l4
15
and complaints by other staff physicians, surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses and other
16- health care providers regarding unnecessary and negligently performed surgeries,
'
17 negligent post-operative care and negligent and premature hospital discharge and
18
frequent readmissions to treat surgical complications by Defendants FOSTER and
19
DOES l- 25;
20
h. Negligent failure to other staff physicians, surgeons,
21 survey
anesthesiologists, nurses and other health care providers regarding unnecessary and
22
23 negligently performed surgeries, negligent post-operative care and negligent and
24 premature hospital discharge by Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25;
25 ///
26
///
27
///
28
COMPLAINT
i. Negligent failure to suspend, revoke or otherwise limit the admitting and .
ix.)
w
surgical privileges of: Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, at the time by which
substantial evidence existed of the inadequate medical and surgical skills and repeated
acts of medical negligence of Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25.
567009
j. Negligent failure to protect the health, physical well-being and lives of
patients by negligently failing to exercise its statutory and contractual authority to
suspend, revoke or otherwise limit the medical staff privileges of Defendants FOSTER
and DOES 1-25;
10 k. failure to monitor medical claims or case
Negligent negligence filings
11
against their staff physicians to ascertain the number and facts regarding medical
12
malpractice claims or suits filed against its staff physicians, and further failed to
13
ascertain the outcome of such suits and claims;
14
15
1. Negligent failure to require its staff physicians to report complaints,
16 claims, suits, actions and the outcome of such actions so that defendants could undertake
17 their own investigations as to the competence of its staff physicians on an ongoing basis;
18
m. Negligent failure to investigate events and medical errors and mishaps
19
involving Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, about which they knew or should have
20
known through the exercise of due diligence in the monitoring of its staff physicians;
21
and
22
23 n. Negligently basing their decision to permit defendant FOSTER to remain
24 on the medical staff and to continue to admit patients and to perform surgical procedures
25 financial concerns and the financial benefits, returns and payments to OROVILLE
upon
26
HOSPITAL from CMS, DHS, Medicare and Medi-Cal for patients admitted by
27
28
COMPLAINT
'
1 defendant FOSTER rather than any concern for the health, safety, lives and physical .
234567009
well-being of its patients.
19. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY,
OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 - 50, negligently failed to review and screen the
competency of their employee physicians, stafi physicians and surgeons and/or medical staff to
ensure the adequacy of the medical care rendered to their patients, which negligent failure to
carefully select their employee physicians, staff physicians and surgeons, and to review their
medical and surgical competence, created an unreasonable risk of harm to their patients,
10
specifically, Plaintiff EDWARD PETERS. W
11
»
20. Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and
12
DOES 26- 50, breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs by negligently selecting, hiring, and
13
reviewing the competency of their employee physicians, stafi‘ physicians and surgeons,
14
15 including Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25.
16 21. As a proximate result of the negligent conduct of Defendants OROVILLE
17 HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26-50, as detailed and described
18
above, which failed to conform to the standards and procedure of the owners, operators, hospital
19
administrators, members of the hospital board of directors and medical staff directors of acute
20
care hospitals in this community and the State of California, and each of them, Plaintiff
21
EDWARD PETERS sufi'ered the injuries, damages and losses described above.
22
23 22. The negligent and wrongful conduct of Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL
24 UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 - 50, as detailed above, proximately
25 caused the unnecessary and damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as well as their great
injuries, losses
26
mental, physical, and nervous pain and sufi‘ering described above, all to their general and special
27
damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court and that they
28
COMPLAINT
are entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount when determined, from the date of Plaintiffs'
234567009
Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise.
III.
THIRD CAUSE 0F ACTION
(Loss of Consortium)
23. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaffirm each and every paragraph and allegation above as
i
though fully set forth herein.
24. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs EDWARD PETERS and OLIVIA
PETERS were and now are husband and wife.
10
of the of Defendants, of them, of
_
25. As a proximate result negligence and each and
11
Plaintiff EDWARD PETERS’ resulting injuries, Plaintiff OLIVIA PETERS has been deprived of
12
the services of her husband by reason of his inability to carry on his usual household duties and
13
loss of consortium. Plaintiff, OLIVIA PETERS, is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,
14.
that the said injuries to her husband are of a permanent nature, and that she will be deprived of his
15
said services, love, affection, comfort, care and society for a long period in the future, allto her
16
general damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court,
17
together with prejudgment interest thereon from the date of the incident.
18
26. Prejudgment interest on the damages alleged herein should be awarded should
19
judgment for Plaintifi be rendered; that said sum should be calculated from the date of Plaintiff’s
20
Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
COMPLAINT
l0
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each of
2
them, for:
3 for in a sum in excess of the minimum
a. General damages personal injuries
4
jurisdictional limits of the Court;
567009
All special damages for past and future medical and nursing expenses;
All special damages for past and future incidental expenses and losses;
'
All prejudgment interest \on general and special damages from the date of
.
Plaintiffs’ Code of Civil Procedure §998 [Offer to Compromise;
E. All costs of suit; and
10 g. Such other and further relief as this. Court may deem just and proper.
ll
Dated: February 13, 2020 TH Fl, ......,
12
fl
i
J
-
l
-
.’
13
Preview
David E. Smith (SBN 72703) 1234567009 Elisa R. Zitano (SBN 91819) SMITH ZITANO LAW FIRM, LLP Electironicoauy Pcm‘wc‘sa" “3"” 641 Fulton Avenue, Suite 200 F Su erior Court of u3/13/2020 g Sacramento, CA 95825 County of eaLlgdifiI§°F°filmLmEm Telephone: (916) 333-5933 Bye / [Una lillna‘u °' (916) 3335338 FEB Facsimile: E 0 8 2021 Em" Attorneys for Plaintiffs D K' er. Clerk D ED PETERS and OLIVIA PETER§V Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ED PETERS and CASE NO. 20-CIV-00938 ll OLIVIA PETERS 12 COMPLAINT slay Q G 2 8 ? 13 Plaintiffs, v. a1.Medical Malpractice l4 . ,2. Elam v. College Park Hospital 3. Loss of Consortium ' 15 LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D., OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, 16 OROVILLE HOSPITAL 17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 . Defendants. l9 20 PLAINTIFFS ED PETERS and OLIVIA PETERS complain of Defendants, and each of 21 them, and as and for a First Cause of Action allege as follows: I. 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Medical Negligence against all Defendants) 24 1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or 25 otherwise, of the Defendants, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who 26 therefore sue such Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs will amend this complaint 27 to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are 28 COMPLAINT 1 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants, DOES l through 50, 234567009 inclusive, (is responsible under law in some manner, negligently, in warranty, strictly, or otherwise, for the events and happenings herein referred to and proximately thereby caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as herein alleged. 2. Plaintifi‘s are now, and at all timesherein mentioned were, citizens of and residents within the State of California, and the Defendants, and each of them, are now, and at all times herein mentioned were citizens of and residents within the State of California and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, principal or employer of each of the 10 remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the course and scope of said 11 relationships, and each Defendant has authorized, ratified and approved the acts of each of the 12 remaining Defendants. l3 4. That Defendants, OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL 14 and DOES 1 through 50 are now, and at all times herein mentioned were, individuals or 15 California business entities, corporations, associations, partnerships or other type of business 16 entities, and Plaintiff will ask leave to insert the correct designation when same has been 17 ascertained. Defendants, and each of them, are licensed health care providers, either hospitals, 18 physicians, nurses or otherwise, or hospital administrators, or hospital directors or hospital board l9 of directors members and at all times mentioned herein, were and are, licensed to provide or 20 supervise health care services within the State of California. 21 5. Defendant, LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D., is a medical doctor licensed to practice 22 in the State of California and is a resident of of San Mateo. Fmther, Hillsborough, County 23 LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. has a business with plaintiffs allege that Defendant, relationship 24 Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 1 through 25 25 inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned 26 herein Defendant LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. was either a principal, independent contractor, 27 28 COMPLA INT agent, and/or a physician employee of Defendant OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, 2 OROVILLE HOSPITAL and/or DOES 26 through 50. 34567009 6. That Defendants, LIONEL FOSTER, JR., M.D. and DOES 1 through 25, and each of them, at all times mentioned herein, held themselves out as physicians and surgeons, nurses medical groups, acute care hospitals and/or other health care providers, and that they further held themselves out as possessing that degree of medical, nursing and other health care provider education, skill, knowledge and experience as other health care providers practicing in the community. 7. From on or about March 26, 2016 and continuing through on or about July 12, 10 2019, and continuing thereafter, Defendants, and each of them, negligently cared for, diagnosed, 11 and treated Plaintiff, ED PETERS, and failed to exercise the standard of care and skill ordinarily and reasonably required of physicians, surgeons, hospitals, nurses, etc. by, without limitation, 12 negligently failing to timely diagnose and medically and surgically treat his medical condition of 13 prostate cancer, thereby proximately causing substantial personal injuries, including but not 14 limited to progression of prostate cancer, incomplete prostatectomy, bladder and urinary tract 15 injuries, and urinary tract infections as well as other damages as alleged herein. 16 8. The specific acts of negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, include but l7 are not limited to the following: 18 19 a) Between on or about March 26, 2016, and July 12, 2019, Dr. LIONEL FOSTER negligently performed multiple medical examinations and negligently performed 20 EDWARD PETERS multiple urologic surgical procedures upon including but not limited to an open radical prostatectomy on June 29, 2016 and a multitude of 21 cystoscopies and bladder neck dilatations at Oroville Hospital. As a result of the 22 above-described medical negligence of Dr. LIONEL FOSTER, and each of you and your agents and and medical providers, MR. PETERS has employees suffered 23 permanent and severe injuries. 24 b) Negligent performance of an open radical prostatectomy on June 29, 2016; 25 c) Negligent suturing of the proximal prostatic urethra to the distal urethra, involving 26 the bladder neck, with incomplete posterior anastomosis, resulting in development of a severe and chronic urethral stricture; 27 28 COMPLAINT d) Negligent, continuing and repeat failure, from on or about June 29, 2016 until on or about July 12, 2019, to refer plaintiff ED PETERS to other, more qualified and 2 more to examine and evaluate the plaintiff and to experienced, urologic surgeons undertake a permanent surgical reconstruction of his urethra; 34567009 e) Negligent performanCe of multiple painful and avoidable cystoscopy procedures upon Plaintiff ED PETERS between on or about June 29, 2016 until on about July 12, 2019; f) Negligent misrepresentation on multiple occasions to Plaintiff ED PETERS that reconstructive available ' there were no reasonable alternative surgical procedures from other urologic surgeons that would offer potentially permanent resolution of his injuries; 9. As a proximate result of the medical negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff ED PETERS has suffered great physical injuries and pain and suffering, as well as 10 that nature, type and degree of emotional injury and upset that is foreseeable fiom these specific 11 physical injuries, all to his general damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional 12 limits of the Court, and he is entitled to prejudgment interest on the-amount when determined 13 from the date of Plaintiffs Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise. 14 10. That as a further proximate result of the said negligence of the Defendants, and 15 each of them, Plaintiff was required to and did employ, physicians, surgeons, nurses and 16 caretakers to examine, treat and care for him. The exact amount of such expense is unknown to 17 Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will ask leave to amend his pleading to set forth the exact 18 amount thereof when the same is ascertained by him, and any and all prejudgment interest from . 19 the date of said injuries. 20 11. That as a further result of the said of the and proximate negligence Defendants, 21 each of them, Plaintiff will in the fiiture require medical, surgical, nursing and attendant care and 22 will require physicians, surgeons and attendants to examine, treat and care for him. The exact 23 amount of such expense is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will ask leave to amend 24’ his pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same is ascertained by him, and any 25 and all prejudgment interest from the date of said injuries. ' 26 /// /// 27 /// 28 COMPLAINT 12. Plaintiff did not discover the wrongful acts, omissions and misconduct and 234567009 negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, as outlined above until on or about July 12, I 2019, and there may still be additional facts and additional causes of action about which he remains ignorant even as of this date, and for which Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this. complaint in the future. 13. Plaintiff served a written CCP §364 Notice of this claim of which he is currently. knowledgeable, or has reason to suspect or believe, on or about November 20, 2019. II. SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION Elam v. College Park Hospital, I32 Cal.App.3d 332 10 11 (As to Defendants OROVILLE‘HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 11-50, inclusive) 12 14. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaffirm each and every paragraph and allegation above 13 as if fully rewritten herein. 14 15. Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and 15 16 DOES 26-50, including hospital administrators, hospital directors and members of the hospital 17 board of directors inclusive, at all times mentioned herein, owed a legal duty to its patients to 18' exercise reasonable care in selecting, hiring, training, reviewing, supervising, and periodically 19 evaluating the competency of its employee physicians, staff physicians and surgeons, and other 20 health care providers it permits to treat patients and to perform surgical procedures within its 21 facilities,and to develop and enforce hospital policies to monitor its physicians and health care 22 providers and to track their performance, mistakes, avoidable injuries, surgical complications 23 24 and deaths. 25 /// I 26 /// 27 /// 28 COMPLAINT l 16. Defendant LIONEL FOSTER, J R., M.D. and DOES 1-25, at all times mentioned 234567009 of the herein, were members of the medical stafi‘ of defendant hospital or employees medical group and were negligently and continuously granted full staff privileges and full surgical privileges by Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 - 50. 17. At all times mentioned herein,.Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26- 50, knew or should have known that by allowing Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, to treat patients and to perform surgical procedures within its facilities, including but not limited to OROVILLE HOSPITAL, that it would place those patients at risk of injury. 18. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 -50, and their officers, agents, administrators, members of the hospital board of directors and employees were negligent in the following aspects and i events: a. Negligent failure to perform the essential background investigau'on regarding Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, necessary to ensure that they possess appropriate medical and surgical skills; b. Negligent failure to carefully monitor medical and surgical activities and procedures of each of these Defendants; c. Negligent failure to ensure the competency of its staff physicians, surgeons, employees, nurses, operating room personnel and other medical providers and staff through carefiil selection and diligent peer and administrative review; /// /// COMPLAINT d. Negligent failure to monitor the extraordinarily high rate of surgical 2 34567009 complications and hospital readmissions experienced by surgical patients of Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1 — 25; e. Negligent failure to promptly investigate multiple reports and oral and written complaints by patients and family members of patients regarding unnecessary and negligently performed surgeries and unnecessary hospital readmissions for treatment of complications; f. Negligent failure to monitor civil court filings for evidence of medical 10 FOSTER and DOES 1-25 so as negligence actions filed and litigated against Defendants 11 to keep informed of all active medical negligence litigation against such defendants and 12 so as to perform necessary investigations as to the factual circumstances of such suits; 13 g. Negligent failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate multiple reports l4 15 and complaints by other staff physicians, surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses and other 16- health care providers regarding unnecessary and negligently performed surgeries, ' 17 negligent post-operative care and negligent and premature hospital discharge and 18 frequent readmissions to treat surgical complications by Defendants FOSTER and 19 DOES l- 25; 20 h. Negligent failure to other staff physicians, surgeons, 21 survey anesthesiologists, nurses and other health care providers regarding unnecessary and 22 23 negligently performed surgeries, negligent post-operative care and negligent and 24 premature hospital discharge by Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25; 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 COMPLAINT i. Negligent failure to suspend, revoke or otherwise limit the admitting and . ix.) w surgical privileges of: Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, at the time by which substantial evidence existed of the inadequate medical and surgical skills and repeated acts of medical negligence of Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25. 567009 j. Negligent failure to protect the health, physical well-being and lives of patients by negligently failing to exercise its statutory and contractual authority to suspend, revoke or otherwise limit the medical staff privileges of Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25; 10 k. failure to monitor medical claims or case Negligent negligence filings 11 against their staff physicians to ascertain the number and facts regarding medical 12 malpractice claims or suits filed against its staff physicians, and further failed to 13 ascertain the outcome of such suits and claims; 14 15 1. Negligent failure to require its staff physicians to report complaints, 16 claims, suits, actions and the outcome of such actions so that defendants could undertake 17 their own investigations as to the competence of its staff physicians on an ongoing basis; 18 m. Negligent failure to investigate events and medical errors and mishaps 19 involving Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25, about which they knew or should have 20 known through the exercise of due diligence in the monitoring of its staff physicians; 21 and 22 23 n. Negligently basing their decision to permit defendant FOSTER to remain 24 on the medical staff and to continue to admit patients and to perform surgical procedures 25 financial concerns and the financial benefits, returns and payments to OROVILLE upon 26 HOSPITAL from CMS, DHS, Medicare and Medi-Cal for patients admitted by 27 28 COMPLAINT ' 1 defendant FOSTER rather than any concern for the health, safety, lives and physical . 234567009 well-being of its patients. 19. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 - 50, negligently failed to review and screen the competency of their employee physicians, stafi physicians and surgeons and/or medical staff to ensure the adequacy of the medical care rendered to their patients, which negligent failure to carefully select their employee physicians, staff physicians and surgeons, and to review their medical and surgical competence, created an unreasonable risk of harm to their patients, 10 specifically, Plaintiff EDWARD PETERS. W 11 » 20. Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and 12 DOES 26- 50, breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs by negligently selecting, hiring, and 13 reviewing the competency of their employee physicians, stafi‘ physicians and surgeons, 14 15 including Defendants FOSTER and DOES 1-25. 16 21. As a proximate result of the negligent conduct of Defendants OROVILLE 17 HOSPITAL UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26-50, as detailed and described 18 above, which failed to conform to the standards and procedure of the owners, operators, hospital 19 administrators, members of the hospital board of directors and medical staff directors of acute 20 care hospitals in this community and the State of California, and each of them, Plaintiff 21 EDWARD PETERS sufi'ered the injuries, damages and losses described above. 22 23 22. The negligent and wrongful conduct of Defendants OROVILLE HOSPITAL 24 UROLOGY, OROVILLE HOSPITAL and DOES 26 - 50, as detailed above, proximately 25 caused the unnecessary and damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as well as their great injuries, losses 26 mental, physical, and nervous pain and sufi‘ering described above, all to their general and special 27 damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court and that they 28 COMPLAINT are entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount when determined, from the date of Plaintiffs' 234567009 Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise. III. THIRD CAUSE 0F ACTION (Loss of Consortium) 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and reaffirm each and every paragraph and allegation above as i though fully set forth herein. 24. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs EDWARD PETERS and OLIVIA PETERS were and now are husband and wife. 10 of the of Defendants, of them, of _ 25. As a proximate result negligence and each and 11 Plaintiff EDWARD PETERS’ resulting injuries, Plaintiff OLIVIA PETERS has been deprived of 12 the services of her husband by reason of his inability to carry on his usual household duties and 13 loss of consortium. Plaintiff, OLIVIA PETERS, is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 14. that the said injuries to her husband are of a permanent nature, and that she will be deprived of his 15 said services, love, affection, comfort, care and society for a long period in the future, allto her 16 general damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, 17 together with prejudgment interest thereon from the date of the incident. 18 26. Prejudgment interest on the damages alleged herein should be awarded should 19 judgment for Plaintifi be rendered; that said sum should be calculated from the date of Plaintiff’s 20 Code of Civil Procedure §998 Offer to Compromise. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 COMPLAINT l0 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each of 2 them, for: 3 for in a sum in excess of the minimum a. General damages personal injuries 4 jurisdictional limits of the Court; 567009 All special damages for past and future medical and nursing expenses; All special damages for past and future incidental expenses and losses; ' All prejudgment interest \on general and special damages from the date of . Plaintiffs’ Code of Civil Procedure §998 [Offer to Compromise; E. All costs of suit; and 10 g. Such other and further relief as this. Court may deem just and proper. ll Dated: February 13, 2020 TH Fl, ......, 12 fl i J - l - .’ 13