Scott Stevens vs. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, a California Corporation

Complaint Information

H. Ty Kharazi, Esq. SBN 1878%4

YARRA LAW GROUP

2000 Fresno Street, Suite 300 E-FILED

Fresno, California 93721 6/7/2018 4:11 PM Telephone: (559) 441-1214 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Facsimile: (559) 266-4236 By: A. Ramos, Deputy "Thomton Davidson, SBN 166487

THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C. 3451 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 105 Fresno, California 93711 Telephone: (559) 476-5064 Facsimile: (559) 421-0368

Attomeys for Plaintiff SCOTT L. STEVENS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNIY OF FRESNO

SCOTT L. STEVENS, Case No.18CECG 02038 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; V. BATTERY; AND INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND DISTRESS

MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation, dba COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL CENTER; and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive,

Defendants.

COMES NOW Plaintiff SCOTTY L. STEVENS, who alleges the following against FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive:

I. THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff SCOTTY L. STEVENS (“Stevens”) is an individual residing within Fresno, County of Fresno, State of California.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER (“Fresno Community” or “Defendant”) is,

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER (“Fresno Community” or “Defendant”) is, and at all times relevant herein, was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Fresno, State of California, with a principal place of business at 2823 Fresno Street, Fresno, California 93721. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Fresno Commumnity is a medical center in which Stevens was injured by Fresno Comnmumity’s conduct.

and at all times relevant herein, was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Fresno, State of California, with a principal place of business at 2823 Fresno Street, Fresno, California 93721. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Fresno Commumnity is a medical center in which Stevens was injured by Fresno Comnmumity’s conduct.

3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 7, inclusive, and therefore sue Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants are in some way liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and harm which he suffered, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names, identities and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

D. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant herein, Defendant, including those named herein as DOES 8 through 15, were principals, persons, physicians, laboratories, entities, partnerships, corporations, professional partnerships/corporations, whom acted as the agents or principal of each other and in doing the acts alleged herein, they acted within the purpose, scope, course and parameters of that agent/principal relationship and with the knowledge and/or consent, either express orimplied of the remaining Defendants and that Plaintiff’s losses and damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by and the result of the Defendants’ intentional and/or negligent, direct and/or indirect, actions and/or omissions.

0. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants, including those named herein as DOES 16 through 20, inclusive, were employed by Defendant Fresno Commumity in the capacity of doctors, medical professionals, medical specialists, medical technicians, medical assistants or other types of professional care providers and were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the penmission and consent of Defendant Fresno Conmumity.

7. Defendant Fresno Commumity is vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the actions or omissions of its employees and DOES 1 to 20.

7. Defendant Fresno Commumity is vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the actions or omissions of its employees and DOES 1 to 20. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as though fully set forth herein.

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted herein pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI section 10, because this case is a cause not given by statute to other trial courts.

10. This Court has jurisdiction over each and every defendant named herein because they conduct business in, reside and/or are citizens of California.

11. Venueis properin this Court because defendants’ wrongful acts and Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred within the County of Fresno. Therefore, venue is proper in the County of Fresno pursuant to Califormia Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395 and 395.5.

III. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Professional Negligence (As to All Defendants)

12. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

13. Commencing on or around June 28, 2017, and thereafter, Stevens was a patient of Fresno Commuunity to diagnose, care for, and treat him for spinal surgery.

14. Atall times herein mentioned, Stevens submitted himself to the care and attention of Fresno Commumity for comprehensive evaluation and examination and employed Fresno Comnumnity to perform such procedures as were reasonable and/or necessary.

15. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants, including all DOE Defendants, negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge and skill in exanmining, diagnosing, treating and caring for Stevens as hereinatter described.

16. More specifically, Plaintiff is infornmed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Fresno Comnuumity negligently failed to exercise the proper care and treatiment in the

following:

following: a. Requiring him to be catheterized for surgery when he was infonmed that if he evacuated his bladder prior to surgery that he could avoid the use of a catheter.

a. Requiring him to be catheterized for surgery when he was infonmed that if he evacuated his bladder prior to surgery that he could avoid the use of a catheter.

b. Forcefully and unsuccessfully inserting a latex-free catheter causing Stevens injury.

c. Ultimately inserted a latex catheter although Stevens was clearly identified in both his medical record and through the use of a bright red wristband identifying his allergies, which included latex.

d. Failing to adequately recognize and treat Stevens’ injuries arising from the use of the latex catheter.

17. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendant Fresno Commumnity’s, including all DOE Defendants’, negligence and its failure to properly treat and care for Stevens as herein alleged, Stevens suffered extreme pain, a requirement that he urinate an excessive number of times per day, diminishment of his sexual performance, and general pain and suffering, including emotional distress.

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that Fresno Conimunity, including all DOE Defendants, although holding themselves out as having the requisite skill and experience to diagnose, care for and treat Stevens, did not, in fact diagnose, care for and treat Stevens approprately. Failure to properdy diagnose, care for and treat Stevens was below the standard of care and resulted in the damages as described herein.

19. Atno time prior to the surgery did Stevens sign a release of liability contractually relieving Defendants of their duty of care.

20. The negligence of Fresno Commumity caused Stevens’ damages as described herein. Had the Stevens been properly treated he would not have suffered the aforementioned injuries.

21. Defendant Fresno Commumity and DOES 1 through 20 otherwise negligently caused or were a substantial factor in causing Steven’s injuries.

21. Defendant Fresno Commumity and DOES 1 through 20 otherwise negligently caused or were a substantial factor in causing Steven’s injuries. 22. Asadirect and proximate result of Fresno Commmumity’s negligence, including DOE Defendants, Steven has suffered economic and personal injuries exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

22. Asadirect and proximate result of Fresno Commmumity’s negligence, including DOE Defendants, Steven has suffered economic and personal injuries exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Battery (As to all Defendants)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-11 as though fully set forth herein.

24. During the surgery which occurred on or about June 28, 2017, Stevens was offered by Fresno Commumity’s nurses, murses’ aides, or orderlies, that if he evacuated his bladder he would not be catheterized during surgery. Stevens evacuated his bladder and therefore did not consent to catheterization.

25. Despite Stevens’ wishes, Fresno Conmmumity, its nurses or physicians, intentionally and forcibly inserted a non-latex catheter into his penis, causing him excruciating pain. This effort was unsuccessful. Fresno Commuumnity and all DOE Defendants tried to locate a smaller catheter but were unable to do so. Knowing the Stevens was allergic to latex, for the sake of expediency, Defendant, and each of its nurses or physicians, utilized a latex catheter; which caused Stevens to suffer an allergic reaction and anaphylactic shock.

20. Such conduct constitutes a battery on Stevens in that Fresno Commumity, through its nurses, murses’ aides, or orderlies, informed Stevens that a catheter would not be utilized during surgery. Then, when the non-latex catheter did not work, and a small non-latex catheter could not be located, Defendants, and each of them, utilized a latex catheter on Stevens knowing of his allergy thereto.

27. Stevens did not consent to this harming touching constituting battery.

28. By Fresno Commumnity’s conduct, Stevens was hanmed both economically and personally and, as a reasonable person, was offended and harmed by the touching.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (As to all Defendants)

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-11, 23-28, as though fully set forth herein.

30. Asalleged above, Fresno Commumity’s and Does 1 to 20's conduct was outrageous in that it and its nurses, murses’ aides, and physicians knew that Stevens had specifically opted not to consent. to a catheter and had informed Defendants, and each of them, that he was allergic to latex.

31. Defendants’ and Does 1 to 20 acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Stevens would suffer emotional distress as a result of their conduct.

32. Stevens suffered severe emotional distress, and Defendants” and Does 1 to 20's conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.

WHEREFORE, Stevens requests trial by jury on all claims so triable and prays for judgment against Defendant Fresno Commumity, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, as appropriate to each cause of action alleged, as set for below:

A. For non-economic damages within the limits prescribed under the law for loss of the Stevens;

Loss of future earmings and support, with interest at the legal rate thereon; Future medical expenses, including for psychological/psychiatric counselling; Medical and hospitalization expenses;

Emotional distress;

Interest to the extent allowed by law;

All costs of the suit; and

L @ =7 m o 0O W

Any other relief the court deems just and proper.

Any other relief the court deems just and proper. Dated: June 5, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 5, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

1~ RAZI. Attorney for Plaintiff