Teenager Injured in Football Game Receives Jury Award of $7.57 Million for Missed Diagnosis by Treating Doctors

Previous settlement with other defendants garnered additional 1.8 million dollars.

Stephen Allen Jamieson won a jury trial in the amount of $7.57 million dollars on behalf of a 19-year-old who had received a medical treatment far below the standard of care including a misdiagnosis of a bleed on his brain. This case was tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Southwest District (Torrance) before the Honorable Lois Smaltz.

In September 1995, the then 16-year-old plaintiff was practicing with his high school football team when he sustained several hard hits to the head from another player. In the evening his parents took him to the Urgent Care Center. The doctor failed to properly diagnose the problem as a concussion. There were no radiographic films done, no CT scan done. The doctor misdiagnosed the problem as dehydration and failed to place any definite limitation of the plaintiff's participation in football over the next few days.

Two days later, the teenager collapsed on the playing field within a few minutes of the start of the football game. He was later diagnosed with a massive brain hemorrhage and was comatose for a month. He was left with brain damage resulting in loss of function in one arm and one leg and cognitive deficiencies.

Solomon, Saltsman and Jamieson filed a lawsuit for negligence against the school district as well as the doctor, the Urgent Care Center for which he worked, and the hospital that sponsored the Urgent Care Center.

The defendants in this action vigorously litigated this matter. There were over thirty depositions taken. Expert witnesses were required in many different fields such as athletic training, accident reconstruction, biomechanics, engineering and sports of psychology. The malpractice issue required the hiring of medical experts such as a neuropsychiatrists and psychologists. After more than two years, Mr. Jamieson and Stephen W. Solomon settled with the school district for $1,800,000.

Four months later Stephen Jamieson took the case against the urgent care doctor and his employers to trial before a superior court in Torrance, California. The medical issues were perceived by the defense to be the weaker portion of the case, particularly considering that Torrance is a relatively conservative jurisdiction, and that there are inherent difficulties associated with a medical malpractice action (i.e., MICRA limitations).

Therefore, the defense offered only $50,000 prior to trial. After three weeks in trial, Mr. Jamieson convinced the jury to return a verdict in the amount of $7,570,000.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson Win Major Victory before California Supreme Court

In a sweeping opinion in cases brought by Ralph B. Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon of Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the practice of attorneys in administrative agency hearings submitting ex parte communications to decision-makers within their agency. The Supreme Court held such communication violated specific prohibitions stated in the Administrative Procedure Act, the statutory manifestation of Due Process of Law.

The Court’s ruling vindicated the rights of all ABC licensees in California and will change how all administrative agencies in California do business, and not just the ABC. There will no longer be secret communications from agency attorney to departmental decision-maker in any adversarial hearing. While the decision was issued in cases prosecuted by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the decision will impact governmental agencies across the state, including other state agencies as well as municipal and county governments.

The Court followed Saltsman’s argument before the court and held: “[A] prosecutor cannot communicate off the record with the agency decision maker or the decision maker’s advisors about the substance of the case. But the one contact that is forbidden is the one contact that occurred here.”

In the cases before the Court, Administrative Law Judges after hearing in written proposed decisions, dismissed disciplinary proceedings brought against ABC licensees. Those proposed decisions were rejected, and the Department imposed suspensions nevertheless. In each instance written ex parte documents were submitted following the hearing by the prosecutor to the Department’s Chief Counsel who acted as decision-maker. The lawfim argued and the Court determined that this and any secret communication from prosecutor to decision-maker was unlawful and unconstitutional.

To review the decision go to:
www.//ssjlaw.com/articles/Quintanar_Supreme_Court_Decision.pdf