04/18/08 10:30AM
Hayes, Charles R.              
Civil Case Mana
37-2007-00077418-CU-MM-
CTL     
D)Allen B Nalbandian MD    
Attorney: Gregory W.
Pollack       
P)Duff Mallory              
Attorney VIRGINIA C.
NELSON      


DUFF MALLORY VS.
WILLIAM SAMUELS
San Diego            
Date Filed: 10/09/2007
CU-MM Medical Malpractice

Plaintiff/Petitioner   
MALLORY           DUFF           
NGUYEN-MALLORY            
NATHALIE T             

Defendant/Respondent   
SAMUEL MD            
WILLIAM           
SAMUELS MD            
WILLIAM            
ENGEVIK MD            
RUSSELL W             
KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN INC                  
      
KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITAL                        
KIM, SAMUEL C  MD
NALBANDIAN, ALLEN B
MD                        
PALOMAR-POMERADO
HEALTH DISTRICT                  
      
PATEL MD            ROBERT K  
           
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP                        
VALLEY RADIOLOGY
CONSULTANTS MEDICAL
GROUP INC              




04/18/08 10:30AM      
Hayes, Charles R.              
Civil Case Mana
37-2007-00077418-CU-MM-
CTL     
D)Kaiser Foundation
Health  Attorney JAMES J
WALLACE          
D)Kaiser Foundation
Hospita JAMES J WALLACE
         
P)Nathalie T
Nguyen-Mallory VIRGINIA
C. NELSON       
D)Palomar-Pomerado
Health D
Atty. Sheila S. Trexler        
D)Robert K Patel, M.D.      
Atty. THOMAS E. LOTZ          
 
D)Russell W Engevik MD      
Atty. Sheila S. Trexler        
D)Samuel C Kim MD           
Atty. JAMES A. CREASON    
     
D)Southern California
Perma JAMES J WALLACE   
       
D)Valley Radiology
Consulta                          
D)WILLIAM SAMUEL M.D.   
    JEFFREY TUCKER           
SITE MAP
HOME
San Diego Central
courthouse (Hall of
Justice)
37-2010-00200035-CL-OE
-CTL          
KAISER PERMANENTE       
    PROCOPIO, VINCENT     
      San Diego        
12/14/2010


37-2010-00094150-CU-BC
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
BOMMARITO, MARTHA        
   San Diego           Civil         
  06/14/2010


37-2010-00094087-CU-WT
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
ZAMBRANO, TERESA          
 San Diego           Civil           
06/11/2010


37-2010-00086095-CL-OE
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
PROCOPIO, VINCENT         
  San Diego           Civil          
 02/23/2010


37-2010-00084297-CU-MM
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
ROWLAND, SHELBY           
San Diego           Civil           
01/26/2010


37-2009-00099758-CL-R3-
CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           THE
CHECK CASHING PLACE
INC           San Diego           
Civil           10/02/2009


37-2009-00099232-CU-PO
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
BLAKELY, ROBERT G          
 San Diego           Civil           
09/29/2009


37-2010-00103414-CU-PO
-CTL          KAISER
PERMANENTE
INSURANCE
CORPORATION           
FELIX SR, ELISA           San
Diego           Civil           
11/01/2010

North County
PEGGY NUGENT VS.
KAISER PERMANENTE
Case Number:           
37-2010-00053772-CU-PO
-NC            Case Location:   
      North County            
Case Type:         Civil           
Date Filed:         04/16/2010
Category:         CU-PO         
PI/PD/WD - Other

Plaintiff/Petitioner  
Last Name or Business
Name           First Name       
    Primary (P)  
NUGENT            PEGGY       
     P  

Defendant/Respondent  
Last Name or Business
Name           First Name       
    Primary (P)  
KAISER PERMANENTE       
                P  
KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN INC               
         
KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITAL                        
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP  

East County

37-2010-00021788-SC-SC
-EC          KAISER
PERMANENTE HEALTH
FOUNDATION INC           
ZLOTNICK, HOWARD A       
    East County           Civil     
      11/02/2010
37-2009-00065295-CU-PO
-EC          KAISER
PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP           HUMMUCK,
DONNA           East County  
         Civil           04/02/2009
37-2009-00022863-SC-SC
-EC          KAISER
PERMANENTE SAN
DIEGO MEDICAL
CENTER/KAISER
FOUNDATION HOSPITAL   
        KEHL JR, GEORGE      
     East County           Civil    
       12/14/2009

South County

UNITED INTERNATIONAL
HEALTH NET, INC. VS.
KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN INC
37-2010-00076478-CU-BC
-SC   
Date Filed:         04/01/2010
CU-BCW         Breach of
Contract/Warranty

Plaintiff/Petitioner  
UNITED INTERNATIONAL
HEALTH NET INC  

Defendant/Respondent  

KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN INC               
  
KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS                        
KAISER PERMANENTE       
   
KAISER PERMANENTE
INSURANCE COMPANY      
    
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP


37-2010-00076332-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
UNITED INTERNATIONAL
HEALTH NET INC           
South County           Civil       
    04/08/2010
37-2010-00075915-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE           
UNITED INTERNATIONAL
HEALTH NET INC           
South County           Civil       
    03/12/2010
37-2010-00076478-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE
INSURANCE COMPANY      
     UNITED
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
NET INC           South
County           Civil           
04/01/2010
37-2010-00076332-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE
INSURANCE COMPANY      
     UNITED
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
NET INC           South
County           Civil           
04/08/2010
37-2010-00075915-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE
INSURANCE COMPANY      
     UNITED
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
NET INC           South
County           Civil           
03/12/2010
37-2010-00075915-CU-BC
-SC          KAISER
PERMANENTE
INSURANCE COMPANY      
     UNITED
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
NET INC           South
County           Civil           
03/12/2010
Kaiser Permanente lawsuits & arbitrations
Doctor admits to perjury in trial of man he sponsored in
drug rehab
Heather Knight
San Francisco Chronicle
November 2, 2007

A San Francisco surgeon has pleaded guilty to perjury, admitting he lied under oath in
an effort to get a man he had sponsored in a drug rehabilitation program off the hook for
gun charges.

Bruce Barker, who remains a physician for Kaiser Permanente, was the key witness in
the 2002 trial of Marvin Washington, a felon accused of illegally possessing a gun outside
his home in San Francisco's Holly Courts public housing project.

Prosecutors said a security officer at the housing project reported hearing gunshots at 5
p.m. on May 1, 2002, and saw Washington running with a gun. Police officers responded to
the scene and found a semiautomatic pistol on the ledge outside Washington's kitchen
window and found a substance on his hands that tested positive for gunshot residue.

But Barker testified at length that he had been visiting Washington at the time and that he
had been carrying a cell phone, not a gun. Barker had sponsored Washington in an
organization he called Men in Motion.

"I know he's innocent," Barker testified. "I was there. I saw this. I know he's innocent."

Prosecutors said Barker's account was impossible because the doctor had been performing
surgery at the time - 4 miles away at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center on Geary
Boulevard. Hospital records showed he'd been working in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit
until 5:35 p.m. that day.

Washington's trial ended when he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
and carrying a gun with an altered serial number. A judge sentenced Washington to more
than eight years in prison.

The FBI began an investigation into Barker's testimony. A federal grand jury indicted him
last year on three counts of perjury and one count of making a false statement to law
enforcement.

Barker pleaded guilty to one count of perjury on Wednesday, admitting he knowingly and
intentionally provided false testimony in Washington's trial.

The sentencing of Barker is scheduled for 11 a.m. Feb. 8 He faces a maximum of five years
in prison and a $250,000 fine. Barker is not in custody pending sentencing.

Kaiser spokeswoman Meg Walker said, "Dr. Barker does practice here at Kaiser
Permanente in San Francisco, and we are reviewing this latest development."
State Faults Kaiser Doctors
Revisiting the case of a woman whose cancer was misdiagnosed, medical
regulators decide to censure five more physicians.
By Debora Vrana
Los Angeles Times
November 22, 2005

The Medical Board of California, reversing an earlier position, has decided to
publicly censure all six Kaiser Permanente doctors involved in the
death of a Woodland Hills woman whose case has
sparked a debate about state oversight of California's largest HMO.
Mirrored at: http://www.kaiserpapers.org/kaiserstillwontobeythelaw.html
10/28/2005
Simi Valley woman wants daughter’s doctors publicy
named for misdiagnoses
By Michelle Knight
Simi Valley Acorn

Hillarie Levy is on a mission.

In 2002, her daughter Robyn Libitsky was granted an arbitration award of nearly $1 million
after suing Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and several of its doctors because they
misdiagnosed her medical condition.

Kaiser physicians treated Libitsky for five months in 1999 for back and muscle pain. It turned
out she had a rare cancer known as Ewing’s sarcoma. She died earlier this year but not
before winning the arbitration award.

Ever since, Levy has been on a crusade to have the Medical Board of California note on its
website every Kaiser doctor named in the arbitration award. They did so for only one of the
doctors named in the document.

The Simi Valley resident has written numerous letters to the board and Kaiser, has
appeared on TV and called a state senator for help. So far, she’s been unsuccessful in her
attempts.

By law, the medical board is to make public the names and licenses of doctors against whom
an arbitration award is granted. The same goes for the Department of Managed Health Care
(DMHC), which regulates health plan companies such as Kaiser.

Lyn Randolph, a spokeswoman for DMHC, said they post arbitration awards on their
website, minus the names of the health plan, physicians and patient, only as a way for
consumers to find out about the type of complaints lodged against health plans and the
arbitrators involved in the case.

“(Legislators) did not intend that this was a posted place for judgments against the health
plans,” Randolph said. “You have to know the intent of the legislature . . . (which was to) use
arbitration decisions as a resource for going through other arbitration decisions.”

For physicians, the law requires one of several sources to notify the medical board of
arbitration awards. They are the insurance companies, the doctor or their attorney or the
plantiff’s attorney, if the medical board hasn’t been informed by one of the other sources.

In Libitsky’s case, Kaiser notified the medical board of the award and gave them the name of
only one doctor, said Candis Cohen, medical board spokeswoman.

The medical board nonetheless is aware of the other Kaiser doctors who treated Libitsky.
Cohen, however, refused to disclose how the board knows of them or to give their names.

After an investigation into Libitsky’s case, the medical board closed the case and didn’t
discipline any of the doctors because of “insufficient evidence of wrongdoing,” Cohen said

The medical board uses a higher standard, she said, than what’s used in civil matters when
determining whether a doctor acted improperly and should be disciplined. By law the board
must weigh whether the evidence is “clear and convincing to a reasonable certainty.” Civil
matters only need a “preponderance” of the evidence, meaning a 51 percent
certainty. The higher standard carries an 80 to 90 percent certainty, Cohen said.

Levy remains undeterred in remission to see that the public knows about all of the
doctors who misdiagnosed her daughter. She’s contacted about a dozen others
who say Kaiser physicians misdiagnosed their loved ones too. Two of those
contacted, Sheree Levy (no relation to Hillarie) and Tracie Breiter, both of Simi
Valley, appeared with Levy on KEYT-TV last month to tell their stories.

Breiter’s dad died within four months of being diagnosed with cancer. She said up
until then, Kaiser doctors attributed his back pain to aging, and when a lump on his neck
appeared, they treated him with antibiotics. She hasn’t sought legal action. A doctor at a
Kaiser emergencroom misdiagnosed Sheree Levy’86-year-old mother, BernicBarthoff, after
she fell. X-raywere taken, and Barthoff was told to go home and take a pain reliever for her
badly bruised hip. It was discovered later that she had a fractured hip, but no one from the
hospital called to tell her.

For three days, Barthoff stayed in a wheelchair because it was too painful to move to the
bed. When Sheree called her mother’s doctor, he found the X-rays and sent an ambulance
to pick her up and bring her to the hospital. She underwent surgery the following day but
died on the operating table.

Sheree has since talked to an attorney but was told she didn’t have a case. Because
Barthoff had health issues Levy didn’t know about, her death couldn’t directly be attributed
to the misdiagnosis, Sheree was told. “But she did suffer needlessly,” she said.

There’s also the case of Breanna Pflaumer of Moorpark. Her parents were told by
Kaiser doctors in 2003 that their 13-year-old daughter was underweight, undersized and
having headaches and backaches because of an eating disorder. After months of getting
nowhere with treatment and with Breanna then experiencing double vision, the Pflaumers
last December demanded an MRI be taken. The results showed a large brain tumor.
Breanna has since had surgery and chemotherapy. Her parents say she’s doing OK,
although she’s too susceptible to infection to go to school. Their experience with Kaiser has
shaken their faith.

“You just can’t trust the system anymore,” Terrie Pflaumer said.

Hillarie Levy has asked state Sen. George Runner (R-Antelope Valley) for help.

“I hope to get legislation for better oversight of the medical board and the Department of
Managed Health Care,” Levy said. “We’re going to get something done for all California
taxpayers . . . because if there isn’t someone needs to explain to California people why.”

Becky Warren, a spokeswoman for Runner, said they’re looking into what can be done for
Levy legislatively.

“We don’t know if anything can be done,” she said, “but it is being researched.”

Robyn Libitsky was just 29 when she died on Feb. 15, 2005. An alumna of Royal High
School and a graduate of the UC Santa Barbara, Libitsky had a bright future, friends say.

She had been accepted to law school and was working in the office of a Los Angeles County
supervisor. She eventually wanted to work in the district attorney’s office.

But the year before she was to enter law school, the pain in her back was severe
enough to send her to Kaiser’s urgent care. According to legal documents, the
doctor diagnosed her with back strain and prescribed pain medication.

Two days later she returned. The pain was so severe, she told the doctor, she
couldn’t sleep at night. More pain medication was prescribed.

Legal documents show that over the next several months Libitsky went to Kaiser
doctors 12 more times with complaints of back pain. Each time she was treated for
muscle pain or a viral infection. She even made several trips to physical therapy.

But Ewing’s sarcoma was the cause of Libitsky’s pain. According to the American Cancer
Society’s website, each year only about 150 people are diagnosed with the rare form of
cancer.

Her diagnosis came on Jan. 7, 2000, about five months after her first trip to urgent care. The
documents say that by the time the diagnosis was made, the tumor had grown in size and
abutted Libitsky’s spinal canal. She underwent surgery to remove the mass and three ribs.
But not all of the cancer was removed; a second surgery took out part of her diaphragm,
more ribs and part of her spinal canal lining.

Libitsky sued Kaiser for the error its doctors made in diagnosing her.
Arbitrators found Kaiser and the six doctors who diagnosed Libitsky
negligent in May 2002.
June 8, 2006
Medicare warns Kaiser
on kidney care
Coverage at S.F. center is at risk
unless compliance with federal rules is
proved.
By Dorsey Griffith  
Sacramento Bee

The Medicare program has
threatened to halt coverage for all
end-stage kidney care at Kaiser
Permanente’s San Francisco
transplant center unless the health
plan can convince regulators it has
complied with federal regulations.

The Department of Health and Human
Services, which administers Medicare,
told Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
officials that they have until June 15 to
submit a corrective action plan or risk
losing coverage of kidney dialysis,
transplant and other renal failure
services.

“There are a lot of services someone
with kidney failure requires,” said Jeff
Flick, regional administrator for the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. “Sometimes they include a
transplant. Otherwise, they need
dialysis or related care. The funding for
all of that would stop.”

If Kaiser fails to demonstrate that it has
fixed the problems, Medicare coverage
will end Aug. 12, a move that would
force more than 1,000 kidney patients
who get services at the San Francisco
facility to seek Medicare-covered
treatment elsewhere.

“Obviously, we take this matter very
seriously,” said Matthew Schiffgens,
Kaiser’s issues management director.
“We are going to take all necessary
corrective actions to ensure that the
San Francisco transplant program is in
compliance with Medicare regulations
and that we can continue to care for our
patients during this transition period.”

The notice does not affect Medicare
coverage of other Kaiser Permanente
care, or the kidney speciality care
offered at other Northern California
Kaiser Permanente facilities.

The Medicare letter, which arrived one
month after an unannounced, five-day
federal inspection of the program, is
the latest in a series of regulatory
actions taken in recent weeks in
response to administrative bungling of
Kaiser’s 2-year-old transplant program.

News reports in early May detailed the
health plan’s missteps in transferring
hundreds of members from university
medical center transplant waiting lists
to their own, newly developed program
in San Francisco.

As a result of a state order and several
lawsuits, Kaiser then opted to
indefinitely suspend operations and
transfer its patients back to the
university centers.

Kaiser officials have said the transplant
center will remain operational until all
of its patients have successfully been
transferred to one of the university
centers. Doctors there have continued
to see kidney disease patients and
have performed several transplants as
organs have become available.

Sharon Inokuchi, Medical Director
Kaiser Transplant Center Specifically,
Medicare cited three areas where the
Kaiser program is out of compliance:
“governing body and management,”
“patients rights and responsibilities”
and “director of a renal transplantation
center.”

Flick would not elaborate on the areas
of concern, but said the health plan
also received a 50-page report
detailing the federal government’s
correction demands.

Schiffgens, of Kaiser, said the
concerns stemmed from administrative
problems, as well as difficulties
communicating with patients.

Many patients reportedly sat in limbo
during the transition to Kaiser’s own
transplant program, losing precious
time on the transplant waiting list. The
state has since helped orchestrate
transfer of the same and additional
patients back to either UC Davis or
UCSF kidney transplant programs.

Asked what effect the loss of Medicare
coverage would have on the existing
program, Schiffgens declined to
speculate.

“We don’t anticipate anything but
coming into compliance with this,” he
said.
Nonprofit health council sues Kaiser over medical
disclosures
San Francisco Business Times
March 16, 2004

* Kaiser Permanente’s profits dip in 2010, but membership jumps by 99,000
* Kaiser Permanente promotes CIO Philip Fasano to EVP
* Kaiser Permanente names Bernard Tyson president/COO
* Kaiser Permanente donates $10.5M to Oakland schools, community programs

The California Consumer Health Care Council has sued the Kaiser Foundation over what
it says is inappropriate disclosure of private medical records.

The council contends that when Kaiser learns of a suit or potential suit by a patient, its
legal department opens and studies that patient's private medical records without
notifying the patient. This alleged review by Kaiser's legal department is inappropriate,
said the council, because Kaiser's legal employees have no role in the patient's health
care.

"If a patient has a claim against Kaiser for negligently cutting off a little finger, why should
a clerk in Kaiser's legal department be able to review the patient's entire medical file,
which might include information on unrelated sexual, psychiatric or personal problems ...?"
asked Martin Blake, one of the lawyers who filed the suit in Alameda County Superior
Court for the council on Monday.

John Metz, the chairman of the council, said that Kaiser has put its own legal interests
above the protection of its patients' privacy. "It is just wrong," he said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Kaiser said Tuesday that the organization's attorneys had not yet
seen the lawsuit, so she was unable to comment.
Kaiser Members Sue HMO Over Ads
AP
Mar. 17, 1999

SAN FRANCISCO Members of one of the nation's largest HMOs have sued the
organization, claiming they were duped by ads that said its doctors weren't influenced by
financial concerns. The lawsuit contends Kaiser Permanente and its parent, The
Permanente Federation, compromised care with their policies. "Kaiser has gone beyond
the pale with its statements here that doctors make decisions based on medical need and
there's no fiscal interference," said Jamie Court of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights, which filed the proposed class-action lawsuit in Superior Court on
Tuesday. The lawsuit contends that Kaiser withheld up to 30% of doctors' salaries
and tied physician bonus pay and other compensation to reaching certain profit
goals.

Kaiser called the allegations "patently false."  [Hmmm.  See next story.]

Kaiser settles two lawsuits
Accused of holding back on care, the HMO will post its treatment guidelines.
1/24/2003
Lisa Rapaport
The Sacramento Bee

Kaiser Permanente agreed to make public the treatment guidelines its
physicians follow and to disclose how they get paid as part of a settlement of
two lawsuits that accused the HMO of misrepresenting how decisions about
patient care were made.

Kaiser and three consumer groups that filed the suits jointly announced the settlement
Thursday.

Kaiser will post on its Web site the standards of care that its doctors consult to treat
conditions ranging from asthma to visual impairment. Kaiser officials said they did not
know how soon the information would be available on the site,
www.kaiserpermanente.org.cq

During the litigation process, Kaiser also agreed to improve efforts to link each HMO
member with a primary care physician and to ensure that its call-center employees
do not receive financial incentives to limit or deny access to care.

The lawsuits were filed in 1999 in San Francisco Superior Court and stemmed, in part,
from advertisements Kaiser ran in the late 1990s promoting itself as an HMO that
placed medical decisions "in the hands of doctors." At the time, consumer
groups and unions accused Kaiser of giving its doctors and call-center workers
financial incentives to delay and deny care.

Kaiser and the consumer groups involved said they could not discuss all settlement
details, including whether the HMO admitted any wrongdoing or paid any money to
resolve the suits.

Even so, consumer advocates said all of California's 18 million HMO patients stand to gain
from the settlement terms.

"I think that other health plans will have to follow Kaiser and inform the public about their
clinical guidelines, their compensation of physicians, and their arrangements with
call-center employees who give medical advice and schedule appointments," said Jamie
Court, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

The foundation is one of the groups that sued Kaiser, along with Consumers for Quality
Care and the Steven Andrew Olsen Coalition for Patients' Rights.

Kaiser's pledge to post clinical and financial information online will give patients far more
information about the HMO than health plans are required to disclose under California
law, said Steven Fisher, spokesman for the state Department of Managed Health Care,
which regulates HMOs.

"We think this is a positive step towards patients having more information about how
health care works," Fisher said.

Among other things, one of the suits alleged that Kaiser had falsely advertised that only
its doctors - and not administrators - decided how to treat patients.

In ads that ran statewide, Kaiser claimed, "There are no financial pressures to
prevent your physician from giving you the medical care you need. No one but
you and your doctor decides what's right for you. We don't have insurance
administrators to stand in the way of giving our members the finest medical care
available."

In practice, however, the suit alleged that Kaiser tied a significant portion of
doctors' pay to meeting quotas to limit medical services and applied quotas for
doctors to reduce the number of patients hospitalized regardless of medical
need.

Kaiser also faced accusations from union and consumer groups that its call-center
employees who scheduled appointments and gave medical advice in Northern California
had financial incentives to limit patients' access to care.

For most of 2000 and 2001, phone-service representatives at Kaiser call centers
in Sacramento, Vallejo and San Jose could earn a bonus of up to 10 percent of
their salary if they spent an average of less than three minutes, 45 seconds on
each patient call and made appointments for between 15 percent and 35 percent
of callers.

Since then, Kaiser has overhauled its call-center service in response to the criticism.

Bernard Tyson, senior vice president for Kaiser Foundation health plans and hospitals,
said in a prepared statement that it was "gratifying to turn conflict into a productive
collaboration with these important consumer groups."

"The goal of Kaiser Permanente is to work hand in hand with our members to continually
improve quality of care and service," Tyson said.

Kaiser has more than 6 million members in California.
November 24th, 2009
Valencia couple awarded $5 million against
Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente Thrive Exposed

Courtesy of Vickie Travis of the Kaiser Papers:

Valencia Assistant Principal Timothy Howard and his wife Mary Howard were
awarded $5 million in a binding arbitration against Kaiser Healthcare. A panel of
three arbitrators found that Kaiser physicians were negligent for failing to timely work
up Mr. Howard’s transient ischemic attacks (TIA) of the retina which resulted in a
devastating stroke and complications that included bilateral amputations of the
patient’s legs. “This is a flaw in the Kaiser system that I’ve seen over and over again.
Being in a hurry; not listening to the patient; not ordering tests,” said the Howards’
San Diego attorney, Robert Vaage, who has never lost an arbitration against Kaiser.
“How does Kaiser expect you to ‘thrive’ if its doctors won’t follow common sense
medicine?”

In October of 2007, Mr. Howard was a healthy 46-year-old, working at a middle school
in Valencia. He was married and had two twin daughters. He began having
symptoms of intermittent “gray-out” or blindness in his right eye. He saw his Kaiser
primary care doctor, who referred him to an ophthalmologist, who found no structural
abnormalities of the eye. Mr. Howard continued to have vision symptoms, with new
complaints of headaches, neck pain, and tingling in his left pinky. At the insistence of
his wife, Mr. Howard was seen by Kaiser Neurologist Marika Issakhanian, M.D. It was
alleged that Dr. Issakhanian was in a hurry and not interested in hearing the
concerns of Mr. Howard and his wife. She diagnosed Mr. Howard with an ocular
migraine headache, completely ignoring the signs and symptoms of TIA of the retina.
To placate the Howards, she ordered an MRI and MRA (magnetic resonance
angiography) of the head and neck, but not until December.

On Thanksgiving evening, Mr. Howard experienced complete vision loss in his right
eye. He went to Kaiser Woodland Hills Urgent Care. The doctor there told him he was
experiencing an ocular migraine, but agreed to run a CT scan in order to placate Mrs.
Howard, who was insisting something was wrong. While waiting for the scan results,
Mr. Howard suffered a devastating stroke. Kaiser emergency room doctors
diagnosed a carotid dissection as causing the stroke.

Mr. Howard has not been able to return to work since the stroke. He has no use of his
left arm and has left-sided weakness. He is wheelchair-bound and needs
assistance with all aspects of his life. He also has cognitive and mental deficits from
his stroke. He requires assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His future care
needs are estimated in the millions of dollars.

TIA of the retina is caused by intermittent disruption of blood flow to the eye, which
causes the gray-outs or visual disturbances. In men under the age of 60, the most
likely cause is a carotid dissection. It is diagnosed by MRI/MRA of the head and neck.
Treatment for a carotid dissection usually involves taking anticoagulation medication
to prevent blood clots. The dissection or tear usually repairs itself within 3-6 months,
and the patient can return to a normal life. Left undiagnosed and untreated, a carotid
dissection can lead to a devastating stroke.

Kaiser’s electronic records also may have played a role in preventing Mr. Howard
from obtaining urgent scans. “Once he was diagnosed incorrectly, that diagnosis
followed him from doctor to doctor,” explained Vaage. “When he arrived at Urgent
Care, the doctor looked at the E-record, saw Dr. Issakhanian’s diagnosis, and
accepted the diagnosis without further testing. That’s all fine and good if you’ve got a
good diagnosis.”

“I don’t get it,” added Vaage. “What happened to ruling out the worst potential cause
first? Dr. Issakhanian testified that she considered TIA of the retina, knew it could
lead to a stroke, but did nothing to rule it out at the time. All it took was one set of
scans done within 24-48 hours, and Mr. Howard would have been back to work as an
assistant principal. Instead, the Howards’ lives are forever changed.”

Because of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), the Howards’
general damages (non-economic damages) are capped at $250,000 apiece. “The
Howards’ lives have been destroyed,” said Vaage. “Put in the context of healthcare
reform, look at the cost to the public: We’ve lost a hard-working member of society;
we have to spend millions of dollars to care for Mr. Howard; the state of California is
ending up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in disability payments; and our
health insurance premiums keep going up. The real cost of healthcare is the cost
related to the care of patients like Mr. Howard, not tort reform. Kaiser completely failed
him.”

For further information please contact:
Robert F. Vaage, Esq.
The Law Offices of Robert Vaage
110 West C St., Suite 2105
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 338-0505

COMMENTS

Absolutely devastating. This story proves so many of the evils of Kaiser and why they
need to be put out of business. This clearly illustrates the high cost of bad care and
why Kaisers business model cannot work and should not work.

I am speechless.

Just this morning as I was having my morning coffee, another touchy-feely kaiser
commercial came on TV. It talks of how they are saving lives and saving trees with
their electronic medical records. We see what a jewel those are.

The reality of the situation, as demonstrated by this heart-wrenching story, makes me
want to vomit.

Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Howard on your very rare win but I am sure you would
rather have your life as you knew it back. What is money when the quality of your life
has been stripped away. Bless You for all the pain and sheer hell Kaiser has put you
through.

Beth Stover on November 24th, 2009



Congratulations to Tim and Mary I am so sorry for all the pain that kaiser has put you
through.May the Lord bless you and your family as you try to start over.There are no
words to express how sad this story is and what hell the family has gone through.I
want to say congratulations to Robert Vaage a job well done he put his heart in this
case.I hope Kaiser can learn from this case so no one else is hurt.Mrs Cheryl Pyle
November 30th 2009

Cheryl Pyle on November 30th, 2009



Congratulations to Esquire Vaage for the free advertising supplied at the bottom of
this vigniatte.

You and this site are truly are making our health care system better with these
anecdotal tales of terror. Of course the above outcome is horrible and devastating,
but it is important to remember that this is an exeption, not a rule. There is no such
thing as perfection in medicine.

Rest assured, that if the above named patient went into renal failure from the contrast
dye used during a CAT scan, Mr. Vaage would have been the first in line to sue for
damages.

This is what is ruining our health care system, not a system like Kaiser.

When you wake up to the fear tactics put forward by special interest groups, maybe
we can begin reform.

Simon Eisen on January 26th, 2010 09:56




Who could have guessed that the only thing holding up health care reform would be
little ol’ me? :shock:

As for providing Mr. Vaage’s contact information to the people who read this blog?
What you call free advertising, we call a public service. Tomato-tomahto.

And speaking of special interest groups, Simon, you do know I can tell that you
posted this comment from a Kaiser facility, right?

Admin on January 26th, 2010 23:25
Kaiser Is Found Liable in Retaliation Case
By Charles Ornstein
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 3, 2006

A Los Angeles County jury found Friday that Kaiser Permanente retaliated against one of its
emergency room physicians after he raised concerns about the quality of care at Kaiser's
Bellflower Medical Center.

Kaiser's affiliated medical group placed Dr. Mark L. Woods on administrative leave and
reduced his pay in 2003 after he complained about filthy treatment rooms, delays in care
and a shortage of supplies, jurors said. On a 9-3 vote, they awarded Woods $200,000 for
past economic losses.
The Bellflower hospital is the same one that in March was accused of dumping a patient on
the streets of skid row after she was discharged from its care. A Los Angeles Police
Department official said at the time that a taxicab had taken the woman, wearing a hospital
gown and slippers, to the downtown Los Angeles area against her will. Kaiser apologized.

Friday's courtroom verdict was unusual, because Kaiser and its affiliated Permanente
physicians group generally try to force lawsuits into binding arbitration, which is not open to
the public. The judge in Woods' case, however, ruled that the arbitration agreement was
"unconscionable" and unenforceable. The arbitration provision has since been changed.

The case publicly spotlighted the problems at the Bellflower hospital. In one e-mail from May
2003, Woods wrote that a patient found a urinal containing someone else's urine on a
nightstand in his treatment room.

In other e-mails, Woods detailed bloody instruments left in the sink of a treatment room and
a shortage of nitroglycerin, epinephrine, resuscitation bags and other supplies.

"This is a reoccurring dangerous trend and to date you have offered no permanent
solution," Woods wrote in a January 2003 e-mail to a Kaiser director. "What is the next step?"

During the trial and in court papers, Kaiser and the Permanente medical group maintained
that the discipline taken against Woods in late 2003 was appropriate, because he allegedly
assaulted Dr. Steve Nguyen, then chief of the emergency service. Defense lawyers also said
that Woods had been the subject of sexual harassment complaints and that his conduct had
been deemed inappropriate.

"We respectfully disagree with the jury's verdict," Kaiser spokeswoman Socorro Serrano said
in a statement. "We encourage our physicians and employees to advocate for improving
patient care whenever and wherever possible, and we do not condone or engage in any
retaliation against individuals for taking part in protected patient advocacy."

Serrano said Kaiser was pleased that the jury rejected Woods' other retaliation claims and
did not find that the Permanente medical group acted with malice.

Woods had worked at the Bellflower hospital since 1990 and had received above-average
ratings from patients and fellow physicians, court exhibits show. In late 2004, a year after he
was placed on leave, Woods was reassigned to Kaiser's Fontana hospital.

While jurors were deliberating, and unbeknown to them, Woods said the Fontana hospital's
medical group Thursday voted overwhelmingly to terminate him as a partner. His attorney,
Charles T. Mathews, said he would file another lawsuit as a result of that action.

"Now they're going to cut him off and kick him out," Mathews said. "His damages are
cataclysmically larger now, and they're directly related to his filing a claim for retaliation."

Most jurors said they believed that Woods was a strong advocate for his patients and that
Kaiser did not take his concerns seriously enough.

"Dr. Woods is the only one that really stood up," said juror Bertha Salinas, 47, of Los
Angeles. "He put his job in jeopardy and his future, but he stood up."

Juror Denise Nitinthorn, 36, of Temple City said she would consider dropping her Kaiser
insurance based on what she had heard in the case.

"I'm disgusted," she said. "As far as Kaiser, I think they need to step up and do what they
need to do to correct the mistakes."

Woods said he was concerned that his message would be lost on Kaiser because of the size
of the jury's award.

"The only way to get Kaiser to really wake up is to make them pay money that would get
their attention," he said.

Indeed, Kaiser spokeswoman Serrano noted that "the damages the jury awarded Dr. Woods
represented a very small fraction of what he had been demanding from us as compensation."

Evidence gathered by Woods' lawyers showed that their client wasn't the only one
complaining about problems at Kaiser Bellflower.

Nguyen, Woods' boss, wrote in a September 2002 mass e-mail, "As of today, I still have
complaints and personally witnessed bodily fluids from previous patients when I examined
the current patient in the room…. I am tired of writing people up for not doing their jobs."

Emergency department clinical director Russell Lo Bue wrote that he, too, was flustered by
the hospital's inability to ensure that the emergency room had proper supplies.

"Frankly I do not understand why an organization of our size can not get this problem
solved," he wrote in a September 2003 e-mail to colleagues. "My nurses are upset and
threatening to leave because they have to hunt and beg for basic equipment to care for ED
patients. The ED physicians are beginning to voice their dissatisfaction with the situation.

"Everyone is tired of hearing me say, 'It will get better. Just give the system a little more
time.' "

Serrano said any problems at Bellflower's emergency room had been corrected by October
2003, when an inspection by a national accrediting group gave the hospital its highest rating.

Woods and his lawyers contended that Kaiser, rather than fixing the problems,
tried to cover them up. In several memos and e-mails, Kaiser officials discouraged
Woods from putting his complaints in e-mail form, saying they could be used in
lawsuits.

"E-mail is not conducive to the necessary discussion and can be detrimental if
sent or forwarded to parties who are not solely concerned with quality
improvement," area medical director Dr. Martin Gilbert warned Woods in a July
2003 certified letter.

"I therefore ask you as of this date to stop using e-mail for these purposes."
Kaiser Permanente Cancer Misdiagnosis
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
downloaded April 6, 2011

A diagnosis of cancer is no longer the terminal sentence it was in the past. With early detection
and timely treatment, the medical impact of many cancers, including colon cancer, prostate
cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and lung cancer, can be meaningfully reduced.
Delayed Cancer Diagnosis

Ignoring or misreading the early warning signs of cancer can have dire consequences. The
longer a diagnosis of prostate, colon, cervical or breast cancer is delayed or unrecognized, the
more likely it is to progress to a non-treatable stage. Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis can
lead to reduced life expectancy, more invasive, aggressive and costly treatment, loss of
income due to time spent treating cancer, and in the worst case, premature death.

As a Kaiser Permanente member, your rights to file medical claims against Kaiser are limited.
Since 1978, all Kaiser Permanente group policies have included a provision mandating use of
a private arbitration procedure for all medical claims against Kaiser Permanente. These
complex proceedings often result in the denial of medical claims regardless of the negligence,
carelessness or malpractice of the health care provider...

Failure to Timely Diagnose Lung Cancer - Metastatic Spread
Through mediation, Walkup attorneys secured a $600,000 settlement for a 50-year-old
educator and aircraft mechanic whom Kaiser Sacramento doctors failed to diagnose with lung
cancer.

Failure To Treat Infection - Confidential Settlement
Our Kaiser Arbitration team obtained a Confidential Settlement in a case against a Northern
California Kaiser Permanente facility following the failure of a team of nurses to diagnose and
follow up on a post-operative infection. The elderly plaintiff underwent spinal surgery for
progressive weakness in his legs, and an inability to walk. Following surgery, an MRSA
infection developed and was permitted to progress, damaging his spinal cord and significantly
advancing his overall deterioration. The settlement was apportioned between the Kaiser
Permanente member and his wife, who brought a claim for loss of consortium.


FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER INFORMATION & CASES
Information about Kaiser Permanente Failure to Diagnose Cancer

Early cancer detection and proper diagnosis often mean the difference between life and death
for individuals afflicted with cancer...

All Kaiser cases/arbitration results
EXAMPLES OF OUR SUCCESS

In cases where the consequences range from the need for potentially unnecessary surgeries,
to more aggressive chemotherapy, to reduced life expectancy or death, the Walkup team has
been successful in representing victims and their families.

Failure to Diagnose Multiple Myeloma – Loss of Kidney Function

Walkup attorneys negotiated settlement for a 56 year old patient who developed kidney failure
and required lifetime dialysis after Kaiser Walnut Creek doctors failed to take proper steps to
treat what lab results and patient symptoms unequivocally indicated was multiple myeloma.
The patient presented to his primary care physician complaining of back pain, nausea,
weakness and fatigue, along with elevated creatinine and BUN. Though his PCP thought it
probable that the patient had myeloma, she neglected to follow the standard of care, which
required an aggressive workup and use of medications to reduce elevated calcium and uric
acid levels, and administration of fluids to combat dehydration. It was not until two weeks later,
when the patient presented to the Kaiser Walnut Creek Emergency Department with back pain,
shortness of breath, anemia and kidney failure that doctors begin to treat his myeloma. At that
point the damage to the kidneys had become irreversible. Walkup attorneys proved that had
the patient’s PCP made the appropriate diagnosis when it was first suspected, and followed the
appropriate treatment protocols, the damage to the patient’s kidneys could have been
reversed, and lifelong dialysis would not have been necessary. In addition, the patient’s need
for dialysis made it impossible for him to seek treatment through new experimental
medications. Included in the settlement was a separate payment for loss of consortium to the
patient’s wife.

Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer – Shortened Life Expectancy

Walkup attorneys  procured a $250,000 mediated settlement for a 61-year-old wife, mother
and schoolteacher after doctors and nurse practitioners at Kaiser Santa Rosa failed to follow
up when a lump was detected in patient’s right breast.

The patient, who conscientiously performed self-breast exams every month, reported the
detection of a small lump to her gynecologist, who referred her to the breast clinic. A nurse
practitioner at the clinic conducted a fine needle aspiration, but lab results indicated that the
sample was too small to evaluate. Another sample was never ordered. Though the lump
remained, it was not until two years later that the patient’s gynecologist suggested aggressive
examination. A biopsy revealed that the lump was lobular carcinoma. The patient underwent a
mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation, but the delay in diagnosis of what could have
otherwise been early detection of breast cancer effectively reduced patient’s five year life
expectancy to well below 50%.

Failure to Timely Diagnose Lung Cancer – Metastatic Spread

Through mediation, Walkup attorneys secured a $600,000 settlement for a 50-year-old
educator and aircraft mechanic whom Kaiser Sacramento doctors failed to properly diagnose
with lung cancer.

Failure to Diagnose Cancer

The patient first contacted Kaiser physicians 22 months before he was properly diagnosed,
complaining of a persistent cough that kept him from sleeping. He was prescribed antibiotics
over the phone. He next complained of the continuing cough and congestion 4 months later,
but received no treatment. He returned to the doctor the following month, with the same
complaints and requested x-rays. The Kaiser doctor who saw the patient said x-rays would be
a waste of time and diagnosed reactive airway disease. The patient returned again 4 months
later, with the added complaint of upper chest pain, at which time x-rays were taken. The
results, which showed an infiltrate in the right lower and middle lobes of the lung, were never
revealed to the patient, because a nurse, untrained in radiology, determined that they were
superfluous. The patient suffered through the next year, his condition worsening, believing that
he had reactive lung disease. Finally, when he could no longer walk without suffering fatigue,
the patient saw his primary care physician, who ordered x-rays, which revealed a large right
pleural effusion. By this time, the patient’s tumor, which could have been resected at the time
the first x-ray was taken, was completely inoperable. The settlement covered the patient’s
personal injury claim, as well as his wife’s loss of consortium claim and any possible wrongful
death claims .
Kaiser's plan seems to be to
treat only the problems on its list,
and to deny or ignore all other
problems.  But most of the
problems on the list are not
serious.  So in most cases, you'd
do just as well to have no health
care at all.  Of course, if you
have a serious problem, and
your symptoms are typical and
are on Kaiser's list, you can get
life-saving help.
California Research
Bureau Finds HMO
Arbitration Is Unfair
1/11/2001
Jamie Court

The California Research Bureau,
the state equivalent of the US
General Accounting Office, has
issued a report today that shows
more than three-fourths of
Californians who are enrolled in
managed care companies are
forced into binding arbitration as a
condition of enrollment and that
the arbitration process itself is
unfair. The report is on the Internet
at
http://www.library.ca.gov/html/statse
g2a.cfm.

"This report should convince the
legislature that patients should not
have to waive their right to trial
simply to join an HMO," said Jamie
Court, executive director of the
Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights, which intends to
reintroduce state legislation
stopping forced arbitration at
HMOs. "This report shows the
HMO's private justice system is
tilted against the patient. With a
new HMO liability law in effect as of
January 1st, it's more critical than
ever that patients with HMO
problems not be kept out of court
by forced arbitration agreements.
Other states with HMO liability laws,
such as Texas, Washington, and
Georgia, do not permit HMOs to
force patients into secret
arbitration proceedings where
private lawyers, rather than judges,
preside."

The report, minor modifications to
which are detailed in cover letter
from State Senator Sheila Kuehl,
finds:

* Many health plans are apparently
not complying with state reporting
requirements regarding even minor
details surrounding the outcomes
of their private arbitrations.

* Contrary to claims by proponents
of mandatory arbitration,
"Arbitration is expensive, at least
for patients on normal budgets.
California arbitrators typically
charge $250 to $400 per hour [and
a] typical California health care
arbitration costs around $4,500."

* While health plans are likely to
have repeated experiences with
individual arbitrators and are in a
good position to make informed
decisions when choosing an
arbitrator for a case, "Patients may
not be as well informed about
arbitrator behavior, especially if
they are proceeding without the aid
of a lawyer" -- which the report
notes is the case with very high
frequency.

* California, like most states, does
not have established professional
standards or licensing
requirements for arbitrators. Thus
private arbitrators generally do not
have to meet even minimal
standards of conduct, nor is there
any real mechanism for a patient to
challenge an arbitrator's
professional qualifications.

* Contrary to earlier claims by
some proponents of mandatory
arbitration in health care, there
appears to be a very high rate of
repeat use of preferred arbitrators
by HMOs, including in the Kaiser
system, which was supposed to be
reformed following condemnation
of its practices by the California
Supreme Court. In a review of
1999 arbitration claims on file with
the Department of Managed Health
Care, the report found that 30
percent of Kaiser Permamente's
arbitration claims (the largest of
the health plans mandating the use
of binding arbitration) were
decided by just eight repeat
arbitrators (five or more
arbitrations each). Strikingly, six of
these eight repeat arbitrators ruled
in favor of the defense (Kaiser) in
80% of the cases. The report
further states that if one defines a
"repeat arbitrator" more broadly as
someone who arbitrates more than
three claims in a given year, almost
half (46 percent) of the Kaiser
cases were decided by repeat
arbitrators. In those cases,
plaintiffs won less than a quarter
(24 percent) of the time.
Kaiser Malpractice
Timeline
from Kaiser Injury Lawyer website


What is the filing fee?

In order to bring a claim against
Kaiser, the Kaiser member or
claimant must file a claim for
arbitration against Kaiser. A fee is
required to file this claim, but
Kaiser will under ceratin
circumstances waive this fee.
Once the claim is filed, the OIA will
create a list of possible neutral
arbitrators that are then sent both
to Kaiser lawyers and the claimant
lawyers.

What occurs during this
period?

Once the claim has been filed and
both parties have been provided
with the names of possible
arbitrators, Kaiser is given a
period of time to investigate and
respond to the claim being made.
In some cases, Kaiser's lawyers
may request extra time to
investigate the claim.

How do the parties choose the
Arbitrator?

Kaiser's lawyers and your lawyers
are each provided with a list of 12
names and each side is allowed to
strike a specified number of
names, and to rank, in order of
preference, the remaining names.
The Office of the Independent
Administrator then compares the
lists and selects that neutral who
has not been "struck" by either
party and who is the most highly
ranked by both sides.

How is the arbitrator
contracted?

Once the arbitrator has been
selected, the Office of
Independent Administrator will
contact and secure the services
of the arbitrator within 10 days.

What is the Arbitration
Management Conference?

The AMC must occur within the 60
days after the neutral arbitrator
has been selected. At the AMC
attorneys from both sides meet
with the neutral arbitrator and
develop a schedule for the
completion of the case. At this
conference the parties discuss
the status of discovery, any
pending or intended motions, as
well as both sides assessment of
the value of the case.

What is the Mandatory
Settlement Meeting?

The MSM is a meeting between
the parties outside the presence
of the neutral arbitrator and must
occur within six months of the
Arbitration Management
Conference. The MSM offers the
parties an opportunity to sit down
and attempt to resolve the case
without proceeding to arbitration.

What is the Arbitration
Hearing?

The Arbitration Hearing has many
of the same elements of a Jury
Trial. In a Kaiser arbitration, the
person bringing the claim
("Claimant") and Kaiser present
witnesses, including medical
experts. The neutral arbitrator
acts as the judge and jury. Once
the hearing is concluded the
neutral arbitrator has fifteen days
to decide the case based upon
his or her interpretation of the law
and the evidence presented.

What is the Award?

The award is determined solely by
the neutral arbitrator and is final,
legally binding, and enforceable in
court. The decisions, with rare
exception, cannot be challenged
or changed. There is no right of
appeal in Kaiser arbitration.




About the OIA
About the Office of the
Independent Administrator

Since 1997, the Office of the
Independent Administrator has
handled all claims for medical
malpractice and negligence
against Kaiser.  The goal of the
OIA is to offer a fair, timely and
low cost arbitration process that
respects the privacy of all who
participate in it.

The OIA produces an annual
written report containing important
information and statistics about
the Kaiser Arbitration system.  
The report is then reviewed by the
Kaiser Arbitration Oversight Board
and made public.  Findings from
the most recent OIA reports are
as follows:

The OIA reported that better than
80% of those bringing claims
against Kaiser do so with an
attorney.  This figure represents a
steady decline in the percentage
of claimants who proceed without
an attorney.  Now more than ever,
people are realizing the need for
counsel when prosecuting an
action against Kaiser.

Of the 20% or so of claimants who
proceeded without an attorney.  
The neutral arbitrators have
continually reported to the OIA
that people proceeding without an
attorney are at a significant
disadvantage.  Claimants
proceeding against Kaiser without
the benefit of an attorney have
difficulty navigating the complex
Kaiser legal system, and often fail
to in obtaining a maximum reward
for their injuries.   

The OIA reports that
approximately 41% of all cases
against Kaiser in California were
settled.  Another 31% were
withdrawn or abandoned by the
claimant and the remaining 28%
proceeded to arbitration and were
determined by a neutral arbitrator.

Of those cases that proceeded to
the neutral 8% were dismissed on
summary judgment, 4% were
dismissed by the neutral
arbitrator, and 16% proceeded
through a full arbitration hearing
to an award decision.  It as like
exactly what it should be this time
of year.

Claimant’s prevailed in 34% of all
cases in which a full arbitration
hearing took place and a neutral
arbitrator rendered a decision.  
The average recovery for those
who received an award was
$386,000.  Almost all of those
claims that went through a full
arbitration process involved a
single neutral arbitrator rather
than a panel composed of one
neutral and two party arbitrators.
Kidney transplant
program violations lead
to closure
Wikipedia

On May 3, 2006, the Los Angeles
Times published an investigative
report which showed
across-the-board
mismanagement in the KP-run
transplant program which
resulted in delays for patients
awaiting kidneys.  According to
the report, Northern California
Kaiser performed 56
transplants in 2005 and twice
that many patients died
waiting for a kidney.

At other California transplant
centers, more than twice as
many people received
kidneys than died during the
same period.

The practice of delaying these
transplants resulted in
considerable savings for KP...
Kaiser Put Kidney
Patients at Risk

By opening its own transplant
center in the Bay Area, the
HMO harmed recipients' odds
of obtaining organs, a Times
probe finds.

By Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber
Los Angeles Times
May 3, 2006

In mid-2004, more than 1,500
Kaiser Permanente patients
awaiting kidney transplants in
Northern California got form letters
that forced them to change the
course of their treatment.

Kaiser would no longer pay for
transplants at outside hospitals,
even established programs with
thousands of successes. Instead,
adult patients would be transferred
to a new transplant center run by
Kaiser itself -- the first ever
opened by the nation's largest
HMO.

Within months after Kaiser's
kidney program in San Francisco
started up, its waiting list ranked
among the longest in the country.
No other center had ever put
together such a list so fast.

The patients didn't know it, but
their odds of getting a kidney had
plummeted.

Kaiser's massive rollout in
Northern California endangered
patients, forcing them into a
fledgling program unprepared to
handle the caseload, according to
a Times investigation based on
statistical analyses, confidential
documents and dozens of
interviews.

Hundreds of patients were stuck in
transplant limbo for months
because Kaiser failed to properly
handle paperwork. Meanwhile,
doctors attempting to build a
record of success shied away from
riskier organs and patients,
slowing the rate of transplants
performed.

National transplant regulators
apparently did not notice the
program's failures, though some
were obvious in the statistics the
regulators themselves posted on
the Internet.
Nichols vs. Kaiser
legalstuff.kaiserpapers.org

CASE TYPE:  Medical Malpractice/Wrongful Birth
RESULT:  $1,100,000 arbitration award
COUNTY:  Los Angeles
CASE NO:   Arbitratiion

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: John P. Blumberg, Esq. and Nancy G. Wanski, Esq. of
Blumberg Law Corporation, Long Beach

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS:  Laura Sitar of Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe and
Nichols, Santa Ana

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS:  Charles Ballard, M.D. (Los Angeles) OB/GYN
Donna Barras, M.D. (Buena Park) Pediatric Rehab
Rachelle Tyler, M.D. (Los Angeles) Developmental Pediatrician
David Fractor, Ph.D. (Pasadena) Economist

DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS: William Frumovitz, M.D. (Santa Monica) OB/GYN
Paul Schultz, M.D. (San Diego) Pediatric Neuro
Ted Vavoulis (Pasadena) Economist

FACTS:  Plaintiff had six children. She and her husband decided not to have more
children and plaintiff made plans to undergo a tubal ligation.  

On June 4, 2001, a nurse practitioner drew blood for a pregnancy test. The test was
analyzed and printed by the lab the next day, and showed that plaintiff was pregnant.
At this time, she was at 10 weeks gestation.  

However, she was never notified of the result and the lab report was never placed
in the chart.  She called for results but was told that the results were not ready. She
assumed that the test was negative when she didn’t hear to the contrary.

On June 27, 2001, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Karen Maples for a pre-op evaluation. Dr.
Maples ordered a urine pregnancy test and plaintiff gave a urine sample to the
nurses.

However, the test was never performed.

At this point, plaintiff was approximately 13 weeks gestation.  On the day of the tubal
ligation surgery, the nursing staff printed a copy of the June 4, 2001 pregnancy test
and put it in the chart.

Dr. Maples testified that her custom and practice was not to review the chart before
performing tubal ligation surgery, but to rely on the nursing staff to tell her if the
pregnancy test was positive.

She said that the nurses neither told her that the urine test had not been performed nor that
the previous labs had been positive for pregnancy.  Plaintiff was given a general anesthetic
and Dr. Maples began the laparoscopic procedure. She noted during the surgery that the
uterus was enlarged, but presumed that it was a fibroid, since she believed that the pregnancy
test had been negative. Dr. Maples told plaintiff’s husband that the operation went fine but that
she found a fibroid uterus.

A few weeks following surgery, plaintiff became concerned because her uterus was continuing
to enlarge.  She telephoned Kaiser and left  messages for Dr. Maples indicating that her
uterus was continuing to grow and requesting that she be seen before her scheduled post-
operative appointment.  Telephone  messages were left  for Dr. Maples on July 26 and July 27.
Plaintiff was not examined by Dr. Maples until August 17, 2001.  At that visit, Dr. Maples
performed an ultrasound and made the diagnosis of an intrauterine pregnancy of  20 + weeks
gestation.  Dr. Maples was very upset to learn that she had performed a bilateral tubal ligation
on a pregnant woman.  She checked with the laboratory and learned for the first time that the
urine pregnancy test had never be performed and verified that the result of the test she had
ordered was not in the computer system.  Plaintiff would not consider an abortion at that time
because it was too late.

The pregnancy was complicated by complete placenta previa.  Plaintff experienced three
episodes of severe vaginal bleeding necessitating an emergency Caesarean section on
October 13, 2001.  Issac was born severely premature at 28 weeks gestation, weighing 1
pound, nine ounces.  For the next three months, he was hospitalized in the Kaiser Bellfower
neonatal intensive care unit until January 12, 2002.  He suffered multiple complications
associated with his extreme prematurity including respiratory distress syndrome, anemia,
sepsis, apnea, bradycardia and gastroesophageal reflux.  Shortly after his discharge from
Kaiser Bellflower, Issac was admitted to the Kaiser Sunset facility for treatment of a severe
episode of RSV pneumonia.  He continued to have apneic episodes and was discharged on an
apnea monitor which he required for approximately one year.  He is now nearly three years old
and has been diagnosed with global developmental delay since birth and has suffered from
recurrent otitis media and profound speech delay.

After Plaintiff recovered from emergency surgery, she spent nearly every day at the hospital
with her premature son while, at the same time, continuing to care for her other six children
and her infirm mother.   Because of the complications from her pregnancy with Issac and his
constant care needs, plaintiff has never been able to return to her full time job. Issac’s birth in
October 2001 and his multiple, extraordinary needs have pushed the family beyond their ability
to cope emotionally and financially.


PER PLAINTIFF:   Kaiser Foundation Hospital was negligent in failing to inform plaintiff that she
was pregnant on or about June 4, 2001 when she should have been offered a first trimester
abortion; for failing to obtain an urine pregnancy test on or about June 27, 2001; and failing to
notify Dr. Maples of the positive pregnancy test.  Dr. Maples was negligent for failing to
ascertain prior to surgery whether the pregnancy test she had ordered had been performed by
personally reviewing the chart. Dr. Maples was also negligent for presuming that the enlarged
uterus was merely a fibroid and for performance of a laproscopic tubal ligation on a pregnant
patient.  Had she properly made the diagnosis of pregnancy, a timely therapeutic abortion
could have been performed in the first trimester.

PER DEFENDANTS: Kaiser admitted that its nurses negligently failed to report the pregnancy
test result of June 4, 2001 to the patient, and failed to inform Dr. Maples that (1) the June 4,
2001 test was positive and (2) the urine pregnancy test was never done. Dr. Maples claimed,
however, that she had followed her usual custom and practice in relying on the nurses for
information about the pregnancy test results and had the right to assume that the patient was
not pregnant when she performed the sterilization surgery. Defendants claimed that plaintiff
might not have undergone an abortion, even if she had been notified earlier.  Defendants
disputed that plaintiff had lost earnings or that Issac would need anything other than the
special services offered by the school district to catch up and be normal by age 5.

INJURY: Birth of a child with developmental delays.

SPECIAL DAMAGES: Loss of earnings: $50,000.  The cost of raising a child with
developmental delays (i.e., social, educational and medical services) to age 18: $900,000
present value.

SETTLEMENT DEMAND: $500,000.

OFFER: None.

ARBITRATION AWARD: Kaiser Foundation Hospital, but not Dr. Maples, was found liable.  
$150,000 for general damages and $50,000 for lost earnings for plaintiff; $900,000 for the
cost of raising Issac for a total of $1,100,000.

LENGTH OF HEARING: 4 days.

ARBITRATOR: Harold Hunter, Jr. was the sole neutral arbitrator.

NOTE: The arbitrator fashioned the award so that a trust would be established for the child’s
needs until age 18, after which any money remaining would be returned to the judgment
debtor. This may be the largest wrongful birth verdict/award in California
history.
Riverside: Doctor failed to properly diagnose stroke patient
June 10, 2011
By LORA HINES
The Press-Enterprise

A Riverside woman has been awarded more than $1.2 million after
an arbitrator found that her Kaiser Permanente doctor did not
properly diagnose and treat symptoms that might have prevented
her 2009 stroke.

Linda De La Rosa, who was 42, had a stroke on Jan. 2, 2009, less than two weeks after she
went to Dr. Francis Chu complaining of decreased vision, seeing flashes of light and feeling
pressure near one of her eyes, according to court records.

Chu examined De La Rosa on Dec. 22, 2008, and ordered a brain scan, which didn't reveal
signs of brain bleeding or masses.

However, Chu didn't order an MRI, which experts testified probably would have revealed signs
that De La Rosa might have had a mini stroke and could suffer a more debilitating and
life-threatening stroke.

De La Rosa's January 2009 stroke left her with permanent weakness on her left side and
diminished feeling on her right side, court documents state.

Tests performed after De La Rosa's stroke showed a large blood clot on one of her arteries,
according to court records.

Arbitrator John W. Kennedy Jr. ruled that proper diagnostic testing and treatment would have
revealed De La Rosa's problem and prevented a stroke.

Dr. Francis Chu has a valid medical license and no history of problems with the Medical Board
of California.

He still works at Kaiser's Riverside medical center, according to health care provider's website.

Kaiser spokesman Jim Anderson said officials disagree with the arbitrator's decision, but will
abide by it.

Chu had been De La Rosa's doctor for eight years before her stroke, court records state. De
La Rosa's attorney Robert Vaage said Chu knew that De La Rosa was at risk for getting
blood clots and suspected that one of the possible causes for her vision problems and eye
pressure could have been a mini stroke.

Vaage said that Chu should have ruled out a mini stroke to prevent the possibility of De La
Rosa having a more devastating stroke.

De La Rosa's arbitration award includes compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income
and future medical care, Vaage said.
Northern California Kaiser
Arbitration Lawyers
How We Have Helped: Kaiser
Arbitration Case Results

Case Name: Ramon Doe v. Kaiser
Summary: A baby was born at a
Kaiser hospital. During the birth,
he suffered from pre‑delivery
asphyxia which resulted in Hypoxic
Ischemic Encephalopathy. The
hospital should have performed
an emergency cesarean section,
but instead allowed the baby to be
born vaginally, resulting in an
essential partial suffocation of the
baby. In their claims against
Kaiser, plaintiffs claimed that the
conduct of the physicians and
nurses fell well below the
applicable standards of care for
treating pre‑delivery asphyxia.
Recovery Range: $2,000,000 -
$3,000,000

Case Name: Amelita Doe v. Kaiser
Summary: Amelita Doe sued
Kaiser for the wrongful death of
her husband, Oscar. He went to
the urgent care department at
Kaiser Hospital A on two
consecutive days, with symptoms
that required he be worked up for
pneumonia. Both days, the
doctors failed to provide such a
work up. When Oscar was finally
diagnosed at Kaiser Hospital B's
emergency room on the third day,
he was already suffering from
multi‑system organ failure. He was
admitted to the hospital, where he
continued to receive substandard
care, and died twelve days later at
the age of 57.
Recovery Range: $650,000 -
$1,000,000


Case Name: Sid Doe v. Kaiser

Summary: Sid Doe suffered an
intra‑articular fracture of his right
knee while working as a
carpenter. Over the course of
eleven months, his orthopedists,
radiologists, and other doctors at
Kaiser all failed to properly
diagnose the fracture and to
properly treat it. As a result, the
knee healed mal‑aligned with a
severe valgus deformity which
caused pain. Due to his doctors'
negligence, he will need a total
knee replacement.
Recovery Range: $400,000 -
$650,000


Case Name: Kelly Doe v. Kaiser

Summary: Kelly Doe went to a
Kaiser Hospital for a routine
endoscopic sinus surgery to
remove some nasal polyps. The
surgeon became confused and
broke through her cribriform plate
in her skull, causing intracranial
bleeding and permanent mild
brain damage. The puncture
caused permanent impairment to
plaintiff’s memory, decision
making, and multi‑tasking abilities.
(Note: Plaintiff was only entitled to
recover $250,000 from Kaiser for
her pain and suffering because
California law caps what a victim in
a medical malpractice case can
recover for pain and suffering to
just $250,000.)
Recovery Range: $400,000 -
$650,000


Case Name: Bruce Doe v. Kaiser

Summary: An emergency room
nurse negligently inserted an
intravenous needle into plaintiff's
left wrist, permanently injuring his
left radial nerve. As a result, he
suffered a disabling, severe pain
syndrome with very limited
function of his left wrist and hand.
Plaintiff sued the Kaiser for
negligence.
Recovery Range: $400,000 -
$650,000
KAISER HIT WITH LAWSUIT FOR DENYING LEGALLY MANDATED HEALTH CARE TO
57,000 OF ITS MOST VULNERABLE PATIENTS, THE CHRONICALLY DISABLED AND
OTHER "SPECIAL NEEDS PATIENTS" BECAUSE IT JUST DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND
THE MONEY!
October 7, 2010

Dr. Richard Della Penna M.D., a former Kaiser physician and one of America's leading
medical experts in Elder Care and the treatment of Special Needs Patients (SNP'S) has
filed suit against Kaiser Permanente including The Permanente Federation, LLC, Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and Kaiser Foundation hospitals as a result of Kaiser's
calculated plan to deny legally mandated proper treatment to approximately 57,000
seriously disabled and chronically ill patients in CALIFORNIA, COLORADO and GEORGIA
because it just didn't want to spend the money.

Dr. Della Pena's lawsuit charages that despite receiving $13 BILLION dollars in Medicare
money, Kaiser intentionally violated and continues to violate federal laws (the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003 and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act
of 2008) by denying these vulnerable patients crucial annual physical, functional and
psychosocial assessments and a proper plan for the care and treatment of these Kaiser
members.

Dr. Della Penna charges that despite his efforts to have Kaiser comply with these laws,
Kaiser made the conscious decision to provide these required services to only 5% of
these vulnerable patients so that they could showcase them to regulators when and if
they were questioned.

Dr. Della Penna's lawsuit seeks to force Kaiser to deliver to these disabled patients and
their families the kind and quality of care that it promises when luring people into joinging
and claiming that it wants them to "Thrive."..
Is Kaiser driving up our taxes?
November 24th, 2009
Valencia couple awarded $5 million against Kaiser
Permanente
Kaiser Permanente Thrive Exposed
by Jack & Donna Berlin
Courtesy of Vickie Travis of the Kaiser Papers:

Valencia Assistant Principal Timothy Howard and his wife Mary Howard were awarded $5
million in a binding arbitration against Kaiser Healthcare. A panel of three arbitrators
found that Kaiser physicians were negligent for failing to timely work up Mr. Howard’s
transient ischemic attacks (TIA) of the retina which resulted in a devastating stroke and
complications that included bilateral amputations of the patient’s legs. “This is a flaw in the
Kaiser system that I’ve seen over and over again. Being in a hurry; not listening to the
patient; not ordering tests,” said the Howards’ San Diego attorney, Robert Vaage, who
has never lost an arbitration against Kaiser. “How does Kaiser expect you to ‘thrive’ if its
doctors won’t follow common sense medicine?”

In October of 2007, Mr. Howard was a healthy 46-year-old, working at a middle school in
Valencia. He was married and had two twin daughters. He began having symptoms of
intermittent “gray-out” or blindness in his right eye. He saw his Kaiser primary care doctor,
who referred him to an ophthalmologist, who found no structural abnormalities of the eye.
Mr. Howard continued to have vision symptoms, with new complaints of headaches, neck
pain, and tingling in his left pinky. At the insistence of his wife, Mr. Howard was seen by
Kaiser Neurologist Marika Issakhanian, M.D. It was alleged that Dr. Issakhanian was in a
hurry and not interested in hearing the concerns of Mr. Howard and his wife. She
diagnosed Mr. Howard with an ocular migraine headache, completely ignoring the signs
and symptoms of TIA of the retina. To placate the Howards, she ordered an MRI and MRA
(magnetic resonance angiography) of the head and neck, but not until December.

On Thanksgiving evening, Mr. Howard experienced complete vision loss in his right eye.
He went to Kaiser Woodland Hills Urgent Care. The doctor there told him he was
experiencing an ocular migraine, but agreed to run a CT scan in order to placate Mrs.
Howard, who was insisting something was wrong. While waiting for the scan results, Mr.
Howard suffered a devastating stroke. Kaiser emergency room doctors diagnosed a
carotid dissection as causing the stroke.

Mr. Howard has not been able to return to work since the stroke. He has no use of his left
arm and has left-sided weakness. He is wheelchair-bound and needs assistance with all
aspects of his life. He also has cognitive and mental deficits from his stroke. He requires
assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His future care needs are estimated in the
millions of dollars.

TIA of the retina is caused by intermittent disruption of blood flow to the eye, which causes
the gray-outs or visual disturbances. In men under the age of 60, the most likely cause is
a carotid dissection. It is diagnosed by MRI/MRA of the head and neck. Treatment for a
carotid dissection usually involves taking anticoagulation medication to prevent blood
clots. The dissection or tear usually repairs itself within 3-6 months, and the patient can
return to a normal life. Left undiagnosed and untreated, a carotid dissection can lead to a
devastating stroke.

Kaiser’s electronic records also may have played a role in preventing Mr. Howard from
obtaining urgent scans. “Once he was diagnosed incorrectly, that diagnosis followed him
from doctor to doctor,” explained Vaage. “When he arrived at Urgent Care, the doctor
looked at the E-record, saw Dr. Issakhanian’s diagnosis, and accepted the diagnosis
without further testing. That’s all fine and good if you’ve got a good diagnosis.”

“I don’t get it,” added Vaage. “What happened to ruling out the worst potential cause first?
Dr. Issakhanian testified that she considered TIA of the retina, knew it could lead to a
stroke, but did nothing to rule it out at the time. All it took was one set of scans done within
24-48 hours, and Mr. Howard would have been back to work as an assistant principal.
Instead, the Howards’ lives are forever changed.”

Because of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), the Howards’ general
damages (non-economic damages) are capped at $250,000 apiece. “The Howards’ lives
have been destroyed,” said Vaage. “Put in the context of healthcare reform, look at the
cost to the public: We’ve lost a hard-working member of society; we have to spend millions
of dollars to care for Mr. Howard; the state of California is ending up spending hundreds
of thousands of dollars in disability payments; and our health insurance premiums keep
going up. The real cost of healthcare is the cost related to the care of patients like Mr.
Howard, not tort reform. Kaiser completely failed him.”
July 31st, 2009
Another mother buries her child thanks to Kaiser
Permanente
Kaiser Permanente Thrive Exposed

This heartbreaking story arrived in our in box a few days ago. There is only one thing we
can think of that is more tragic than a mother having to bury her child, and that is having
to live with the knowledge that the death occurred unnecessarily at the hands of the
doctors entrusted to save him. Justice rarely prevails in these situations, because the
system has long been stacked against patients and in favor of corporate abuse of money
and power. We ask our readers to keep Sean Berlin in heart and mind as they witness KP
CEO George Halvorson making his rounds, touting Kaiser-style health care “reform” for
all… because your child could be next.

I’m writing to tell the story of our 32 year old son, Sean Berlin, who expired at Kaiser
Permanente, Walnut Creek on 2/22/07 needlessly & wrongfully. Throughout his short stay
— first at Kaiser Redwood City for sinus abscess surgery, and then a needless transfer to
Walnut Creek on a holiday weekend to save money — Kaiser negligently failed to
diagnose, treat, care for and manage him in connection with his medical condition. They
also failed to recognize & timely treat him; failed to provide appropriate follow up
procedures, medicines, testing, and screening; and he was allowed to deteriorate while
unchecked & improperly monitored as his condition rapidly declined, resulting in his
untimely death. He died from severe sepsis, which is a hospital acquired condition that
can be treated if detected early enough and with the proper treatments. At all times, we
feel Kaiser neglected to abide by the laws & rules of the proper standards of patient care.

We spoke with numerous attorneys who felt we had a case but were unwilling to take it
because of the MICRA law in California limiting judgments. The three attorneys who did
agree to take the case had to drop it for being unable to find a medical expert willing to
testify in Kaiser’s rigged arbitration system. The last attorney extorted thousands of
dollars from us before he forced us to drop the arbitration for the same reason — no
medical expert willing to go through Kaiser’s binding arbitration. By this time the one year
limit for filing arbitration had passed. We also filed grievances with JCAHO and the State
Medical Board of California, and once again we were passed off and given the run around.

Losing a child is the most difficult thing anyone can ever go through. I hope that when
people read this story they can make a judgment on whether this is the way they would
like their loved one to be treated. I hope not because everyone deserves to be treated
with the highest degree of care available. The Kaiser system is negligent in so many ways
& needs to be accountable for its negligence.
KP On Call

Kaiser department rankings

Cancer score card

Cardiology score card

Urology score card
Kaiser Permanente cases

Kaiser Permanente executives

Retaliation by Kaiser

Kaiser arbitration

Kaiser peer review
Missing Medical Records
Oakland: girl with meningitis
Thank Heaven for
Insurance Companies blog
ERISA
Warnings deleted from
abnormal test results
San Diego
Education Report
Medical Errors
by themoons
Sep 20, 2011    

My daughter was taken to the Kaiser Hospital in Fontana CA by ambulance after a bile
leak from a previous outpt surgery at the same facility. While in the ER the male nurse
was more interested in believing that my daughter was a "seeker" in other words he
assumed because my daugther was young (30 yr old) and in alot of pain that she was a
person that abused pain pills and felt she was there for his pereived view that she was a
addict.First of all if he looks at her medical records(since she is a Kaiser pt) which are
easily accessible thru the EPIC computer program which Kaiser uses and he could see
that she never has even been to the ER for anything let alone pain relief and that she had
just old run of the mill visits to her pcp and a couple visits to a dermatoligist for some skin
issues. After my son in law "spoke" man to man with the nurse he got it thru his head that
my daughter was indeed in alot of pain. I will be the first to tell eveyone that after that she
was given all types of pain relief and where not stingy with it. The other problem was that
after 2 hours in the ER I mentioned to the RN that she did not have a allergy bracelet on
and when was that gonna happen. He look me dead in the eye and said "oh we dont do
that here, we can look on the computer if she has a reaction" Jesus help us. I'm in the
medical profession and that is never done, if there is a allergy and its known(which it was)
a allergry bracelet goes on. My daugther did not get a allergy bracelet on until the 3 day
she was there and a really with it nurse realized the error and viola' my daughter wore a
allergy bracelet until the end of her stay 4 days later.

I will tell everyone that the nursing staff that work on the floors where great, the er nurses
that worked nights seems to be more interested in talking about "guy" stuff (they where all
guys) then listening to the pt or their families. I make one correction there was a older
male nurse who kept out of their converstations about stupid stuff and was busy caring for
the paitents assigned to him.
Death of infant from hospital error probed
Victoria Colliver
San Friancisco Chronicle Staff Writer
March 10, 2007

State and federal authorities are investigating a medication error at Kaiser Permanente's
Santa Clara hospital that led to the death of an infant, Kaiser officials confirmed Friday.

The Feb. 24 death is the third mortality caused by a medication error at Kaiser's Santa
Clara medical center since 2004. Kaiser officials blamed the latest death on human error,
rather than procedural shortcomings. After the earlier deaths, Kaiser initiated new policies
designed to prevent future deaths by medication errors.

"The rigorous procedures that were put in at the result in those deaths (in 2004 and
2005) were very apparent to me when I came here a year ago," said Mary Ann Barnes,
senior vice president at the Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center.

The infant, born Jan. 6 at Kaiser's Santa Clara center, was transferred to Stanford's
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Center due to an illness, said Barnes, who cited
privacy concerns in withholding the dead baby's medical condition. The child was
transferred back to Kaiser, hospital officials said, acknowledging the medication error
occurred on Feb. 7.

Kaiser officials informed state regulatory authorities at that time about the error, Barnes
said. As a result of the mistake, the child was transferred back to Stanford, where he died
on Feb. 24.

"We're very sorry for this tragic loss," Barnes said. Kaiser is conducting its own
investigation, along with cooperating with state and federal agencies.

Officials at the state Department of Health Services would neither confirm nor deny the
investigation. The agency investigates all complaints about serious violations at hospitals,
including medication errors.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also investigates hospital
complaints. An official in charge of investigations did not return calls for comment Friday.

On July 26, 2005, a nurse at Kaiser's Santa Clara facility inadvertently gave a 12-year-old
girl a double dose of a drug that resulted in her death. On Dec. 24, 2004, a 64-year-old
man died at the Santa Clara hospital after mistakenly receiving a double dose of a stroke
medication.

In a similar case, state regulators investigating the death of a 21-year-old lymphoma
patient determined in November 2005 that a doctor at Kaiser's Santa Teresa Medical
Center in San Jose failed to follow the proper protocol, which requires double-checking
medications. The patient died Aug. 29, 2005, three days after receiving a chemotherapy
drug intended for another patient.

Kaiser received no fines for the earlier deaths but was required to submit plans detailing
its efforts to correct and prevent future medication mistakes.
From the KaiserVictims.org website:

Kaiser Permanente fined for breach of privacy
(May 15, 2009) Kaiser Permanente fined $250,000 by the state for
illegally viewing medical records. Almost two dozen workers including doctors were
involved
in this improper access. Via CNN.com

Electronic Medical Records can be deadly
(April 28, 2009) What happens when a software error miscalculates dosage?
The software manufacturer takes no responsibility and innocent lives are at risk.
Much care and major improvements deemed necessary for EMR that Obama is pushing
for. Via Denver Channel

Kaiser Colorado Dollar Reserves Found Excessive For Non-Profit
(June 24, 2008) Kaiser Permanente will return $155 Million to clients in Colorado.
Deal reached between state insurance commissioner and hospital with payments spread
over three years. Via The Denver Post

Kaiser Sued For AIDS Discrimination
(June 5, 2008) Lawsuit details ‘toxic’ work environment and a corporate
culture that is an antithesis of the Thrive marketing plan. Via The Examiner

Kaiser Surgeon Gets Six Months
(May 9, 2008) A Kaiser Permanente surgeon has been sentenced for perjury.
Apparently same surgeon was addicted to cocaine for several years while performing
duties at Kaiser. Via SF Chronicle

Kaiser among insurers ordered to reinstate canceled coverage
(April 18, 2008) The Department of Managed Health Care ordered insurers to reinstate
coverage for 26 cases where the consumers were clearly innocent and coverage had
been rescinded wrongfully. Via SF Chronicle

Kaiser Permanente doctor in unprecedented criminal case
(March 23, 2008) A Kaiser Permanente surgeon accused of ‘hastening’ death of a patient
is awaiting a criminal trial. Via Ventura County Star

Kaiser Permanente doctor suspended
(March 1, 2008) The hospital suspends its perinatologist Hamid Safari.
Safari is alleged to be responsible for two infant deaths. Via LA Times

Federal Health Inspectors Criticize Kaiser for Lack of Action
(January 26, 2008) According to federal health inspectors two babies may still be alive
today if Kaiser Permanente had acted on staff complaints. Via LA Times

Patient Allegedly Dumped by Kaiser Facility Dies
(December 21, 2007) A Livermore man that was in Kaiser’s care was discharged and
dropped off at a homeless shelter. His family searched for him for 16 days before he was
found and then admitted into Kaiser intensive care, where he passed away. Via
Allbusiness.com

Kaiser Refuses to Cover Cancer Patient

(December 15, 2007) Mill Valley resident and Sonoma Country Deputy District Attorney
had asked for a biopsy at Kaiser Permanente, but they did not do it. She now has Stage 4
breast cancer. Hope in the form of a clinical trial has been presented to her by M.D.
Anderson doctors, whom she turned to, being dissatisfied with Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser
has denied her request for coverage. Via San Francisco Chronicle

Kaiser to pay $1.8 Million in Malpractice case
(December 12, 2007) A 45-year-old man was misdiagnosed at Kaiser Permanente
and suffered permanent brain damage. Via OC Register

Drug Allergy Death at Kaiser
(November 29, 2007) Family of woman that died of an allergic reaction has filed a claim
against Kaiser Permanente for failing to recognize and treat her allergic reaction
Via mddailyrecord.com

Health Insurer bonuses tied to policy cancellations
(November 16, 2007) Health Net Inc was fined $1 Million for withholding information. The
insurer lied to investigators about tying employee bonuses to the number of contracts
canceled after policy holders got sick. It is under investigation along with Kaiser
Permanente (who paid $325,000 in fines), PacifiCare and Blue Shield of California. Via
sfgate.com
Courthouse News Service
November 04, 2011
Kaiser Failed to Find Big Tumor, Action Says

(CN)- A woman says a Kaiser hospital failed to detect "a very large melanocytic tumor" on
her neck when she went in complaining of a back and abdominal pain.
Stacey Allington said she went to a Kaiser hospital in November 2009 to treat her "back
and abdominal pain." In August 2010, doctors discovered melanocytoma and the next
month she underwent surgery for "a very large melanocytic tumor" on her neck.
Allington and her husband Don sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and unknown defendants for
medical malpractice in San Bernardino County Court.
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Los Angeles

B236900         BC388689         Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County et al.  Arce

B233759         BC441742         Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County et al.
                                               Kaiser refused MRI for Anna Rahm, 3 months
later MRI revealed "a very large melanocytic tumor" on her neck.  

B232692         GC044364         Leduc v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
B225999         VC054562         Guerrero v. So Cal Permanente Medical Group
B225141         KC057640         Campbell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.
B224739         BC382696         Tarle v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B223946         BS119250         Colen v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et al.
B223497         LS019447         Adams v. Childers
B221786         BC368605         Ramsey et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B219586         BC368605         Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al. v. S.C.L.A.
B217238         BC392176         Southern California Permanente Medical Group et al. v.
Superior Court Los Angeles County et al.
B216293         BC386837         Carcano et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B215861         BC388689         Arce et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B215757         BC376110         Ramsey v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B215453         BC365398         Martinucci v. Southern California Permanente Medical
Group
B215396         BC368605         Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court
Los Angeles County
B215185         BC386837         Eduardo Carcano and Anna Carcano v. S.C.L.A.
B211624         BC355468         Strub v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group et
al.
B210449         LC081238         Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court Los
Angeles County
B210124         BC379426         Fong v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
B209368         BC383733         Winn v. Superior Court Los Angeles County et al.
B199872         BS105852         Ozante v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
B198987         BC355791         Woods, M.D. v. Southern Calif. Permanente Medical
Group et al.
B196789         BC338199         Moreno et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
B196372         BC337100         Okura v. Kaiser Permanente et al.
Blog: Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente links