Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-07-2012

Case Style: Leslie Anne Cook v. Jayesh Panchal, M.D.

Case Number: CJ-2009-6598

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Elizabeth Riley Castleberry

Defendant's Attorney: John Wiggins and Erin A. Renegar

Description: Leslie Anne Cook sued Jayesh Panchal, M.D. and Genesis Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery on medical negligence (medical malpractice) theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. Defendant Jayesh Panchal is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma and does business as Genesis Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery. The events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Oklahoma County. Venue is proper and the Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

2. On September 22, 2005, Defendant performed a bilateral breast reduction surgery on Plaintiff. Post-Surgery, Plaintiff developed lesions in areas surrounding the incision sites. These lesions became open, and oozing. Plaintiff continued to see Dr. Panchal. He told her that the lesions were suture abscesses, and he continued to assure her than she was healing in a normal manner.

3. Panchal mis-diagnosed these lesions as suture abscesses. He continued to treat Plaintiff for suture abscesses for a period of approximately 2 years, without resolution of the abscesses. Despite the fact that the abscesses did not heal, Defendant did not make any effort to determine whether his original diagnosis was correct, or whether in fact Plaintiff was suffering from something other than suture abscesses.

4. Despite the presence of necrotic tissue, open and oozing wounds, Panchal did not prescribe any antibiotic, which placed Plaintiff at high risk for developing infection. He continued to assure Plaintiff that her wounds were healing normally.

5. As of February 2007, the wounds had still not healed and closed properly. Open wounds were still visible. Plaintiff began to notice a foul odor

6. Plaintiff contacted Dr Panchal, and on March 7,2007, she saw him at his office. Dr Panchal opined that there was likely a stitch which had not dissolved. He proceeded to perform surgery at his office. The procedure performed required an incision around the nipple. Dr. Panchal then located and removed a large string-like object from Plaintiffs breast. This object did not appear to be a stitch, but rather a foreign object which, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges was improperly left in her body during the surgery.

7. On or about October 2, 2007, Plaintiff sought a second opinion. The physicians who saw Plaintiff opined that the diagnosis of suture abscesses was incorrect, and that Plaintiff had not been properly treated for two years. In fact, the Plaintiff was suffering from hidradonitis suppurative, and the proper medical treatment was surgical excision of the lesions with closure or skin grafting of the wounds.

8. Defendant Panchal’s mis-diagnosis was the result of negligence. His post- surgical treatment of the Plaintiff was performed in a careless, wanton, and negligent manner, and fell below the acceptable community standards. Panchal holds himself out as a specialist in plastic surgery, and as such owed to the Plaintiff a high duty of care with regard to both the surgery, and his post-surgical treatment. Panchal’s failure to properly diagnose the Plaintiff for a period of two years placed the Plaintiff at serious risk of infection, which could have been lifethreatening. Panchal’s gross negligence also resulted in abnormal, and excessive scarring, pain and suffering.

9. The care and treatment provided by the Defendant Panchal fell below the acceptable standards of medical care in the community.

10. As a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, which are permanent, painful and disfiguring, and said injuries will cause future pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and quality of life, and is likely to require additional surgical procedures. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $1 0,0000.00.

11. As a further result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, and has and will suffer mental anguish, emotional distress, and has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.

12. The negligent conduct of the Defendant as set forth herein, evidences an outrageous and willful disregard for the safety of Plaintiff, and is evidence of a pattern and practice of reckless and sub-standard medical practice of the Defendant entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against the Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court enter judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, pre- and post-judgment interest, the costs of this action, punitive damages, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff’s Petition concerning plaintiff’s current county of residency. Defendants admit Dr. Panchal is a medical doctor licensed to practice in the State of Oklahoma, and that the events giving rise to litigation occurred in Oklahoma. The remaining allegations are denied. With respect to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of plaintiff’s Petition, Defendants admit Dr. Panchal performed a bilateral breast reduction on or around September 22, 2005, and followup care thereafter. Defendants assert all care and treatment provided to plaintiff was appropriate and within acceptable medical standards. Defendants deny generally each and every allegation in plaintiff’s Petition which is not hereinafter specifically admitted. Furthermore, defendants deny generally each and every allegation in plaintiff’s Petition which states, implies, or infers that medical services provided by defendants were negligent or fell below the standard of care. Defendants further deny directly or proximately causing or contributing to plaintiff’s alleged iniuries. Further, defendants contend that plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is not only unfounded, but, as applied under Oklahoma law, is violative of these defendants’ constitutional rights. Defendants contend 23 O.S. § 9.1 is unconstitutional, overly vague, and violative of the Fifth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defenses and Affirmative Defenses

First Affirmative Defense

Defendants affirmatively deny directly or proximately causing or contributing to plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Second Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Third Affirmative Defense

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is not only unfounded, but, as applied under Oklahoma law, is violative of these defendants’ constitutional rights. Defendants contend 23 O.S. § 9.1 is unconstitutional, overly vague, and violative of the Fifth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants specifically reserve the right to add and/or amend this Answer as discovery progresses in accordance with a scheduling order established by the Court.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that plaintiff take nothing by virtue of her Petition, judgment be entered in defendants’ favor, and that these defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just. All of which is respectfully submitted.


The pre-trial conference order provided in part:

Plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma County. Defendant Jayesh Panchal is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Oklahoma, and does business as Genesis Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery. On September 22, 2005, Defendant performed a bilateral breast reduction surgery on Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that following the surgery, she developed sores around both of her breasts. She further contends that she notified Dr. Panchal of the complications she was experiencing. Dr. Panchal denies that Plaintiff so notified him. He contends that he was unaware of any complications until the Plaintiff saw him in his office in March 2007.

On March 5, 2007, Plaintiff saw Dr. Panchal at his office. Dr. Panchal diagnosed Plaintiff as having a suture abscess, and told Plaintiff to return to his office for removal of a suture. On March 7, 2007, Dr. Panchal performed the suture removal at his office. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Panchal did not fully inform her of the details of the procedure. She contends that the procedure was much more invasive than she had been told, and was very painful. Plaintiff contends that had she been fully informed regarding the suture removal procedure, she would not have consented to having it performed under a local anesthetic at the doctor’s office.

Plaintiff further contends that she did not have a suture abscess. Rather, she claims that the sores around her breasts were due to a condition known as hidradenitis superativa. She contends that Dr. Panchal failed to properly and timely diagnose her condition.

Plaintiff claims that Dr. Panchal’s post-surgical care was performed in a careless, wanton, and negligent manner, and fell below the acceptable community standards. Plaintiff also claims that Dr. Panchal failed to obtain Plaintiffs informed consent to perform the suture removal surgery.

Defendants deny all allegations of negligence and assert that all care and treatment provided was appropriate and within accepted medical standards. Further, Defendants deny directly or proximately causing or contributing to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Outcome: JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS, ALL PARTIES RETURN. JURY RESUMES DELIBERATION, RUTURNS WITH VERDICT, AND FINDS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,375.00. JURY DISCHARGED, CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts: Archibald S. Miller, III, M.D.

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: