Medical Malpractice son injured by ECT

[simstoro]

Jurisdiction

California

He received the treatments in Oct and Nov of 2016. That's the first problem – that's past the statute of limitations in CA which is one year. But we are told the statute may be extended if you can show you didn't know you were injured from the ECT until later. He knew he was injured but no doctor would verify this as most are not experts in the field, and those that are tend to want to defend the practice, of course.


His complaint is that he now has vicious panic attacks that prevent him from working. He has many witnesses that have seen this interfere with his work. He was already prone to panic attacks before and that is the crux of his argument – that he was not a candidate for ECT and should've been warned as such. He was someone with depression, but more importantly, someone who suffered from chronic panic attacks and someone who had chronic fatigue (both well documented by years of medical records). Chronic fatigue and chronic panic attacks are nowhere listed in any literature as being conditions that will benefit from ECT. Not only that, some experts have warned ECT can worsen panic attacks – exactly what happened to him.


Shouldn't he have been warned of this? Would this just be a frivolous case?

 

[justblue]

He received the treatments in Oct and Nov of 2016. That's the first problem – that's past the statute of limitations in CA which is one year. But we are told the statute may be extended if you can show you didn't know you were injured from the ECT until later. He knew he was injured but no doctor would verify this as most are not experts in the field, and those that are tend to want to defend the practice, of course.


His complaint is that he now has vicious panic attacks that prevent him from working. He has many witnesses that have seen this interfere with his work. He was already prone to panic attacks before and that is the crux of his argument – that he was not a candidate for ECT and should've been warned as such. He was someone with depression, but more importantly, someone who suffered from chronic panic attacks and someone who had chronic fatigue (both well documented by years of medical records). Chronic fatigue and chronic panic attacks are nowhere listed in any literature as being conditions that will benefit from ECT. Not only that, some experts have warned ECT can worsen panic attacks – exactly what happened to him.


Shouldn't he have been warned of this? Would this just be a frivolous case?

How old is your son?

 

[simstoro]

35

 

[adjusterjack]

As for the SOL, it's a maximum of 3 years including the 1 year after discovery, plus an additional 90 days because of the notice of claim requirement. Note two exceptions.

See:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=340.5.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...sectionNum=364.

He should consult a medical malpractice attorney NOW to see if anything can be salvaged.

 

[zddoodah]

He received the treatments in Oct and Nov of 2016. That's the first problem – that's past the statute of limitations in CA

Treatments for what?

we are told the statute may be extended if you can show you didn't know you were injured from the ECT until later.

First, here's a list of things that "ECT" might stand for. Care to tell us which you're talking about? Second, the California statute of limitations for medical malpractice is "three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first." In either case, the statute of limitations for an alleged injury that occurred in 2016 has expired.

Shouldn't he have been warned of this?

Since I'm not a doctor (and, AFAIK, no one else who posts here regularly is a doctor), and since you haven't fully described the circumstances under which your son received these treatments, you're not going to get any sort of informed opinion about this.

Would this just be a frivolous case?

Given the expiration of the statute of limitations, yes.

Note two exceptions.

See:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=340.5.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...sectionNum=364.

There are no exceptions in CCP 340.5, and the only "exception" in CCP 364 is that the plaintiff could get an extra 90 days (beyond the three year limitations period) if he/she serves the required notice less than 90 days before the expiration of the three year period.

Linking discussion at another site about the same thing.