For more than a year prior to December 26, 2003, the plaintiff was a patient of the defendant, LAM Medical Associates, P.C., d/b/a Servicios Medicos Hispano. The Medical Director of this facility was also a defendant. The doctor also was his primary care physician who directed most if not all of his medical care prior to his ganglion cyst surgery. As a patient of this medical facility, the plaintiff relied upon the facility and its Medical Director to prescribe and order the proper and necessary medical procedures to be performed by proper medial practitioners.
One year prior to the surgery complained of in this lawsuit, the plaintiff was previously diagnosed with an identical ganglion cyst, for which there was no surgery, nor was there any medical intervention of any kind. A year later, without any medical work-up, the defendant’s “rushed to surgery,” and removed what they claim was this cyst.
The medical records suggest that the person who performed this surgery was the defendant, (“Dr. X”), a doctor who admitted he was not licensed to practice medicine at the time of the surgery. These records include an operative note signed by Dr. X, a surgical consent form indicating that Dr. X was to perform the surgery, follow-up visits authored by the defendant Medical Director, suggesting that the plaintiff was to follow-up with Dr. X, but could not because the physician was not in that day.
During discovery, the defendants suggested that Dr. X impersonated another doctor who was associated with the medical facility and/or, that Dr. X did the surgery without anyone else knowing about it and, apparently alone and without assistance. The defendants further urged that “Dr. X” was only acting in the capacity as a “physicians assistant,” at defendant LAM’s facility, and that defendants had no clue that this surgery was performed, until after the event.
Suffice it to say, the surgery and its results were a complete disaster. It was alleged that the removal of a ganglion cyst was medically unnecessary; that the procedure was negligently performed, and that it was followed up and managed improperly. This unwarranted and botched procedure has required subsequent surgical repair, and that it has left the plaintiff with profound and severe nerve and sensory abnormalities, and chronic pain. The matter was settled before trial, for the sum of $600,000.00.
