...............................................................................................................................................................
Ms. Ellis elected to be on the Board of Directors for Legal Aid of Marin
Jennifer M. Ellis, Esq., associate at the Goldman Law Firm, was recently elected
as the newest member of the Board of Directors for Legal Aid of Marin. For more
information on Legal Aid of Marin please visit www.legalaidmarin.org or contact
Ms. Ellis at jellis@goldmanlawfirm.net
...............................................................................................................................................................
Ms. Sackett named 2010 Big Sister of the Year by the California State
Association of Big Brothers Big Sisters
Mary M. Sackett, Esq., associate at the Goldman Law Firm, was recently named
2010 Big Sister of the Year by the California State Association of Big Brothers
Big Sisters. Ms. Sackett was chosen as the 2010 California Big Sister from over
19 California Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies. In 2009, Ms. Sackett was named
the 2009 Big Sister of the Year by Big Brothers Big Sisters North Bay. Ms. Sackett
was chosen based on her dedication to her little sister, Stephanie.
...............................................................................................................................................................
The Goldman Law Firm to compete in 20th Annual Tiburon Triathlon
Come join the Goldman Law Firm’s attorneys and staff as they compete in the
Twentieth Annual Tiburon Triathlon on July 25, 2010 in Belvedere, CA.
For more information on the Tiburon Triathlon please visit http://tiburonfire.org
...............................................................................................................................................................
Ronald P. Goldman is running for The State Bar
of California
Board of Governors 2010 election.
The founding partner of the Goldman Law Firm, Ronald P. Goldman, is running in
The State Bar of California Board of Governors 2010 election for a seat within
District Four. Help Mr. Goldman “raise the bar” by voting before June 30th, 2010.
Ballots will be mailed on April 30, 2010. For more information, please contact Jennifer
Ellis, Esq. at jellis@goldmanlawfirm.net
• PDF Statement of Ronald P. Goldman for Board of Governors Position District Four
...............................................................................................................................................................
Dental Malpractice Cases
In Re: Patient v. Santa Clara County Prosthodontist
Successfully defended via Summary Judgment a dental malpractice action where Plaintiff alleged that our client,
a prosthodontist, cracked several teeth in Plaintiff’s mouth. Judgment and statutory costs were awarded in favor of
our client.
In Re: Patient v. Santa Cruz County General Dentist
In a two-week jury trial, successfully defended a dental negligence action relating to general dentistry including
crown, bridge, and veneer restorations placed by our client, a general dentist. Plaintiff alleged that our client
negligently placed restorations ruining his bite and causing him to loose his teeth which required a full-mouth
restoration. The jury found in favor of our client. Statutory costs and experts fees were awarded to our client.
In Re: Patient v. Santa Clara County Endodontist
Successfully dismissed a dental malpractice action where Plaintiff alleged that our client, an endodontist, failed
to diagnose cavernous sinus thrombosis which resulted in the loss of vision and use of Plaintiff’s left eye.
In Re: Patient v. Santa Cruz County Periodontist
In a three-week jury trial, successfully defended a dental negligence action. Plaintiff alleged that our client, a
periodontist, failed to diagnose cancer in the floor of the mouth which ultimately resulted in Plaintiff requiring
a segmental mandibulectomy. The jury found in favor of our client. Statutory costs and experts fees were
awarded to our client.
Medical Malpractice Cases
In Re: Patient v. Sonoma County Osteopath
In a two-week jury trial, successfully defended a medical malpractice/wrongful death action in which Plaintiff
alleged that our client, an osteopath, was negligent by failing to diagnose a urinary tract infection. Decedent
passed away from multi-organ failure due to an overwhelming infection (sepsis) caused by the skin borneb
acteria Staphylococcus Aureus. The jury found in favor of our client. Statutory costs and experts fees were
awarded to our client.
In Re: Patient v. Sonoma County Hospitalist
In a two-week jury trial, successfully defended a medical malpractice/wrongful death action in which Plaintiff
alleged that our client, an internal medicine physician, was negligent by failing to diagnose and treat a surgical
infection following a laminectomy and discectomy. The jury found in favor of our client. Statutory costs and
experts fees were awarded to our client.
In Re: Patient v. Sonoma County Anesthesiologist
Successfully dismissed a medical malpractice/wrongful death action in which Plaintiff alleged that our client,
an anesthesiologist, was negligent in his treatment of the decedent. Our client performed a tracheal intubation
of the decedent, an unrestrained passenger in a motor vehicle accident, in preparation of a helicopter transfer
from the scene of the accident.
In Re: Patient v. San Francisco County Emergency Physician
Successfully dismissed a medical malpractice action in which Plaintiff alleged that our client, an emergency
physician, was negligent in her treatment and care when she inserted a Rapid Rhino device in Plaintiff’s right
nare to
stop a severe nosebleed.
Business Litigation Cases
In Re: Chitgopekar v. Rosencranz (Alameda County)
Successfully prosecuted an action against a seller of an $800,000 dental practice for breach of contract, fraud
and failure turn over the practice’s patient base and goodwill. After a three-week jury trial, the jury found in favor
of our client and awarded damages and attorney’s fees.
Residential Property Cases
In Re: Fregoso v. Bascomb (Sonoma County)
In a two-week jury trial, successfully defended a real property seller facing allegations of negligent
misrepresentation and failure to disclose. Buyers of an 87 year-old property, listed as a “fixer” and sold in
“as is” condition, unsuccessfully alleged that the seller failed to disclose the extent of damage hidden behind
the walls and under the floor. The jury found against the buyers. Attorney’s fees and costs were awarded to
our client, the seller.
PDF Case Review
• Download Case Review #1
...............................................................................................................................................................
Tip of the Month
September 2010
Documenting Patient Informed Refusal
A patient who declines necessary treatment, diagnostic studies or medication may (and most likely will) have a
higher risk of dental or medical complications. If that dental or medical complication occurs, the patient then looks
to blame someone else (like the doctor) for their problem. The best way to protect yourself as a doctor, and to
underscore to the patient the importance of the proposed treatment, is to document the recommendation, the risks,
benefits and alternatives and the patient’s refusal. It can be as simple as a patient refusing antibiotics, so the chart
reflects “Antibiotics recommended, RBA discussed, patient refuses.” Have that entry signed IN THE CHART by the
patient. You can also obtain “Informed Refusal” forms for patients to sign that more fully explains in writing the
consequences of the patient’s decision.
With patients who chronically decline recommended treatment, or if the patient’s failure to follow the recommendation
could result in serious injury, the doctor may have to decide to discharge the patient instead of relying on the informed
refusal. An informed refusal cannot act as a liability release for substandard care. If the best or recommended treatment
is not provided to the patient given their refusal, and the doctor accommodates with palliative or a lesser treatment
alternative, an expert could opine that the treatment provided was substandard and should not have been rendered.
Situations such as these present a classic “dammed if I do and dammed if I do not” scenario. The bottom line is to
advise your patient as to: the need for the treatment, procedure or medication; the reasons why the recommendation
is being made; and the possible consequences if the patient declines. If you feel the refusal poses a risk of significant
injury, complication or decline in the patient’s health, then you will need to advise the patient that if the recommended
treatment is not followed, you will need to withdraw as their doctor because you expect your patient’s to comply with
reasonable treatment recommendations (the “patient’s standard of care”), just as the law imposes on you a standard
of care for all of your treatment to the patient.
Previous Months
August 2010 - Tip Of The Month
