Mejia v.

Community Hospital of San Bernardino

I.
Procedures
A) The parties are CHSB, Dr. Bauer, EPMG, Dr, Handler and MSB.
The Defendant: Maria Del Carmen Mejia
B) Maria Del Carmen Mejia
C) Department S16 of the superior court for the county of San Bernardino,
central district, before the honorable Bob. N. King
D) Verdict in favor of Plaintiff against defendants, Dr. Handler, MSB, Dr.
Bauer
-Future pain and suffering
-Past cost of medical and hospital care
-Negligence in favor of the defendant Dr. Bauer and EPMG, Maria Mejia
3% contributory negligent.
E) The appellate history of the case: Dr. Handler and MSB were found guilty
and appealed.
II.

FACTS
Maria entered the hospital for severe neck pain twisted to the right,
May 3,1997
Maria X-rays were taken and sent to the radiologist Dr. Handler on
May 4,1997
Dr. Handler was told by the other x-ray tech/ Dr. Bauer at the hospitsl
to look at the lower cervical spine.
Dr. Handler focused on lower spine and failed to see the upper
cervical spine where she had a dislocation of the upper cervical spine
Maria was discharged because of the physicians seeing the dislocation
and from that point she became quadriplegic and could no longer
walk.
B) Why did the jury feel that Maria was 3% negligence?
-Was there a legitimate X-ray exam?
-Did the drugs have anything to do with Maria ending results?

III.

IV.

ISSUES
A) Negligence was the relevant fact as reached by the court
B) I do not agree with the courts because CHSB should be partly
responsible they had a contract with MSB.

HOLDING
A) Negligence: 1) Dismissed against CHSB, 2) Dr. Handler, MSB: guilty
3) Dr. Bauer and EPMG: Not guilty
B) The rationale for CHSB was dismissed because the hospital is not
responsible for the work the radiologist group perform.

-Dr. Handler and MSB guilty because he should have looked deeper into the X-ray to
notice the dislocation since he was the Dr. in charge.
-Dr. Bauer and EPMG not guilty because they would have not known about the
dislocation because its not their medical training.
C)I do agree with the rationale for the guilty because the radiology group/Dr.
Handler should have known about the dislocation, I also agree with not guilty
verdict because Dr. Bauer and EPMG was not radiologist expertise. But I do not
agree with CHSB being dismissed because they were hosting the medical group in
the hospital.
V. IMPLICATIONS
A) A patient can not be held responsible for not knowing if a doctor is
an agent of the hospital. Hospitals can be sued for the work of others
they are contracted with.
B) Patients are not expected to know who is and is not an agent of the
hospital they are seeking medical help from.
C) Make sure their contracts protect them from negligence.
D) The patients would have not been responsible for the changes, as well
as patients would be responsible for knowing what contracts the
hospital has with other medical staff.