Bowman 1

Olivia Bowman

Miss Van Straten

Chemlit

16 April 2015

Rashidi vs Moser

Mr. Franklin Moser a physician, the defendant, was sued by Mr. Hamid Rashidi, the

plaintiff, for medical malpractice. The procedure, performed by Mr. Moser caused Mr. Rashidi to

go blind in one eye. This took place in the court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4,

California and was decided September 23, 2013. In this case, Mr. Moser is to blame, because he

acknowledged why his procedure caused him to go blind, the difference between economic and

noneconomic damages, as well as the MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act).

In April 2007, Hamid Rashidi went to the Emergency room, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los

Angeles, California, for a severe nose bleed. Just like a hospital he was treated then released.

Again, in May of 2007, he went to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for yet another severe nose

bleed. When he came in this time he was examined by Dr. Franklin Moser. He told him, to have

an operation to treat his nose bleeds. Rashidi decided to have the operation which was an

embolization procedure (Rashidi v. Moser). An embolization procedure is used to treat abnormal

anywhere in the body(MedlinePlus), like Mr. Rashidis nose. It is an alternative to open surgery

and to sum it all up, it basically cuts the blood supply to a certain part of the body that prevents

blood vessels from breaking open. Dr. Moser preformed this procedure the same say at Cedar-

Sinai Medical Center. During the procedure, Mr. Rashidi was under general anesthetics to make

the pain less. The embolization involved inserting a catheter into an artery in the leg that reaches

all the way up to his nose. Dr. Moser then injected embospheres into the catheter which are used
 Bowman 2

to permanently stop the blood stream in a certain blood vessel and cannot be reversed. The

embospheres microspheres were manufactured by Biosphere Medical Inc. When Mr. Rashidi

regained consciousness he was blind in one eye which is permeant (Rashidi v. Moser). The

question is how could the procedure make him blind? As stated before this procedure causes

blood to be cut off from a certain part of the body, Mr. Rashidis nose. In order for him to go

blind the blood would have to be stopped and prevent a blood stream to the eye which would

cause lack of oxygen to the eye as well. This can happen fairly easy in embolization procedures

which is why they are considered risky (MedlinePlus).

A big portion of this case talks about economic and noneconomic damages, as well as the

Code of Civil procedure section 877 and 1431.2. Noneconomic damages are damages for things

like pain and suffering while economic damages are medical bills and damage to property. Mr.

Rashidi could receive money for both. Now these play into the Code of Civil procedure section

877 and 1431.2. Section 877 states, Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a

covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment

to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, it shall have the

following effect: It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so

provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release,

the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the

greater. It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to

any other parties. (CAL. CCP. CODE) Which is basically saying what happens if there is a

good faith settlement. In this particular case there are two, one between Mr. Rashidi and

Biosphere Medical Inc. for manufacturing defect as well as failure to warn, and

misrepresentation. The other settlement was between Mr. Rashidi and the hospital, Cedars-Sinai
 Bowman 3

Medical Center. Section 1431.2 says, In any action for personal injury, property damage, or

wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for

non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be

liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct

proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered

against that defendant for that amount."(CA Codes) As well as a lot of other stuff which talks

more about the liability for noneconomic damage several only, which means each person is liable

only for its own specified obligations, in agreement with the percent of fault. Therefore Mr.

Rashidi should be given money for both economic and noneconomic damages and that Mr.

Moser should pay for his percent of fault.

The MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), was signed into law in 1975.

Since this was added it puts a limitation on how much a health provider has to pay for non-

economic damages if there is a lawsuit (MICRA). In other words its somewhat like a benefit.

The limit for non-economic damages is $250,000. This is because of the rising cost of premiums

for medical malpractice insurance. On the other hand it doesnt limit money for economic

damages. They came up with this idea to try to lower the cost of premiums which didnt work

and still hasnt (Damages). This somewhat goes against the Code of Civil procedure section

1431.2. The MICRA is found in section 3333.2. In any action for injury against a health care

provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover

noneconomic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment,

disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage. In no action shall the amount of damages for

noneconomic losses exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). (CA Codes)This
 Bowman 4

controversy caused Mr. Rashidi to challenge the constitutionality of the MICRA which he should

have done because he deserves more than $250,000 for what has happened to him.

Mr. Hamid Rashidi won this cause because he acknowledged why his procedure caused

him to go blind, the difference between economic and noneconomic damages as well as the

MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act). Mr. Rashidi was rewarded $125,000 for

economic damages as well as $16,655 for noneconomic damages (Rashidi v. Moser). Not

including the money he received from the two good faith settlements with Biosphere Medical

Inc. and Cedars- Sinai Medical Center.

Work Cited:
"CA Codes (civ:1430-1432)." CA Codes (civ:1430-1432). N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"CAL. CCP. CODE 877 : California Code - Section 877." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar.
2015.
 Bowman 5

"CA Codes (civ:3333-3343.7)." CA Codes (civ:3333-3343.7). N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"Endovascular Embolization: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia." U.S National Library of

Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"Legal Definition of Non-Economic Damages." Legal Definition of Non-Economic Damages.

N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"MICRA." MICRA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"RASHIDI v. MOSER." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.