Farland vs VA $12 Million Lawsuit

Janie Farland (Plaintiff) vs United States

The complaint of the plaintiff, Janie Farland, respectfully shows and alleges as follows:

1. The plaintiff herein, Janie Farland, is a resident of the State of New York. Ms. Farland resides at 36 Genova Court, Farmingdale, New York.

2. The defendant herein, United States.

3. Plaintiff Farland had scheduled appointment with Pain Management and Rehabilitation clinic on Thursday, April 05, 2012 at 11:00am. Once arrived, plaintiff was called into office by defendant; defendant asked questions of when plaintiff experienced first pain and information about stay in hospital from February 28th to March 1st. At that time plaintiff was pain-free since March 15, 2012.

4. As plaintiff explained the doctor’s diagnosis of herniated disc the defendant quickly cut into the plaintiffs comment and stated plaintiff did not have herniated disc. Plaintiff made known that during stay in hospital staff doctors concluded plaintiff had herniated disc. Defendant stated plaintiff did not have herniated disc because if plaintiff had herniated disc plaintiff would have pain in legs.

5. Plaintiff explained that MRI also shown diagnosis of herniated disc. Once again defendant cut into plaintiffs comment and stated, “we cannot rely on MRI and we cannot go by the MRI.”

6. Defendant stated that a high percentage of patient’s MRI will show the exact same thing. Defendant stated that over 70% of people have MRI that shows some level of herniated disc that isn’t really a herniated disc. Defendant also stated, “We treat according to the patient’s feeling and not by the MRI.”

7. Once again, plaintiff stated that the doctors gave a diagnosis of herniated disc when plaintiff was in emergency room and during plaintiffs stay in the hospital. Defendant stated, once again, that plaintiff did not have herniated disc because if plaintiff did have herniated disc plaintiff would have pain radiating down plaintiffs legs and there would be problems with plaintiffs bowels.

8. Defendant continued to express how the MRl’s were not used to determine herniated disc. Plaintiff then asked why doctors used MRl’s and defendant responded, “That’s a good question.”

9. Plaintiff then asked since MRl’s were not used to confirm herniated disc how can doctors diagnose herniated disc and defendant stated, “we go by the examination of each patient.”

10. Defendant then asked plaintiff to sit on the examination table. Defendant’s first test consisted of what plaintiff describes as the “knee jerk” examination. Defendant began with plaintiff’s right knee which was fine. When defendant hit the left knee it did not move at all. Defendant hit the plaintiff’s knee again and still it did not move. Defendant hit the plaintiff’s knee a third time and still nothing

11. Defendant asked plaintiff to close her eyes and then defendant hit plaintiff’s knee a fourth time and nothing happened. While plaintiff’s eyes were still closed defendant hit plaintiff’s knee a fifth time but this time the plaintiff states that the defendant “whacked” plaintiff’s knee extra hard!

12. Plaintiff yelled and asked why defendant hit so firmly and defendant stated there was no reaction from plaintiff’s left knee jerk test.

13. Defendant asked plaintiff to bend right leg. Plaintiff refused to perform task due to past pain experience. Defendant insisted that plaintiff lift and bend right leg.

14. When plaintiff agreed defendant pushed plaintiff’s knee towards plaintiff’s chest. Plaintiff yelled out from the pain.

15. Plaintiff noticed defendant’s shock of plaintiff response. Defendant then stated it was apparent plaintiff did indeed have symptoms of a herniated disc. After calling another doctor in for consultation, defendant immediately ended examination and plaintiff was sent home.

16. Two days later in the early morning of Saturday, April 07, 2012 at approximately 1:20am plaintiff arrived at VA Medical Center Emergency Room experiencing severe pain in lower back, center back (spine) area, base of neck, right hip and tingling up right side of back (around kidney area). Emergency room attending doctor injected plaintiff with Toradol to temporarily relieve plaintiff of pain and plaintiff was sent home.

17. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above there is a breach of duty of proper care and treatment by the defendant. Defendant failed to provide medical services in accordance with accepted standards. Defendant did not exercise requisite skills when treating plaintiff. Defendant failed to elicit all information pertinent to treatment for plaintiff.

18. Plaintiff was injured through the dereliction of the defendant. Plaintiff’s injury is a direct result and evidence of defendant’s deviation and departure from the accepted practice and such departure is the cause of plaintiff’s injury and damage.

19. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above, the defendant carried out limited engagement in a negligent and improper manner; plaintiff has been damaged by defendant in the amount of $12,175,000.00 Personal Injury.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of $12,175,000.00, together with any other relief the Court finds to be just and proper.

See case 2:12-cv-05162-SJF-SIL Page 5 of 8