McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RB

watched one being removed. Without any established familiarity with the
standard of care, his conclusions about how Cedars-Sinai allegedly
breached it lack any reasonable basis.
No Precise Description Of The Allegedly Required Examination
OfA Removed Catheter. Dr. Rifkin did not explain how a urologist or
nurse is supposed to conduct an examination of the removed catheter. Is it
done visually, tactilely, under a microscope, or by a laboratory? Dr. Rifkin
stated that improperly removing a catheter is "not an uncommon event."
(CT 98:16.)
Surely ifthis is not an uncommon event, there must be an
established procedure for detecting fragments-a standard of care. But
then again, Dr. Rifkin also did not quantify "uncommon" or explain why
(according to him) catheters are commonly removed improperly. Nor did
he demonstrate how he came by this supposed knowledge without ever
having had any experience in placing or removing catheters or even reading
about doing so. Yet another gap in Dr. Rifkin's reasoning is that while he
implicitly equated improper removal with breakage, he gave no reasons.
No Explanation OfWhen Such "Examination" Is Necessary. The
fragment discovered in Gordon's bladder was "small and uncomplicated."
(CT 68:8.) Do the need and scope ofDr. Rifkin's amorphous
"examination" depend on the size ofthe fragment? If so, is the failure to
look for breakage a breach of the standard of care when the fragment is
small? Dr. Rifkin's declaration gave no clues to answer these important
questions.
17