Case Background
Robert Hecht, a 73-year-old man, went to Dr. Rama Thumati for a cardiology consultation in February 2019 after he suffered a cerebral vascular event. Doctors found that he had a right carotid obstruction, but Dr. Thumati told him it was not significant enough to require intervention. Dr. Thumati also knew that Hecht had previously been diagnosed with coronary artery calcification. Dr. Thumati performed a cardiovascular stress test and electrocardiographic monitoring, then concluded that no further cardiac work-up was necessary and told Hecht to return for a routine follow-up in six months.
In June 2022, Hecht saw Dr. Muthusamy Muthiah for an echocardiogram and a carotid duplex exam. The echocardiogram images came out so poor in quality that they could not be properly read, yet Dr. Muthiah relied on them anyway. A separate EKG, performed by a technologist employed by Chaparral Medical Group on July 6, 2022, was also of such poor quality that it could not be interpreted.
About seven weeks later, on August 1, 2022, Hecht was admitted to Pomona Valley Hospital with a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. A coronary catheterization revealed severe multivessel disease, and hospital staff determined right away that surgery was needed. Doctors at Pomona Valley attempted to save him through a procedure, but he survived only a short time afterward and died on August 4, 2022, from his untreated heart condition.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged professional negligence against Dr. Rama Thumati, Dr. Muthusamy Muthiah, and Chaparral Medical Group, Inc., claiming that the Defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat Hecht's heart condition, which led to his death.
Injury
The Plaintiffs claimed that Hecht suffered physical pain, extreme emotional distress, and mental suffering before his death as a result of the Defendants' negligence. They also claimed that his heart disease progressed without proper treatment because the Defendants relied on substandard test results instead of ordering more accurate testing.
Damages Sought
The complaint sought general damages, special damages according to proof, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The Plaintiffs asked for damages covering Hecht's pain and suffering before his death, as well as the loss of his support, services, advice, training, love, consultation, society, comfort, and companionship for his surviving family members. They also sought reimbursement for medical, funeral, and burial expenses.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Diana Hecht (Robert Hecht's widow) | Darold Hecht | Kimberly Chipman | Adam Hecht (his children), individually and as successors-in-interest to the Estate of Robert Hecht.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Patricia A. Law
Defendant(s): Rama Thumati, M.D | Muthusamy Muthiah, M.D | Chaparral Medical Group, Inc. dba Foothill Surgical Associates.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Douglas A. Amo | Fredrick James
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Thumati acted negligently in 2019 when he decided that Hecht's right carotid obstruction did not need surgical intervention and that no further cardiac work-up was necessary. They contended that any medical professional would know that a right carotid obstruction, even if not immediately life-threatening, causes significant deterioration in a person's health if left untreated and drastically increases the risk of cerebral infarction. The Plaintiffs further argued that Dr. Thumati knew about Hecht's coronary artery calcification but still told him to come back in six months instead of pursuing surgical intervention, which they claimed was imperative at that time.
Regarding Dr. Muthiah, the Plaintiffs argued that he relied on an echocardiogram so poor in quality that it was uninterpretable, and that he should have ordered additional testing once he saw how poor the images were. They also pointed to the EKG performed by a Chaparral Medical Group technologist in July 2022, which they described as similarly uninterpretable and something neither doctor should have relied upon.
The Plaintiffs claimed that if Dr. Thumati had ordered more in-depth testing in 2019 and taken steps to address the coronary artery calcification at that earlier stage, Hecht's symptoms would not have progressed as drastically. Similarly, they argued that if Dr. Muthiah had ordered another echocardiogram after recognizing the poor quality of the first one, more definitive testing would have shown that surgery was urgently needed, which would have prevented Hecht's condition from worsening and ultimately prevented his death. The Plaintiffs stated that the physicians at Pomona Valley Hospital did their best to save Hecht once he arrived, but too much damage had already been done by that point.
Defense
The Defendants generally denied every allegation in the complaint and denied that the Plaintiffs suffered any injury, damage, or loss due to any act or omission by them or anyone acting on their behalf.
Among their affirmative defenses, the Defendants argued that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action against them and that the claims were barred under several sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. They also argued that the Plaintiffs could have mitigated their damages by obtaining health insurance coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.
The Defendants raised multiple immunity defenses, citing provisions of the Civil Code, the Business and Professions Code, the Health and Safety Code, and the Government Code. They argued that any injury or loss suffered by the Plaintiffs resulted from Robert Hecht's own negligent or willful failure to follow the advice and instructions of his physicians and nurses, and from his failure to exercise ordinary care for himself. They further argued that Hecht failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the worsening of his condition.
The Defendants also argued that Hecht had been fully informed of the risks involved in his treatment and had voluntarily consented to it, thereby assuming those risks himself. They claimed that even if more information about the risks had been provided, Hecht would still have consented to the procedures. Additional defenses included claims that no informed consent was required because an emergency existed, that Hecht had asked not to be told about the risks, and that the risks of the procedures involved were not commonly understood to be likely to occur.
The Defendants asked that the Plaintiffs take nothing from the complaint, that the case against them be dismissed, and that they be awarded costs of suit.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached its verdict on December 23, 2025. On the first question, the jury found that Dr. Rama Thumati had been negligent in the care he provided to Robert Hecht, marking "yes."
However, on the second question, the jury found that this negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Robert Hecht's death, marking "no." Because the jury answered "no" on this question, they did not proceed to determine any damages amounts. The verdict form's sections for non-economic damages for loss of companionship, pain and suffering, and economic damages for Diana Hecht were left blank.
The presiding juror signed and dated the verdict form on December 23, 2025, resulting in a verdict that did not award any damages to the Plaintiffs.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
