Case Background
Susan Schiller filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Saif Farhan, M.D. and Oroville Hospital on September 30, 2024. According to the complaint, the Defendants had been contracted on or about November 13, 2023 to provide medical care, surgical care, and treatment connected to an anterior hip arthroscopy that Schiller underwent at Oroville Hospital's facility in Oroville, California.
Cause
The complaint alleged that during the initiation of the anterior hip arthroscopy procedure on November 13, 2023, the Defendants negligently and carelessly failed to visualize and protect vital arteries and structures. This failure resulted in a 4cm laceration in Schiller's femoral artery at the start of surgery. As a result, Schiller began to bleed profusely and uncontrollably, which required extensive vascular reconstructive surgery along with a lengthy hospitalization and rehabilitation process.
Injury
Schiller suffered extensive reconstructive surgery and profound injury to her femoral nerve, leaving her immobile and without feeling above her knee. She experienced severe atrophy and became unable to undergo further surgical correction of her hip. Her hip was never replaced, and she became sedentary and wheelchair bound. The complaint described her injuries as extensive, severe, and permanent, encompassing pain, suffering, disfigurement, multiple surgeries, additional medical testing and treatment, embarrassment, humiliation, hedonic damages, severe emotional distress, and psychological trauma.
Damages Sought
The complaint requested general damages according to proof at trial, special damages according to proof at trial, costs of suit, and pre-judgment interest pursuant to Civil Code Section 3291, along with any other relief the Court deemed proper and just. The complaint also stated that Schiller had lost income and other financial advantages in an amount not known to her at the time of filing, and that she had incurred and would continue to incur additional expenses in amounts not yet known.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Susan Schiller
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Markus B. Willoughby, Esq.
Defendant(s): Saif Farhan, M.D. and Oroville Hospital
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert H. Zimmerman, Esq. | Jordan Hutchings, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Schiller's complaint contained a single cause of action for medical malpractice against all Defendants. The complaint stated that the Defendants undertook to treat and care for Schiller, including surgical procedures, examining, monitoring, providing, prescribing, and administering various modes of medical care and surgical treatment. The complaint alleged that the Defendants performed these duties in a careless, reckless, and negligent manner. It further alleged that the Defendants failed to properly care for Schiller through various actions, undertakings, and procedures, and generally failed to appropriately undertake or recommend care and treatment for her, including surgical and post-surgical care, without adequately trained and qualified staff and without proper protection.
The complaint stated that during the period of the Defendants' employment with Schiller, the Defendants and their agents, employees, and representatives acted negligently and recklessly with respect to her, breaching the duty they owed to her and causing injury and economic loss.
Defense
Defendants Saif Farhan, M.D. and Oroville Hospital filed their answer to the complaint on November 15, 2024. They issued a general denial, denying each and every allegation and cause of action in the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d). They also denied that Schiller had been damaged in the manner or amount alleged.
The Defendants raised several affirmative defenses. They argued that Schiller herself was negligent in some percentage compared to other parties and that this negligence contributed to her injuries or damages. They also argued that other persons or entities, whether or not parties to the action, were liable for negligence or other legal fault and were the legal cause of any injuries or damages.
The Defendants further claimed that Schiller had expressly assumed the risk of injury with full knowledge and appreciation of the relevant conduct, and that this conduct was the legal cause of any injuries and damages. They argued that Schiller failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate any alleged damages.
The Defendants asserted that the action was barred under the statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.4 or 340.5, and they demanded a separate trial of this defense pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 597.5.
On the issue of informed consent, the Defendants raised multiple alternative arguments. They claimed that Schiller would have consented to the procedure even if a reasonable person in her position might not have, had she been given enough information about the risks. They claimed they were not required to inform her of the risks because she had asked not to be told of them, because the procedure was simple and commonly understood to carry risks unlikely to occur, or because she would have been too seriously upset to reasonably consider those risks. They also claimed that informed consent was not required because an emergency existed and Schiller was unconscious or there was not enough time to inform her or an authorized person about the risks.
The Defendants invoked Good Samaritan immunity under Business and Professions Code sections 2395, 2395.5, 2396, and 2397, and Health and Safety Code section 1317(f). They reserved the right to introduce evidence of any amounts paid or to be paid as a benefit to Schiller under Civil Code section 3333.1, and they claimed the protection of Civil Code section 3333.2 regarding the limitation on non-economic damages.
The Defendants additionally argued that the action was barred under Civil Code section 1714.8, claiming that Schiller's alleged injuries and damages resulted solely from the natural course of a disease or condition, or from the expected result of reasonable treatment provided for that condition. Finally, the Defendants reserved the right to have any future damages paid in whole or in part pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 667 and 667.7. Based on these defenses, the Defendants asked that Schiller take nothing from the complaint and that they be awarded costs of suit.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial that began on November 17, 2025, in Courtroom 3 of the Butte County Superior Court before Hon. Tamara Mosbarger. A jury of 12 persons was impaneled and sworn. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel and receiving instructions from the Court, the jury deliberated and returned a special verdict on December 1, 2025.
The jury found that Saif Farhan, M.D. had been negligent and that this negligence had been a substantial factor in causing harm to Susan Schiller. The jury then determined Schiller's damages as follows: non-economic damages for physical pain and mental suffering totaled $894,000.00, past economic damages totaled $106,000.00, and future economic damages totaled $1,000,000.00, for a total jury award of $2,000,000.00.
Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3333.2, the Court reduced the non-economic damages award from $894,000.00 to $430,000.00. As a result, the judgment entered in favor of Susan Schiller and against Saif Farhan, M.D. totaled $1,536,000.00, together with any costs and legal interest approved by the Court pursuant to Schiller's Memorandum of Costs After Judgment. The judgment was signed and dated December 17, 2025.
