$700,000 Pact : Settlement Ends Malpractice Case

A Westlake Village woman Friday agreed to a $700,000 settlement in a malpractice case in which she accused a surgeon of failing to inform her that a tumor removed in 1980 was malignant, court records show.

Dolores Webster, a 44-year-old hairdresser, will receive the payment from insurers for Dr. Paul A. Ironside, a thoracic and vascular surgeon in Westlake Village, in a Van Nuys Superior Court case.

Attorneys on both sides agreed that the settlement, which included $250,000 for pain and suffering, was the most that could have been awarded by a jury under a state law that restricts malpractice awards.

The dispute between doctor and patient centered on whether Ironside continued to see Webster after the 1980 operation.

Webster testified that she was not told that the tumor in her chest was malignant and that Ironside did not examine or see her again after 1980.

Webster’s attorney, Bruce G. Fagel, said that in pretrial depositions, Ironside testified that he promptly informed Webster that the tumor was potentially malignant and continued to examine her three to four times a year for six years.

Ironside also testified that he consulted regularly about the case with Dr. Earl Detrick, chief radiologist at Westlake Medical Center and Webster’s brother-in-law, Fagel said.

“But he could produce no medical records or payment records of any examination of Mrs. Webster over the six years,” Fagel said, “and he explained that by saying that he was doing it as a professional courtesy for Dr. Detrick.”

Fagel said Detrick, who had originally referred his sister-in-law to Ironside in 1980, “flatly contradicted Ironside by testifying that he was not involved with or told about any follow-up regarding Mrs. Webster.”

Claims Follow-Up Done

In a prepared statement issued through his attorney Friday, Ironside said that after informing Webster of the contents of the pathology report in 1980, “it was decided to follow the patient and this was done.”

Ironside’s statement described the settlement as the “compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim.”

Ironside’s attorney, Clayton C. Averbuck, said the surgeon would have no comment beyond his statement. Detrick could not be reached for comment.

Averbuck would not discuss Detrick’s or Ironside’s testimony.

Asked why his client agreed to the maximum settlement when the case was not scheduled for trial for at least three years, Averbuck said: “I see no significance to settling now as opposed to any other time.”

Fagel said pretrial testimony by Detrick and Webster suggested that Ironside had “ignored or forgotten about the pathology report, and he agreed to settlement for the top amount when it was obvious that Dr. Detrick would not support him about the business of following up on the pathology report.”