My question involves malpractice in the state of: CA
He received the treatments in Oct and Nov of 2016. That's the first problem – that is past the statute of limitations in CA which is one year. But we are told the statute may be extended if you can show you didn't know you were injured from the ECT until later. He knew he was injured but no doctor would verify this as most are not experts in the field, and those that are tend to want to defend the practice, of course.
His complaint is that he now has vicious panic attacks that prevent him from working. He has many witnesses that have seen this interfere with his work. He was already prone to panic attacks before and that is the crux of his argument – that he was not a candidate for ECT and should've been warned as such. He was someone with depression, but more importantly, someone who suffered from chronic panic attacks and someone who had chronic fatigue (both well documented by years of medical records). Chronic fatigue and chronic panic attacks are nowhere listed in any literature as being conditions that will benefit from ECT. Not only that, some experts have warned ECT can worsen panic attacks – exactly what happened to him.
Shouldn't he have been warned of this? Would this just be a frivolous case?