A recent court decision has affirmed a malicious prosecution lawsuit stemming from a medical malpractice case, bringing to light the critical importance of expert testimony in such legal battles. The complaint was filed by Kenneth Purdom, M.D., in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 30, 2021, against several attorneys including Ying Xu and the Law Offices of Eric K. Chen.
The origins of this legal saga trace back to November 2018 when Ying Hong Zhang, represented by Xu and his colleagues, filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Purdom. Zhang alleged that Dr. Purdom had performed unnecessary surgery on her without proper consent or consideration of all her medical records. Specifically, she claimed that after experiencing severe abdominal pain and undergoing diagnostic tests at Whittier Hospital Medical Center, Dr. Purdom recommended and performed surgery to remove her right ovary based solely on an ultrasound report while ignoring a CT scan that showed no abnormalities in her ovaries.
Dr. Purdom's defense successfully argued during the bench trial that Zhang’s claims lacked merit due to the absence of expert testimony supporting allegations of professional negligence and causation. The court ruled in favor of Dr. Purdom, concluding that Zhang's attorneys failed to present necessary expert evidence to establish that Dr. Purdom breached the standard of care or caused harm.
Following this victory, Dr. Purdom pursued a malicious prosecution claim against Zhang’s attorneys, asserting they had initiated and maintained the malpractice lawsuit without probable cause and with malice. He contended that their failure to retain an expert witness demonstrated their knowledge that the case was untenable from the start.
In response, Zhang’s attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, aiming to strike down Dr. Purdom’s malicious prosecution claim as it arose from protected legal activities. However, both the trial court and appellate court found substantial grounds for Dr. Purdom's claim.
The courts determined that no reasonable attorney would have proceeded with Zhang’s malpractice claims without securing expert testimony crucial for establishing standard care breaches and causation—elements fundamental to any medical negligence case unless falling under rare exceptions like obvious negligence cases (e.g., leaving surgical instruments inside a patient). Furthermore, despite assurances from Xu about presenting non-retained experts who could testify regarding these elements, no such testimonies were provided during trial.
The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision denying the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Zhang’s attorneys on February 10, 2023. The ruling emphasized that maintaining a lawsuit known to lack probable cause can infer malice—a critical component in proving malicious prosecution.
Dr. Purdom seeks damages for reputational harm and legal costs incurred due to what he argues was an unjustified lawsuit driven by either ignorance or indifference towards essential legal standards in medical malpractice cases.
Representing Dr. Purdom is Thomas E. Rocket III from his law offices while Aaron P. Morris from Morris & Stone represents Ying Xu and co-defendants in this contentious legal battle presided over by Judge Daniel S Murphy under Case ID B327564.