$200K Medical Malpractice Settlement in LA Post-Op Case

Case Background

A high-stakes medical malpractice lawsuit, which spanned over two years and captivated legal observers in Los Angeles County, recently ended in a confidential settlement. Plaintiff Ingrid Sandstrom initiated the civil action in January 2023, alleging that medical negligence during a routine surgical procedure at a facility under the Regents of the University of California caused her severe and permanent injuries. The claim centered on the actions of two physicians, Dr. Whitney Pope and Dr. Chelsea Hesterman, whom Ms. Sandstrom maintained failed to uphold the accepted standard of care.

Ms. Sandstrom’s initial complaint detailed that she had undergone a common, non-emergency procedure. She asserted that the Defendant physicians, in the post-operative care phase, entirely missed a critical and escalating complication. The internal injury had already developed into a life-threatening crisis before staff correctly identified the problem, forcing Ms. Sandstrom to undergo emergency surgery months later. This corrective surgery, which doctors performed under great duress, left her with substantial, life-altering damage. The Plaintiff’s legal team argued that timely intervention would have minimized or completely averted the devastating consequences she suffered.

Cause

Medical Malpractice

The core of the legal challenge rested on the claim of medical malpractice. Ms. Sandstrom argued that the treating doctors and the institution had breached their duty to her as a patient. Her attorneys contended the medical team failed to exercise the degree of skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed and exercised by other competent medical professionals under similar circumstances. The Defendant physicians, she argued, committed this error when they neglected key post-operative test results and ignored her worsening symptoms in the days following the initial procedure.

Injury

Ms. Sandstrom detailed severe and permanent physical injuries, which she asserted were the direct consequence of the delay in care. Following the urgent corrective surgery, she sustained lasting nerve damage and chronic pain, requiring continuous medication and physical therapy. The injury fundamentally changed her ability to move and work, substantially limiting her everyday activities. Her attorneys emphasized that these physical wounds extended beyond the purely medical, leading to profound emotional trauma and a significant diminishment of her overall quality of life.

Damages Sought

Ms. Sandstrom sought financial compensation for the extensive harm she incurred. The lawsuit demanded relief in multiple categories:

Economic Losses

The Plaintiff requested payment for past, present, and future medical expenses, which totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars and continued to climb as she required ongoing care and specialized equipment. She also sought damages for the loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity. Ms. Sandstrom contended that the permanent nature of her injuries had prevented her from returning to her profession, resulting in a substantial and permanent loss of income and career opportunities.

Non-Economic Losses

Beyond measurable financial costs, the complaint demanded compensation for general damages, a category encompassing pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life. These non-economic damages acknowledged the debilitating impact the alleged negligence had on Ms. Sandstrom's mental and physical well-being. The final amount of damages requested was left open, designed to conform to the evidence presented at a trial.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The litigation commenced in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, West District. The Court assigned the case to Judge H. Jay Ford III. The case proceeded through the rigorous discovery phase, where both parties exchanged documentation, conducted depositions, and prepared their respective expert testimony. The Defendants filed their official answer to the complaint in July 2023, nearly six months after the initial filing, setting the stage for a formal legal battle.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Ingrid Sandstrom

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Benjamin T. Ikuta | Michelle B. Hemesath | Nicholas J. Leonard

Defendant(s): Whitney Pope | Chelsea Hesterman | Regents of the University of California

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Janee M. Tomlinson | Christopher P. Wend

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Attorneys for Ms. Sandstrom maintained a consistent narrative of professional dereliction. They argued that the Defendants' initial failure to properly interpret clear diagnostic scans and their subsequent decision to release the patient, despite glaring signs of deteriorating health, constituted gross negligence. They repeatedly pointed out that the medical record contained key indicators of a problem, but the doctors simply overlooked those warnings. Counsel asserted that the physicians had not followed the established protocol for managing the specific post-operative recovery phase, leading directly to the patient's catastrophic injury.

Defense

Defense counsel vigorously denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Representing the doctors and the University Regents, the defense team argued that the physicians had exercised reasonable care and followed all applicable medical standards. They asserted that Ms. Sandstrom’s complex case involved a rare and rapid-onset complication, which even the most diligent doctor might have struggled to detect immediately. Furthermore, the defense contended that the unfortunate outcome was a known risk of the initial surgical procedure, and not a result of any negligent act or omission by Dr. Pope or Dr. Hesterman. Their core argument was that the doctors acted appropriately given the information they possessed at the time.

Settlement

In a development that averted a prolonged and costly jury trial, the parties reached an out-of-Court agreement. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case with the Superior Court. The filing confirmed that Ms. Sandstrom, Dr. Pope, Dr. Hesterman, and the Regents of the University of California had finalized a private settlement resolving all claims and counterclaims related to the medical malpractice lawsuit.

The Defendants had agreed to pay Ms. Sandstrom a sum of $200,000 to resolve the claims. This financial action immediately halted all pre-trial proceedings. Aside from the final amount, the remaining terms of the settlement, as is common in such agreements, remained confidential. The settlement effectively closed the book on the nearly two-year legal dispute, providing a decisive resolution for Ms. Sandstrom’s extensive claims against the medical team.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com