Patient Sues Scripps Health and Physician Alleging Failed Ankle Surgery and Potential Cover-Up

Lawsuit alleges physician failed to surgically treat ankle fracture, prescribed physical therapy, and misled patient to conceal the error.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

SAN DIEGO, CA, UNITED STATES, February 2, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ — SAN DIEGO PATIENT FILES MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT AGAINST SCRIPPS HEALTH, AFFILIATED ENTITIES, AND SURGEON FOLLOWING ALLEGED FAILED ANKLE SURGERY THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED

Plaintiff Daniel Lezmy Alleges Doctor Failed to Treat his Fractured Left Ankle During Surgery, Then Prescribed Physical Therapy, which Allegedly Caused Additional Harm.

A medical malpractice lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Dr. Michael Joseph Botte, an orthopedic surgeon at Scripps Health, failed to treat a fractured bone fragment during ankle surgery. The complaint further claims Dr. Botte allegedly concealed the surgical error from the patient for months. Additionally, the complaint further alleges that while the physician misled the patient, he was referred to physical therapy that worsened the injury. The case, Daniel Lezmy v. Scripps Health et al. (Case No. 37-2023-00049025-CU-MM-CTL), includes claims of medical malpractice, fraud, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, intentional misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and battery.

According to court documents filed with San Diego Superior Court, plaintiff Daniel Lezmy, a legal immigrant residing in the United States, suffered a left ankle fracture in late January 2022 and sought treatment at Scripps Health facilities. The complaint further alleges that after 6 weeks of treating the ankle fracture, Dr. Botte performed surgery on March 23, 2022. However, the complaint further claims that the surgery failed to treat the fractured medial malleolus. It also claims that the Plaintiff’s left ankle was still fractured after the surgery was completed.

Court filings and the complaint goes on to allege that X-rays taken on April 5, 2022—roughly two weeks after surgery—showed the bone fracture of the medial malleolus was still present. According to the complaint, Dr. Botte reviewed and signed off on these X-ray images. This is the Plaintiff’s basis for establishing that Dr. Botte knew that the ankle remained fractured. The complaint then claims that despite the physician’s review of the x-rays, Mr. Lezmy was never informed that his ankle was allegedly still fractured by Dr. Botte or any of the other medical professionals that rendered some form of medical care to Mr. Lezmy after the surgery.

Court documents and the complaint go on to allege that Dr. Botte prescribed months of physical therapy for the fractured ankle—treatment the complaint describes as harmful and not medically appropriate—which allegedly caused additional harm and permanent injuries.

The complaint further alleges that after three months of physical therapy, Mr. Lezmy’s condition did not improve. Based on this, the complaint writes that Mr. Lezmy met again with Dr. Botte who allegedly provided a false diagnosis–telling Lezmy he had developed “bone growth” (exostosis) that needed minor surgery to shave down the bone. According to the complaint, Lezmy consented to what he believed would be a 1-1.5 hour minor procedure. Instead, Dr. Botte allegedly performed a six-hour surgery to treat the initial fracture.

With respect to Scripps Health, Scripps Clinic Medical Group Inc., and Scripps Health Plan Services Inc., the complaint alleges that each entity failed in oversight duties. It also claims that these entities in some form allegedly participated in concealing the claimed medical errors.

Lezmy’s First Amended Complaint survived multiple defense motions to dismiss via demurrers filed by defendants Dr. Michael Botte, Madonna Guzman, PA, Scripps Health, and Scripps Clinic Medical Group Inc. Court hearings on defendants’ demurrers and motions to strike Lezmy Third Amended Complaint are scheduled for February 6, 2026, before Hon. Blaine K. Bowman in Department C-74 of San Diego Superior Court, where the plaintiff will be represented by attorney Leeran S. Barzilai.

• What to Do After a Car Accident in California: Your 24-Hour Legal Checklist
• Landing Page
• FAQ
• Home
• Revocable Living Trust (Single)

Case Overview: Daniel Lezmy v. Scripps Health et al.

The lawsuit, filed as Daniel Lezmy v. Scripps Health et al., presents a concerning narrative. First, plaintiff Daniel Lezmy, a legal U.S. resident, claims that what began as a straightforward ankle fracture treatment evolved into a multi-year ordeal. The complaint includes allegations of:

• A surgical procedure that allegedly failed to address his fracture
• Then, months of inappropriate physical therapy that worsened his injury
• Next, systematic concealment of the surgical error
• Finally, a subsequent surgery performed under false pretenses

Timeline of Alleged Medical Negligence

Initial Injury and Treatment

• Late January 2022: Lezmy suffers a left ankle fracture
• March 23, 2022: Dr. Michael Joseph Botte performs surgery at Scripps Health
• Critical allegation: The surgery reportedly failed to treat the fractured medial malleolus bone fragment

Discovery and Concealment Phase

• April 5, 2022: X-rays reveal the fracture remains untreated
• According to the complaint: Dr. Botte subsequently reviewed and signed these X-rays
• Key claim: Despite this knowledge, neither Dr. Botte nor other medical staff ever informed Lezmy his ankle remained fractured

Escalation of Harm

• Spring-Summer 2022: Lezmy then undergoes months of physical therapy prescribed by Dr. Botte
• Allegation: Physical therapy on an untreated fracture consequently caused additional harm and permanent injuries
• Summer 2022: After no improvement, Dr. Botte allegedly provides false diagnosis of “bone growth” requiring minor surgery

Second Surgery Under False Pretenses

• Allegation: Lezmy initially consented to a 1-1.5 hour minor procedure to shave down bone
• Reality: Dr. Botte instead performed a six-hour surgery to finally address the original fracture
• Result: This led to extended recovery and additional medical complications

Legal Claims in the Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

The complaint includes multiple serious allegations. Not only does it claim medical malpractice, but also several intentional torts:

1. Medical Malpractice: Primarily, failure to meet standard of care in surgical treatment
2. Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment: Additionally, deliberate hiding of surgical error
3. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud: Furthermore, alleged coordination in concealing mistakes
4. Intentional Misconduct: Moreover, knowing prescription of harmful treatment
5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Similarly, violation of doctor-patient trust
6. Battery: Lastly, performing surgery without proper informed consent

Institutional Accountability Allegations

The lawsuit extends beyond individual claims. It further alleges systemic failures within Scripps Health organizations:

• Scripps Health: Alleged failure in oversight and quality control
• Scripps Clinic Medical Group Inc.: Likewise, alleged participation in error concealment
• Scripps Health Plan Services Inc.: Correspondingly, alleged administrative complicity

According to court documents, these entities collectively “failed in oversight duties” and jointly “participated in concealing the claimed medical errors.”

Current Legal Status and Proceedings

The case has demonstrated significant legal merit. To begin with, the First Amended Complaint withstood defense motions to dismiss. Furthermore, multiple demurrers filed by defendants were unsuccessful. Looking ahead, upcoming hearings are scheduled for February 6, 2026.

The plaintiff will be represented by attorney Leeran S. Barzilai, while defendants’ latest motions will be heard before Hon. Blaine K. Bowman.

Broader Implications for Medical Accountability

This San Diego medical malpractice case raises important questions. For example, it addresses:

Patient Safety Protocols

• How surgical errors are detected and addressed
• What institutional checks exist for quality assurance
• Why transparency in patient communication matters

Medical Ethics Considerations

• When physician responsibility activates after errors occur
• Where appropriate responses to treatment failures should begin
• How informed consent requirements apply in such situations

Healthcare System Accountability

• Whether hospitals adequately oversee affiliated physicians
• Why systemic patterns in error reporting matter
• How patient advocacy and rights protection function

Understanding Medical Malpractice in California

For patients facing similar concerns, several key elements define cases. Generally speaking, these include:

Essential Components of a Claim

1. First, a doctor-patient relationship must exist
2. Second, a standard of care violation must occur
3. Third, causation between negligence and injury must be proven
4. Finally, quantifiable damages must result

California-Specific Considerations

• Statute of Limitations: Typically 1-3 years from discovery of injury
• Damage Caps: In some cases, non-economic damages are limited
• Expert Testimony: Medical experts must establish standard of care violations

Next Steps in the Legal Process

As this case progresses, several developments will be critical:

1. First, the February 2026 hearings on defense motions
2. Next, the discovery phase for evidence exchange
3. Then, potential settlement discussions
4. Finally, trial preparation if the case proceeds

Resources for Patients with Medical Concerns

Patients who suspect malpractice should take specific actions. Initially, they should:

Immediate Actions

1. First, document everything thoroughly
2. Second, seek independent medical evaluations
3. Third, preserve all evidence carefully

Legal Considerations

1. Initially, consult with a medical malpractice attorney
2. Then, be aware of statute of limitations deadlines
3. Finally, understand your case’s strengths and challenges

The Importance of Medical Transparency

This San Diego case underscores fundamental principles. Clearly, transparency about medical errors is essential for:

• Patient trust and safety
• Professional accountability
• Systemic improvement in healthcare quality
• Ethical medical practice

While the allegations remain to be proven, they nevertheless highlight critical issues affecting all healthcare consumers.

---

Case Reference: Daniel Lezmy v. Scripps Health et al., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2023-00049025-CU-MM-CTL

Next Hearing: Scheduled for February 6, 2026 before Hon. Blaine K. Bowman

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Represented by Leeran S. Barzilai, Esq.

Leeran Barzilai
Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp.
+1 619-436-7544
info@lbatlaw.com
Visit us on social media:
Instagram
Facebook
YouTube
TikTok
X

Linkedin

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.