Seton Medical Center analysis reveals conflicting hypoxia claims in patient case

A contentious debate over patient safety and medical oversight unfolded during the Medical Board of California's Panel A Meeting on May 14, 2025, as experts clashed over the circumstances surrounding a patient's critical incident during a colonoscopy.

The discussion centered on a patient who experienced a cardiovascular event shortly after the procedure at a surgery center near Seton Medical Center. Dr. Garcia Chiuopoco, who was present during the colonoscopy, immediately consulted with the emergency room team at Seton after the patient was transported there. Initial assessments indicated no blockages in the coronary arteries, raising questions about the cause of the patient's distress.

Mr. Tabari, representing the defense, argued that the evidence did not support claims of hypoxia during the procedure, asserting that the patient's vital signs remained stable. He emphasized that the patient's oxygen saturation reading of 39% was likely an artifact, not indicative of a hypoxic event. "If this was a patient suffering a respiratory arrest during the procedure, her blood pressure would have crashed, and that did not happen," he stated, suggesting that the monitoring protocols were adequate.

Conversely, Mr. Hosley, representing the opposing side, countered that the patient did indeed experience hypoxia, citing two separate readings taken 11 minutes apart that indicated dangerously low oxygen levels. He referenced the respondent's expert testimony, which confirmed the hypoxic readings and underscored the need for rigorous monitoring during such procedures.

The debate highlighted significant concerns regarding the standards of care in outpatient settings and the responsibilities of medical staff during procedures. As the board deliberates on the implications of this case, the outcome could influence future protocols and accountability measures in California's medical facilities. The meeting concluded with both sides preparing to present further evidence, leaving the board to weigh the critical issues of patient safety and medical responsibility.