Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

UNIVERSAL'S NEGLIGENCE WAS A DIRECT CAUSE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH

And last, Universal next asserts that its conduct was not a cause of Decedent's death according to the declaration of its expert. However, Universal's expert does provide any reasoning for this opinion. The declaration instead simply states, without explanation, that nothing the nurses did or failed to do was a substantial factor in the death of decedent. Klein Decl. 10:18-20. It is also noteworthy that this statement makes no mention of the wrongdoing of Universal's CEO, who is the focus of Plaintiffs' claim against Universal.

In any even, the opinion of Universal's expert on causation is contradicted by that of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. White. As he explains, Universal's breaches of the standard of care resulted in unnecessary delay in getting Decedent to a medical center where he could be properly treated. This delay proved fatal. Had it complied with the standard of care, in Dr. White's opinion Decedent would not have died.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Failure To Transfer Patient Leads To Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Man, Part 5 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

UNIVERSAL WAS NEGLIGENT

Turning to the merits of the first cause of action, Universal asserts that it complied with the standard of care in its care and treatment of Decedent, and submits a declaration from its expect to that effect. In response, Plaintiffs submit a declaration from their expert, Steven White, M.D., in which he disagrees with Universal's expert and opines that the standard of care was not met. Specifically, according to Dr. White, Universal Hospital fell below the standard of care on both August 10 and August 11, 2008.

In his declaration, Dr. White notes the testimony of Dr. Lee (which Universal's expert ignores entirely) indicating that he spoke with the hospital CEO, Paul Smith, on August 10, 2008, informing him that Decedent had necrotizing fasciitis and recommending his urgent transfer to a major medial center in order to receive appropriate care, and that in response Dr. Lee was told to "mind his own business." These facts are ignored in the declaration of Universal's expert. According to Dr. White, this conduct on the part of the hospital CEO is below the standard of care. The standard of care requires the hospital to act reasonably in protecting the health and safety of its patients. This standard was not met.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice By Sacramento Doctors Causes Patient's Wrongful Death, Part 4 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

A plaintiff has no evidentiary burden until defendant shows either a complete defense or that an essential element of plaintiffs claim cannot be established. Until that time, defendant has not met its burden of production, and plaintiff therefore has no burden to oppose. See CCP §437c(p)(2); Binder v. Aetna Ins. Co, (1999) 75 CA4th 832, 840; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG) 10:249. As the party moving for summary judgment, (the defendant) had the burden to show that it was entitled to judgment with respect to all theories of liability asserted by (the plaintiff). Lopez v. Superior Court (Friedman RPI) (1996) 45 CA4th 705, 717.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In a medical malpractice action, the standard of care can only be established through expert opinion testimony. Stephenson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1961) 203 CA2d 631, 635. Because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of expert, expert testimony is required to prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the standard of care unless the negligence is obvious to a layperson. Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 CA4th 297.

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Files Medical Malpractice Action On Behalf Of Deceased Loved One, Part 3 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

APPLICABLE LAW

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court must consider all of the evidence "and all of the inferences" reasonably drawn therefrom, and must view such evidence and such inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 C4th 826, 843. The courts sole function on a motion for summary judgment is issue-finding ... not issue-determination. The judge must simply determine from the evidence submitted whether there is a "triable issue as to any material fact." CCP § 437c(c); see Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 CA4th 915, 926; Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 CA4th 832, 839.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 C4th at 850. If there is a single such issue, the motion must be denied. Versa Technologies, Inc v. Sup.Ct. (Motsinger) (1978) 78 CA3d 237,240.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice By Sacramento Hospital Results In Wrongful Death, Part 2 of 5" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Universal Hospitals' Motion for Summary Adjudication

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Universal Hospitals, Inc., ("Universal"), brings this motion for summary adjudication of the First Cause of Action in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint for negligence. It asserts three grounds: that Decedent David Hall, Jr.'s statutory heirs lack standing, that there was no negligence, and that Universal's conduct was not a cause of Decedent's death. The motion includes a voluminous recitation of certain medical records taken virtually verbatim from the recitation of the records in its expert's declaration, none of which are material facts for summary judgment purposes. Tellingly, the motion ignores entirely the facts upon which liability is sought: the conduct of Universal's Chief Executive Officer in initially refusing to transfer Decedent to another hospital where he could receive proper care for his life-threatening condition, and subsequently authorizing the hospital staff to lie about Decedent's condition in order to get him transferred. This is the conduct that is the focus of the declaration Plaintiffs submit of their expert in opposition to the motion.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man's Wrongful Death Due To Hospital's Malpractice, Part 1 of 5" »