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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

A [veterinarian] is not necessarily negligent just because [he/she] chooses one medically accepted method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice.In Williamson v. Prida, supra, the plaintiff's expert testified that he didn't agree with some of the defendant veterinarians' treatment decisions, that he "couldn't see the reason" for their choice and that he thought their treatment was overzealous. The court of appeal confirmed that such expressions of personal preference or personal opinion are not probative of any issue before the court in a professional negligence case:

That is not evidence of standard of care. [T]he fact that another physician or surgeon might have elected treat the case differently or use methods other than those employed by [the] defendant does not of itself establish negligence. [Citations] ... This disagreement does not establish the standard of care, or a violation thereof.Id. at 75 Cal.App.4th at 1425-1426.

The personal preference in the performance of a prepurchase examination of plaintiff's expert witness, or the fact that he might have selected a different approach or course than the Veterinary Defendants did, is not relevant or probative, and carries the risk that the jury will be confused or misled. Accordingly, such testimony can and should be excluded.

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

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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The fact that certain veterinarians may disagree as to the usage, preference, or desirability as to any particular method for conducting a prepurchase examination indicates the existence of a professional difference of opinion only. It does not establish a standard of care.

The relevant legal precedent on this issue was established the California Supreme Court in Meier v. Ross General Hospital, 69 Cal.2d 420 (1968). In an action against a psychiatrist in a hospital for the death of a mentally disturbed patient who jumped from a second story window, the court established that negligence could not be found merely because another treatment acceptable to, or even preferred by, other physicians could have avoided the death of the patient. The Meier case stands for the proposition that in determining whether a defendant breached a standard of care, the court may not engage in "but-for" reasoning. This basic rule was reaffirmed in Clemens v. Regents of the University of California, 8 Cal.App.3d 1, 13 (1970):

A difference of medical opinion concerning the desirability of one particular medical procedure over another does not ... establish that the determination to use one of the procedures was negligent. (Meier v. Ross General Hospital, 69 Cal.2d 420).

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Veterinary Malpractice Suit Filed After Champion Horse Dies, Part 3 of 4" »

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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This action involves allegations of professional negligence against a veterinarian and a veterinary clinic. As with any other professional negligence claim, plaintiff's prima facie case must include a showing that there exists an accepted standard of care and that the Veterinary Defendants' conduct fell below that standard. The law is well settled that such a prima facie case can only be made by the introduction of appropriate expert testimony:

Ordinarily, where a professional person is accused of negligence in failing to adhere to accepted standards within his profession, the accepted standards must be established only by qualified expert testimony unless the standard is a matter of common knowledge.Osborne v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 5 Cal.App.4th 234, 277 (1992); see also Wilson v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 14 Cal.App.4th 1315 (1993). This rule has been explicitly held to apply to claims against veterinarians. Williamson v. Prida, 75 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424-1425 (1999).

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Family's Prized Horse Dies After Veterinary Malpractice, Part 2 of 4" »

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 veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness from Expressing Personal Opinions re Mode of Treatment

Defendants Donald Brown, DVM, and the Valley Equine Group, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Veterinary Defendants ) hereby move this court in limine for the following ruling and instructions:

That any and all testimony and any questions which would lead to or elicit a response thereto, call for plaintiff's expert witness to express personal opinions or preferences relating to the care and treatment of horses or other animals, or from stating what that witness "would do in any particular medical circumstance" as opposed to stating what the operative "standard of care" for reputable veterinarians would be in that same circumstance, be excluded.

Said motion is made pursuant to and in accordance with Evidence Code Sections 350 and 351, on the grounds that such evidence is not relevant to any issue herein and that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the probability that such evidence will prejudice. confuse, or mislead the jury.

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

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Veterinary Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 4" »