Medical Malpractice Claim Filed By Sacramento Family, Part 1 of 2

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

Plaintiff’s Trial Brief Re: CACI 430

Defendants propose Special Jury Instruction # 1 based on the argument that CACI 430 is incomplete because it does not instruct on reasonable medical probability. To the contrary, in the Sources and Authority listed under CACI Instruction No. 430 ( CACI 430 ), the authors of the jury instruction list Espinosa v. Little Company of Mary Hospital (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1313-1314 ( Espinosa ), a medical malpractice case. In Espinosa, the Second District Court of Appeal ( Second District ) considered, and rejected, arguments identical to those made now by Defendants. This court should reject those arguments as well under the authority and reasoning of Espinosa, particularly as they apply to this personal injury matter.

Further, other CACI jury instructions cover the burden of proof and the degree of proof. Reasonable medical probability means more likely than not. (See, Espinosa, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at 1316.) CACI instruction no. 400, modified by adding medical under CACI Instruction no. 500, already instructs the jury that the Plaintiff must prove the elements of medical negligence, including causation. CACI instruction no. 200 already instructs the jury on the requisite degree of proof.

An additional instruction on this same issue, stated in legalese ( reasonable medical probability ) rather than plain language ( more likely to be true than not true ), would place undue emphasis on Plaintiffs’ burden and confuse the jury. (See Part 2 of 2.)

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

Contact Information