Physician Malpractice Results In Sacramento Child’s Brain Damage, Part 7 of 13

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The plaintiff has no burden to show a triable issue if the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of showing by admissible evidence the absence of a triable issue of material fact. FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.App.4th 69, 73 n.4, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 404, 407 n.4 (1995) (citations omitted). Even if the defendant makes its initial showing in support of summary judgment, it is not necessarily entitled to summary judgment. The showing merely shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show a triable issue about one of the elements of the action or of those affirmative defenses. C.C.P. ยง 437c(o)(2). For more information about this topic, please visit http://www.sacramentopersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/.

A court must liberally construe the evidence offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and strictly construe the evidence offered in support of the motion, when it is determining the existence of a triable issue of fact. Speaker v. Adamson Cos., 30 Cal.3d 358, 373, 178 Cal.Rptr. 783, 791 (1981). A court must consider the direct as well as the circumstantial evidence on each issue, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Mann v. Cracchiolo, 38 Cal.3d 18, 210 Cal.Rptr. 762, 771 (1985).

In ruling on the motion [for summary judgment], 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, 25 Cal.4th at 843, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d at 856 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

If an inference is contradicted by other evidence, or by another reasonable inference, the motion must be denied because there is a triable issue of fact. Gigax v. Ralston Purina Co., 136 Cal.App.3d 591, 186 Cal.Rptr. 395 (1982). The presence of reasonable inferences supporting a judgment in favor of plaintiff is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Hulett v. Farmers Ins. Co., 10 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1060, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 908(1992).

Measured by these standards, defendant Dr. Lee’s motion for summary judgment is inadequate and must be denied. (See Part 8 of 13.)

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

Contact Information