The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(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.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Attorneys for Defendants, Frank White, M.D., Max Green, M.D., and XYZ MEDICAL GROUP.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Introduction and Summary of Plaintiffs’ Reply
Plaintiffs’ opposition is a confusing quagmire that improperly attempts to interweave Mr. and Ms. Lee’s claims regarding their son’s birth injuries. Mindy Lee’s claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ( NIED ) is not the subject of moving parties’ motion. Plaintiffs’ opposition confuses the relevant case law as delineated by the Supreme Court and misapplies the facts of the case at bar.
The Moving Parties Do Not Dispute Timothy Lee’s Right to Allege a Cause of Action for NIED.
Moving parties do not dispute that Timothy Lee has the right to allege a cause of action for NIED. Rather, moving parties contend that, even assuming arguendo, plaintiffs’ factual allegations are true, plaintiff Timothy Lee, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of a cause of action for NIED. Therefore, the portion of plaintiffs’ opposition regarding plaintiff’s right to allege a cause of action for NIED may be disregarded as superfluous to moving parties’ motion. (See Part 2 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.