Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
(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.)
WHETHER ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAVE NOT BEEN SUED FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS ACTION
The only issue properly before the court and the trier of fact is whether or not the defendants breached the standard of care to these patients; whether or not said breach was a substantial factor in causing injury or damage; and the extent of that injury/damage. It is of no consequence that this case may, or may not be, the first in either of these individual defendants’ career in obstetrics.
Comments, suggestions, or innuendo that defendants are good obstetricians or because of a non-existent lawsuit history will only serve to prejudice the jury against plaintiffs, confuse the issues and allow for the potential for jury speculation, rather than focusing on the evidence. Like evidence of good “conduct” or good “character,” such comments, evidence or argument, is improper because it asks the jury to violate the law and their oath to judge the case based on the evidence presented to them and without regard to sympathy for any party. While such propaganda can be cleverly worded and disguised in its presentation, it is still inadmissible and improper and should not be allowed by this court. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
EVIDENCE CODE § 352 MANDATES EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE, AS IT WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFFS, CONFUSION OF THE ISSUES, AND WOULD MISLEAD THE JURY SUCH THAT ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE
This Court has the discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence. California Evidence Code § 352 provides that:
The court, in its discretion, may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.
The admission of such evidence or argument would only lead to unfounded speculation and conjecture by the jury. Any such speculation would only serve to confuse the issues, unduly prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs and ultimately mislead the jury. These real and substantial threats clearly outweigh any purported probative value of such evidence that may be suggested by the defense.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, plaintiffs respectfully urge this court to preclude counsel and all witnesses from presenting evidence of or making any reference to, the purported fact that this is the first and only medical malpractice lawsuit filed against any of the defendants herein.
The court is further requested to order the defendants’ counsel to so inform all of its witnesses to not make any such reference to or comment of this nature and to otherwise strictly follow these instructions.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.