Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain 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, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.
(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.)
The regulation interrogation.
In order for a statute or regulation to be relevant to this matter it must fit into the definition contained in CACI 418 et seq. A simple, quick reading of the entirety of the regulations presented by the defense herein makes it clear that they are not relevant.
The California regulations are all cited from the licensing requirements for skilled nursing facilities. They provide requirements that the facility must provide for a license. The regulations do not state anything as to the standard a doctor must follow. Licensing requirements are not standards of care nor is Defendant bound by the licensing requirements of the facility in seeing patients. These are two different issues. The regulations do not state that an assigned doctor is to see a patient in 72 hours, but that the facility is to make sure that some doctor sees the patient. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The restraint regulations of the state are just as faulty. They are in the same licensing section for SNF’s not the doctor’s duties to care for a patient. They relate to the regulations governing the party who saw the light and settled not what the doctor’s duty was to take care of his patient. Moreover, the regulations have been taken out of context since the whole of the regulation is not provided to the court or jury.
The federal restraint regulation is likewise taken out of context. The section relates to the right of a patient to be free of unreasonable care by the SNF, not the duty of the doctor to care for the patient. This section says that unless medically necessary (the issue here) restraints must not be used for the convenience of the facility or for discipline.
These regulations are intended to prevent abuse by staff at SNF’s and are a response to the outcry caused by the numerous occasions where such abuse has occurred. They only serve to confuse the issues in this case, i.e., whether Lee should have restrained Chelsea Greene on Feb. 19, 2007, as Dr. Allen had done previously for 19 days, with the consent of Russell Greene and the family in order to protect plaintiff, and also whether Ms. Greene should have been transferred without delay after she lost consciousness at 7:30 am. Everything else is smoke and mirrors attempting to muddy the waters and confuse the trier of fact. Application of the aforementioned regulations in the manner requested by defendant is clearly irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial to Plaintiffs.
Therefore, Defendant must be instructed to refrain from any further questioning on the lines outlined above and the jury must be instructed to ignore the prior questions and that they have been struck from the record in this matter.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.