Sacramento Woman Presents Expert Testimony In Her Malpractice Brain Injury Trial, Part 2 of 3

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.)

Moreover, given the settlement and the fact that the court has indicated that it will ignore the fact that ABC was a party (at the request of Defense counsel) the jury will not be told that there was a settlement or that ABC was a party. This dichotomy is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiff and, clearly, Defendant is attempting to place all of the blame (even through Gail Smith’s effective mea culpa that she failed to chart all of the conversations she alleges she had with Dr. Lee and with Russell Greene) on other parties. Defendant is trying to back door the evidence for the defense that plaintiff failed to properly designate an expert. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Additionally, it is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiffs for the court to preclude disclosure of the existence of ABC as a party who has settled when Defendant is pointing right at them. The jury has the right to know that they were a party, that they settled and that the court will do the math after verdict. Otherwise, clearly all of the evidence relating to the alleged negligence of the staff of ABC is prejudicial under Evid. Code ยง352.

At this point in the matter, given the evidence that has been adduced, to prevent further undue prejudice to plainitffs the court must, (a) inform the jury that ABC was a party to the matter and that they settled but that the amount of the settlement is irrelevant, …

(b) instruct the jury that all testimony from Dr. Brown relating to the standard of care of employees of ABC is struck and that they are to ignore it during the whole of the case and (c) allow Plaintiff to inquire of Gail Smith and other employees as to the fact that they were employed by ABC when it was a party to this litigation and were deposed as a result thereof in the course of this matter. (See Part 3 of 3.)

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

Contact Information