Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)
OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 19 – PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT AMBULANCE WAS CALLED
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff argues that the Medical Center defendants should be barred from introducing evidence that an ambulance was called on behalf of David Hill simply because the evidence was produced pursuant to Plaintiff’s request to supplement all discovery and was not produced earlier. Ironically, Plaintiff herself produced documentation regarding decedent David Hill’s earnings through her own responses to Defendants’ supplemental discovery demand and Defendant Inter-Con produced additional documentation as well through supplemental responses. Plaintiff may not seek to exclude evidence simply because she does not like the evidence. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
FACTS
Plaintiff sought information about whether an ambulance was called for David Hill through multiple discovery devices including requests for admission, special interrogatories and a demand for production of documents. Plaintiff’s zealous and numerous discovery requests clearly indicate the importance Plaintiff places on whether or not am ambulance was called. However, Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs accusations that Defendants willfully failed to abide by discovery.
All of Defendants responses were accurate at the time they were made. Initially, Medical Center was only aware of the existence of records from Sacramento Ambulance Service (the company involved in transporting Mr. Hill to the hospital). Later, through deposition testimony, Defendants became aware that an ambulance was indeed called for Mr. Hill for transfer and Defendants became involved in seeking out such records. Defendants were also being truthful when they eventually stated that no such records are in their possession, custody or control. Defendants had no obligation to do so since American Medical Response is a third party, but did so regardless to resolve the mystery.
What Plaintiff fails to mention in her in limine motion is that multiple attempts were made by the parties to subpoena records from American Medical Response, the entity with which Medical Center has a national contract. Attached are multiple notices received from American Medical Response indicating no records are available. Defense counsel for Medical Center, based on a strong hunch that the ambulance company did indeed have such records, contacted the liaison between Medical Center and the ambulance company. This individual was able to procure the records Defendants recently produced to Plaintiff. (See Part 2 of 2.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.