Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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 personal injury case and its proceedings.)
THE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY MOVING DEFENDANT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO ANY DAMAGES ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF
Dr. Lee has also concluded that none of Stefan Black, M.D.’s actions or omissions during his involvement in the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff in any way caused or contributed to any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff. Consequently, there is no basis for liability against Stefan Black, M.D.
In order to prevail on a cause of action for medical malpractice. Plaintiffs must establish
(1) The duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise, (2) a breach of duty, (3) a proximate casual connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. Hanson v. Grode, (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, the Court stated that legal causation should be based upon whether defendant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in bunging about the plaintiff’s injuries Mitchell. 54 Cal.3d at 1052 – 1053.
The court in Espinosa v. Little Company of Mary Hospital (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1304, noted that while there is no judicially approved definition of “substantial factor” for causation purposes, substantial factor is something more than a slight, trivial, negligible or theoretical factor in producing a particular result. Espinosa. 31 Cal.App.4th at 1313-1314.
In medical malpractice cases, the causal link between the alleged negligence and the injury must be proven within a reasonable medical probability. The court in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation. et al., (1985) 163 Cal App. 3d 396. 402-403 (1985) held that:
The law is well settled that in a persona) injury action, causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability blued upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The declaration of Dr. Lee conclusively establishes that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were not caused by any acts or omissions by Stefan Black, M.D Dr. Lee declaration establishes that Stefan Black, M.D., M.D.’s cue and treatment provided to Plaintiff, Donna Hill, particularly his identification of a possible bowel perforation and subsequent cessation of his procedure and timely transfer of Plaintiff to another facility, was appropriate and within the standard of care, thereby negating the causation element. In the absence of the requisite evidence establishing causation the court should grant Dr. Black’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, grant summary adjudication of this claim.
CONCLUSION
The declaration of Dr Lee establishes that Stefan Black. M.D., complied with the applicable standard of care and no conduct on the part of Stefan Black, M.D., caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, summary judgment is mandatory and it is respectfully requested the court grant this Motion for Summary Judgment and that judgment be entered on defendant’s behalf against Plaintiff, Donna Hill.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.