Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(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.)
UNIVERSAL’S NEGLIGENCE WAS A DIRECT CAUSE OF DECEDENT’S DEATH
And last, Universal next asserts that its conduct was not a cause of Decedent’s death according to the declaration of its expert. However, Universal’s expert does provide any reasoning for this opinion. The declaration instead simply states, without explanation, that nothing the nurses did or failed to do was a substantial factor in the death of decedent. Klein Decl. 10:18-20. It is also noteworthy that this statement makes no mention of the wrongdoing of Universal’s CEO, who is the focus of Plaintiffs’ claim against Universal.
In any even, the opinion of Universal’s expert on causation is contradicted by that of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. White. As he explains, Universal’s breaches of the standard of care resulted in unnecessary delay in getting Decedent to a medical center where he could be properly treated. This delay proved fatal. Had it complied with the standard of care, in Dr. White’s opinion Decedent would not have died.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Again, in view of the rebuttal opinion of Plaintiffs’ expert, there is clearly a triable issue of material fact on the element of causation, meaning that summary adjudication of the first cause of action on this ground is also inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the motion be denied.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.