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, Methodist, 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 action and its proceedings.)
It is clear that all of Dr. Li’s criticism against the hospital flow from his criticism of Dr. Gold’s initial evaluation of the patient. But for Dr. Gold’s failure to promptly contact an on-call general surgeon, there would have been no delay in properly treating the patient. According to Dr. Li, had Dr. Gold made that call, a general surgeon presumably would have been able to timely evaluate the patient and perform the debridement surgery. The performance of the debridement surgery at Universal would have negated the necessity of a transfer and ambulance transport to San Diego, of which Dr. Li was also critical. (Deposition of Dr. Li) Unfortunately, none of this testimony will be admissible at trial, per Section 1799.110.
In Miranda, appellant/plaintiff retained an orthopedic surgeon who had been on-call in hospital emergency departments to testify relative to emergency room physicians standard of care issues. At deposition, the physician admitted that he was not an emergency room physician. Miranda, supra, at 907. Rather, he was an orthopedic specialist who was on-call to the emergency room to consult on and treat orthopedic injuries. Id. The trial court granted a defense in limine motion to preclude the orthopedist from testifying at trial on emergency physician standard of care issues, per Section 1799.110. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s decision, indicating that it “lacked the discretion” to allow the doctor to testify on those issues at trial. Id.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Here, Dr. Li admitted during his deposition that he does not hold himself out to be an [emergency room] physician and that he does not pretend to be one. (Deposition of Dr. Li) Although he has some experience working in emergency departments during his career, that was in training years ago, a long time ago. (Deposition of Dr. Li) Dr. Li’s curriculum vitae indicates that his medical training ended in approximately July of 1984, when he completed his general surgery residency. Clearly, Dr. Li does not have substantial professional experience in the emergency room within the last five years, as required by Section 1799.110. Accordingly, plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing Dr. Li’s testimony at trial to the extent that it includes opinions relative to the standard of care applicable to emergency room physicians. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.