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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff, by counsel, serves and files this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Stanley Black, M.D. and ABC Medical Group’s Demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs Complaint.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS STANLEY BLACK, M.D, AND ABC MEDICAL GROUP’S DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
In response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, defendants Stanley Black, M.D., and ABC Medical Group have filed a demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of, Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Defendants Black and ABC Medical Group argue that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, for medical negligence, on the grounds that it duplicates the Second Cause of Action, for Wrongful Birth.
As will be seen from the following Points and Authorities, inconsistent pleadings have long been permitted, and therefore defendants Black and ABC Medical Group’s demurrer, upon grounds of inconsistency, is without merit.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Defendants Black, M.D. and ABC Medical Group next contend that Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action, for Willful Misconduct, fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for this tort.
Again, as demonstrated by the following Points and Authorities, Plaintiff has properly pleaded each and every element of a cause of action for Willful Misconduct, and defendants’ assertions to the contrary are specious.
Finally, defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs Complaint pointedly ignores the First Amendment infirmities of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.10 and 425.13, requiring that a prayer for damages against a healthcare provider which states a specific dollar amount, be stricken, and mandating that a plaintiff may not include a prayer for punitive damages against a healthcare provider without first obtaining permission from the court. (See Part 2 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.