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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)
NO ACT OR OMISSION OF A DUTY TO ACT BY DEFENDANT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEATH OF DAVID WHITE
The standard of proof for causation in a medical malpractice action requires that the plaintiff prove that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury or harm. Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052-53; BAJI No. 3.76 (1994).
However, a standard of reasonable medical probability was applied in Morgenroth v. Pacific Medical Center, Inc. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 521:
“Traditional proximate cause standards require that the trier of the facts, at a minimum, must be provided with evidence that a result was more likely than not to have been caused by an act, in the absence of any intervening cause …. We consider the better rule to be that in order to comport with the standard of proof ofproximate cause, plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must prove the defendant’s negligence, in probability, proximately caused the death. The authorities in this state are in accord that in a malpractice case, a mere possibility alone is not sufficient …” Morgenroth, supra, at 533.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Further, the court in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, recognized:
[C]ausation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. That there is a distinction between a reasonable medical probability and a medical possibility needs little discussion. There can be many possible causes indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes probable when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury. Jones, supra, at 402-403. (See Part 10 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.