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 elder abuse lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff Sabrina White’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Motion By Defendant XYZ Care LLC for Summary Adjudication of Issues
Plaintiffs submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion by Defendant XYZ Care, LLC (hereinafter, XYZ Care ) for summary adjudication.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The motion by Defendant XYZ Care for summary adjudication must be denied because it is ill conceived and procedurally, legally and factually defective. The defects in the motion and moving separate statement are such as to violate clearly stated standards for motion for summary adjudication, and must lead to denial of the motion.
The motion is based solely upon plaintiffs’ purported “factually devoid” responses to special interrogatories. While Plaintiffs recognize that under certain circumstances factually devoid discovery responses may establish proper grounds for summary adjudication, XYZ Care’s motion fails in its initial burden to demonstrate any lack of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claims simply because the discovery responses upon which the motion relies contain references to pages of facts and evidence which purportedly support Plaintiffs’ claims for which Defendant seeks summary adjudication.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Notably, the moving papers fail to include any declaration of any expert necessary to meet their initial burden of establishing that the facts and evidence set forth Plaintiffs’ discovery responses fail to support or establish any element of the claims for which defendants now seek summary adjudication.
Further, the moving papers completely ignore and fail to address Plaintiffs’ exercise of their right under C.C.P. §2023.230 to make reference to documents in their interrogatory responses in lieu of setting forth facts where the response to the interrogatories would have called for compilation, abstract, audit or summary of records. Pursuant to C.C.P. §2023.230, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses do in fact refer to facts contained in the medical records of Paul Hill from National’s Subacute and Rehabilitation Center, and other related facilities. Again, the moving papers fail to include any showing (by declaration of any expert or otherwise) as to the content of such records and whether such records include any facts or evidence to support or establish any element of the claims for which defendants now seek summary adjudication. Accordingly, Defendant cannot have met their initial burden of proof and persuasion on this motion for summary adjudication. (See Part 2 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.