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, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiffs note that, in response to other questions, Dr. Lee made statements regarding Ms. Hill’s potential mortality rate once she broke her hip. He referred to his opinion that the delay in treatment did not hasten Ms. Hill’s death. Lee Depo. at 103:20-104.6. Dr. Lee then discussed what he believed to be the high rate of mortality among elderly persons who fracture their hip. Id. at 104 8-107:22. After this, he explained well, once she got her hip fracture that was undiagnosed and I — okay, which was undiagnosed, at that moment she became a high mortality. Now, staying the extra days in bed without getting the surgery, as I said earlier, it puts her at a higher risk for all those other things happening Id. at 107:16-22.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The Court should preclude testimony along the lines stated in the above paragraph. Dr. Lee specifically ruled out his intent to render testimony regarding the cause of Ms. Hill’s death during his deposition. Given this, his musings about the rate of mortality for patients who need hip surgery and whether and to what extent the delay affected Ms. Hill’s mortality rate (which testimony was at best equivocal in any event), should be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 as entirely irrelevant and potentially confusing the issues remaining in this case for the jury. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.