(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)
THERE IS A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS A CAUSE OF MS. SMITH’S DEATH WHERE NEGLIGENCE OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER’S AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE SOUGHT CARE CAUSED HER DEATH.
Defendant’s Motion misses the mark for several reasons.
First, defendant misstates the law of causation in this context. [W]here the additional harm results either from the negligence of doctors or hospitals who furnish necessary medical care, or from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care, the chain of causation set in motion by the original tort remains unbroken.
Even if one assumes, arguendo, that in the middle of this hospitalization the care for the fall concluded and the care for a completely unrelated seizure disorder began, the treatment for that disorder would still arise from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care. In this case, it is readily foreseeable that putting an elderly woman in the hospital would trigger some attendant care for unrelated medical conditions. Defendant’s reading of the cases to exclude from causation these complications in care misstates the case law. That is why they do not cite nor is there any case where a negligent tortfeasors causal culpability stops during the hospitalization that the tortfeasor created. The fall put Ms. Smith in XYZ Hospital and subjected her to their care. While under their care, her death was negligently caused. That raises a triable issue of fact on causation.
Secondly, defendant’s Motion is necessarily predicated on the preposterous notion that on April 30, 2005, Ms. Smith’s treatment for the fall concluded and all her treatment thereafter was for an unrelated pre-existing health issue. (See Part 6 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.