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.)
Discussion of Dr. Lee’s Testimony cont.
Additionally, at another point in his deposition, Dr. Lee testified that his best understanding of where the pressure sore began was with reddening at XYZ. Lee Depo. at 87:6-88:2.
From the totality of Dr. Lee’s deposition testimony it is clear that he cannot testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. Hill’s pressure sore did not begin at XYZ Healthcare. Indeed, he testified to precisely the opposite in his deposition. Given this, Dr. Lee should be precluded from offering the opinion at trial that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Ms. Hill’s pressure sore began at XYZ Healthcare.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Inquiries Should Be Made As To Whether Dr. Lee Has Been Apprised Of His Fifth Amendment Right To Not Incriminate Himself Regarding Potentially Criminal Conduct
Dr. Lee signed two declarations in connection with his expert work in this matter. One declaration was in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The other declaration related to his efforts to have his deposition taken in SanDiego rather than Sacramento. Both declarations contain significant and material false statements.
While Dr. Lee can follow the lead of his counterpart nurse Cece Brown and suggest that the false statements in his declaration in support of summary judgment were unintentional oversights, plaintiffs do not believe the same can be said for his declaration seeking to have his deposition in Fresno rather than Sacramento.
In that declaration, Dr. Lee makes very specific representations that he has a “good faith basis” that having his deposition taken in Sacramento would “place [his] patients in jeopardy.” See Exhibit B (Lee Declaration). In his deposition, Dr. Lee acknowledged that his statements along these lines were an exaggeration. Lee Depo. at 58:10-63:1.
Under further probing at this trial, plaintiffs expect that Dr. Lee will have to concede that the statements were false and that he knew them to be false at the time he signed his declaration. These admissions will be admissions to the felony crime of perjury. See Cal. Penal Code § 118a. Plaintiffs are unaware of whether Dr. Lee is aware of the potential criminal exposure his testimony may raise. Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that the current defense attorneys have not worked in criminal law and may not have advised Dr. Lee on the subject. Given that invocation of Dr. Lee of his Fifth Amendment rights would result in his testimony being stricken in its entirety, plaintiffs would respectfully request that the Court inquire of the witness and/or defense counsel before Dr. Lee takes the stand as to whether Dr. Lee has been advised of his Fifth Amendment rights and wishes to waive them in connection with his testimony.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.