Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez, Mrs. Johnson’s treating doctor, who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in a cast.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff’s left foot during the acute phase of Charcot’s, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

4. Dr. Lee explained the time limited process of Charcot Foot, and the absolute necessity of casting/booting the foot during the acute phase when the bones are subject to fractures and dislocations or subluxations. This testimony was uncontroverted.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff presents the following specific arguments and facts in support of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:

1. On June 8, 2011, the jury found that two physicians employed by defendant Regents of the University of California were negligent in their medical treatment of Plaintiff during her May 2009 hospitalization at the University Medical Center Hospital for her Charcot Foot (“Charcot’s”).

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in case.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff’s left foot during the acute phase of Charcot’s, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Section 3333.1, subdivision (a) suspends the common law “collateral source rule,” under which a defendant is ordinarily precluded from introducing evidence of compensation and benefits that plaintiff receives from other sources, such as medical and disability insurance. (See, e.g., Arrambula v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1009; Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 242.)

Section 3333.1 assumes that with the admission of evidence concerning collateral source benefits, the trier of fact would take the plaintiffs receipt of such benefits into account by reducing damages. (Barme v. Wood (1984) 37 Cal.3d 174, 179-180.) Importantly, the plaintiff is protected when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced. Subdivision (b) of section 3333.1 provides that when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced by a defendant, the provider of such benefits is precluded from recouping its payments either directly from the plaintiff or in a subrogation action against the defendant.

The effect of section 3333.1, thus, is to shift the cost of plaintiffs medical expenses from malpractice insurers to other insurers and entities, thereby effectuating MICRA’s intent of reducing the costs of malpractice insurance and making sure that health care providers can afford to practice in California. (Ibid.; see also, American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital (1984) 36 Cal.3d 359, 371.) Section 3333.1 has been held constitutional. (Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 166 [due process and equal protection challenges]; Barme v. Wood, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 180.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Civil Code Section 3333.2 Limits Recovery Of Non-Economic Damages In A Medical Malpractice Action To $250,000

Civil Code section 3333.2 provides in pertinent part:

(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfiguring and other non-pecuniary damage.

(b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed $250,000. In light of the foregoing, should the jury find liability on the part of defendants, any award is subject to the provisions of section 3333.2 thereby limiting the total non-economic damages to $250,000.00.

Civil Code Section 3333.1 Permits Defendants To Introduce Evidence Of Collateral Source Benefits

Subsequent to the alleged malpractice by defendants, plaintiff received insurance benefits. Under Civil Code section 3333.1, defendants can introduce evidence of these benefits at trial. Subdivision (a) of section 3333.1 provides, in pertinent part:

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The primary requirement for the granting of the motion is that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. Robinson v. North American Life & Cas. Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 111, 118, 30 Cal.Rptr. 57.

The court will grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference drawn therefrom to support the verdict. Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681,534 P.2d 377.

Plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted if, on the whole evidence, any cause of action alleged in the complaint is supported and no substantial support is given to the defense alleged by defendant. Gordon v. Strawther Enteprises. Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 504, 515,78 Cal.Rptr. 417. The court may grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the entire verdict, or a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on fewer than all issues. See Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 310,323-324,274 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hansen v. Sunnyside Product Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.

B. The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff’s Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury’s
Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff’s Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury’s Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent.

As set forth in the minutes of the Court, Plaintiff Johnson presented substantial evidence supporting her claims for medical professional negligence against the Regents of the University of California ( Regents ) based upon the professional negligence of the Regents’ employees. In fact, the jury found that defendant’s employees, Ellen White, M.D., and Phillip Brown, M.D., were negligent in their diagnosis or treatment of Plaintiff. Yet, the jury did not rule that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Johnson’s negligence claims against the Regents was supported by the uncontradicted testimony of Morgan Lee, M.D., the only qualified orthopaedic expert who testified at trial. Defendant did not present any expert testimony regarding the specific claims of medical negligence relating to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, as no other orthopaedic expert testified on behalf of defendant.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall’s surgeries and follow-up care fell below the standard of care and were the cause of her injuries and that she suffered pain as a result of two unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Hall on January 27, 2009 and May 28, 2009. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Lee, she has made a complete recovery and healed well. Presently, she experiences very little pain other than pain she characterizes as consistent with her age.

As stated above, the defendants have designated an expert who will testify on the issue of causation. These experts will opine that plaintiff has not been injured by any action, or claimed inaction, by the defendants.

The Defendants’ Alleged Medical Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause Of The Plaintiffs Injuries.

If a result to a patient would have occurred in the ordinary course of events anyway and independently of anything done or not done by a physician, the result cannot be said to have been caused by the physician. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 479; Deckard v. Sorenson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 305, 308; Bennett v. Los Angeles Tumor Institute (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 293, 296 and Frantz v. San Luis Medical Center, supra.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Dr. Wong examined plaintiff on December 8, 2009. He noted a problem with lateral tracking of the patella. Plaintiff complained of pain in the anterolateral and lateral aspect of the left knee and lateral aspect of the left leg. He recommended studies including a standing long leg alignment from hip to ankle of both legs, merchant views of both knees, and possibly a CT scan of both hip and distal femur. It should be noted that an x-ray taken on January 1, 2005 shows the patella sitting fine and in good position.

On January 20, 2005, Dr. Wong saw plaintiff for a follow-up consultation. Dr. Wong’s diagnosis was instability and maltracking of the patella. Dr. Wong equated this to a mechanical or soft tissue problem. He again recommended that plaintiff obtain a study of a weight-bearing alignment film from hip to ankle and merchant views of both knees. After obtaining weight-bearing films on February 3, 2005, his diagnosis was directed toward the dislocation being due to soft tissue problems on the lateral side. Dr. Wong did not chart any changes in the rotational alignment of the components. He recommended that plaintiff consider a revision surgery to the patellar component.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The plaintiff returned one week later on August 23, 2009, complaining of severe left knee pain. Dr. Hall did not observe any bruising, gaps or tears in the muscle, or bogginess like after the November 14 surgery, but instead noted that plaintiff had good range of motion and strong quadriceps. Dr. Hall advised plaintiff to follow up in three to four weeks.

When the plaintiff returned on September 13, 2009, she complained to a physician assistant that she could not walk without discomfort. However, Dr. Hall examined plaintiff while she was walking and observed her gait to be normal with no pain. Plaintiff described a feeling of insecurity with the patella. Dr. Hall noted plaintiffs quadriceps were intact with good tone and power. Range of motion was normal and she could perform SLR. He prescribed a stabilizing brace because he observed that the patella seemed to be off and told her to follow up in four weeks.

Plaintiff returned on October 6, 2009 complaining of severe pain and a burning sensation in her left knee. Dr. Hall found plaintiff’s quadriceps continuing to improve and had good strength, extension, and flexion. The x-rays were satisfactory with some lateral subluxation, but clinically, Dr. Hall felt plaintiff was doing well.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Plaintiff, Billie Johnson, will, pursuant to her previously filed Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, and does hereby, move the Court for an order to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury and judgment entered pursuant thereto in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Johnson, and to grant Plaintiff a new trial on each of her claims against Defendant for professional negligence pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §657 and §657.6 in particular.

This motion will be based on this Notice; the evidence presented at trial; all pleadings, papers and records in this action; the minutes of the Court; and this memorandum of points and authorities; and such additional argument as the Court may permit Plaintiffs to present.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Prefatory Statement

A new trial is proper upon a showing that due to procedural or legal error, an issue of fact requires re-examination after trial by jury, court or referee. Civ. Proc. Code §656. The error must result in a miscarriage of justice. Cal. Const. Art. VI, §13. Upon proper showing, the jury’s verdict and subsequent judgment may be vacated … and a new and further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on application of the party aggrieved … Civ. Proc. Code §657.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›