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, U.C. 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

LIABILITY

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall departed from the standard of care with respect to the care of Kim Smith. Dr.Hall was the captain of the ship regarding the surgery. Fields v. Yusuf (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1381, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277 holds the captain of the ship doctrine imposes liability on a surgeon under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts of those under the surgeons special supervision and control during the operation.

Dr. Lee breached the standard of care as he was performing the actual part of procedure that led to Ms. Smith’s demise. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Additionally, plaintiff was under sole care of defendant(s) at the time of the incident and Drs. Hall and Lee have liability on res ipsa theory.

Dr. White negligently failed to medicate and “worked up” decedent’s underlying infection, leading to full device system infection, which was the underlying cause of the need for surgery. True copies of the curriculum vitae of John Black, M..D. and Ray Brown, M.D., and a copy of the declaration of Dr. Black regarding Dr. Lee are available.

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, U.C. 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

The decision was made to open up decedent’s chest. There was absolutely no blood in the pericardium. The right chest was filled with blood. Large bore catheters were placed including one on the atrium. Rapid blood and fluid infusion was implemented. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On exploration, Dr. Hall found shearing of the right subclavian vein, innominate vein and complete shredding of the superior vena cava. The AICD lead (i.e. the V-lead) was found to have a large swath of superior vena cava and parietal pleura. The azygos vein had been sheared and retracted deep into the chest and was bleeding swiftly. Needless to say, Ms. Smith died unnecessarliy.

In the circumstances of this case, the applicable standard of care required the surgeons (i.e. Hall and Gamic) to stop the procedure when there were drops in blood pressure while “tugging on the lead.” It is common for defibrillator lead, which have coils attached, to become overgrown with tissue in the vessels. This is why one must proceed with caution when trying to cut or lase the leads free of the vessels. Subject defendant physicians should have halted the procedure to assess the problem and explore alternatives, e.g. use of fluoroscopy to explore the area to determine the cause and extent to the problem, use of trans-esophogeal echo to evaluate, etc. The fact the blood pressure was dropping upon “tugging” of the lead and rebounding when traction on the lead was released is evidence the lead was firmly attached to the vessel, and the blood pressure drop was either a reflex from pulling on the myocardium or from blood loss. Either one of these situations would require halting the procedure to evaluate the situation and assess proper action.

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, U.C. 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
INTRODUCTION

This is a medical malpractice action.

Decedent, Kim Smith (DOB: XX/XX/63; DOD: XX/XX/08), developed pregnancy-related cardiomyopathy in 2003 and was fitted with a AICD (Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator). She had five children – 3 minors aged 4, 10 and 13.

On November 8, 2008, decedent had surgery at Memorial Hospital for replacement of the defibrillator (by surgeon, Phillip White). She had infection following this surgery and was readmitted December 20-22, 2008. Discharge diagnosis was left chest cellulitis at site of AICD with a culture positive for pseudomonas aeruginosa. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Decedent was scheduled for pacemaker and lead extraction secondary to the infection at Memorial Hospital by David Hall (surgeon) on January 19, 2009. This is a percutaneous laser lead extraction. Stephen Lee, an interventional radiologist, was the assistant surgeon. Dr. Lee operated the laser lead extractor during the procedure.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

THE CARE RENDERED BY DEFENDANT IN NO WAY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES COMPLAINED OF BY PLAINTIFF

In addition to proving that the defendant fell below the standard of care, to prevail in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s malpractice caused injury to the plaintiff. Bolen v. Woo (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 944, 953. The standard for establishing causation in a medical malpractice action was set forth in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396. In Jones, the court held that causation must be proven by reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. The court noted that a mere possibility is insufficient to establish a prima facie case and distinguished a reasonable medical probability from a medical possibility:

There can be many possible causes, indeed an indefinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or death. A possible cause only becomes probable when in the absence of other reasonable causal connections, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action.” Id. at 402-403. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges that defendants committed professional malpractice in that they performed procedures “in a negligent manner and below the standard of care,” and that despite plaintiff’s history of diabetes and gradually worsening condition of his cut, defendants, including Richard Brown, M.D., “conservatively treated and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat [plaintiff’s] medical condition,” resulting in severe and painful gangrene to his right foot.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence action could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

Plaintiff Must Join All Persons Necessary for Just Adjudication

A complaint shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons who, by their absence, may leave the defendant subject to risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. If such persons are not joined as parties, the pleader must state in the complaint why they are not joined. C.C.P. §389(a) & (c).

If any person is allied in interest with plaintiff, but refuses to join as a co-plaintiff, he or she may be sued as a defendant. In such cases, the complaint must state the reasons why such person was so joined. C.C.P. §382. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff alleges that he is the “surviving heirs (sic) at law” of decedent. It is unclear whether there are other persons with standing to bring suit in this wrongful death action.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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, U.C. 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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

The issues in each action are intertwined and incapable of being severed. A single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration. Id. at 1153. In Heritage, an independent practice association (“IPA”) sued a healthcare provider network (“Heritage”), two medical groups, and four individual physicians who had terminated their relationship with the IPA and entered into agreements with Heritage. Id. at 1150-1151. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The IPA alleged causes of action for (i) breach of contract against the medical groups and the physicians, (ii) inducement of breach of contract against Heritage and one of the medical groups, and (iii) improper disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets against the medical groups. Id. While the physicians successfully moved to compel arbitration of the IPA’s breach of contract claims, the trial court denied Heritage’s motion to stay the proceedings because there was not enough similar issues to stay the civil litigation while the arbitration’s pending. Id. at 1151-1152. The appellate court reversed because it found that at least one issue in the IPA’s breach of contract claim against the physicians, which was subject to arbitration, overlapped with issues in its remaining claims against Heritage, such that Heritage was entitled to a stay pending the outcome of arbitration. Id. at 1152-1153.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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, U.C. 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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

C.C.P. §1281.4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this state or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this state, the court in which this action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specified.
[…]

If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only. C.C.P. § 1281.4. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

C.C.P. § 1281.4 is clear and unambiguous. Any party to a judicial proceeding is entitled to a stay of those proceedings whenever (1) the arbitration of a controversy has been ordered, and (2) that controversy is also an issue involved in the pending judicial action. Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152. A controversy can be a single question of law or fact, and a stay shall be issued upon proper motion if the court has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is also an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before it. Id. It is irrelevant under the statute whether the movant is a party to the arbitration agreement. Id.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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, U.C. 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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was admitted to JFK on or about September 25, 2006, for treatment of a cervical spine fracture. He was discharged from JFK on or about October 4, 2006, and transferred to JFK Hospital, Roseville. On or about October 8, 2006, he was transferred to JFK Folsom. In January 2007, he was transferred to JFK Post Acute Care Center, and was then discharged home on or about February 1, 2007.

Plaintiff claims that during his care at these various facilities, defendants failed, inter alia, to monitor his condition and to prevent the development and progression of his pressure ulcers. In connection with these events, he brings causes of action for elder abuse and negligence against JFK and JFK. For relief, he seeks general and special damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees from JFK and JFK. The initial Complaint for Damages was filed on September 24, 2007. The First Amended Complaint for Damages was filed on February 20, 2008. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on May 29, 2008. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

With respect to JFK, Plaintiff was enrolled as a member of JFK Health Plan, Inc. (the “Health Plan”). The Health Plan contains an arbitration provision which requires that all of his claims against JFK be submitted to binding arbitration.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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, U.C. 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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

JFK HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL ARBITRATION IS COMPLETED
INTRODUCTION

In his First Amended Complaint for Damages, Plaintiff Aaron Black sued defendant JFK Hospital (“JFK”) in connection with his pressure ulcers which were allegedly caused by the defendant’s alleged failure to provide him with adequate care and assistance beginning in the fall of 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In accordance with an agreement Plaintiff made with JFK Hospital, and upon JFK’s motion, the Court ordered that Plaintiff and JFK arbitrate the matters raised in the First Amended Complaint for Damages against JFK. Since the Court’s order, Plaintiff has filed his Second Amended Complaint for Damages following the sustainment of JFK’s demurrer. Given that the matter to be arbitrated involves the same causes of action and alleged injuries (i.e., pressure ulcers) that plaintiff alleges against JFK in the Second Amended Complaint for Damages … ,

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

In this case, the attached declaration of Darla King, M.D. provides competent expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care. Dr. King is a very qualified, Board Certified vascular surgeon. The expert testimony of Dr. King should be taken as conclusive as to the issues in this lawsuit. Importantly, an expert’s own declaration is sufficient to show the absence of triable issues for purposes of summary judgment, and the motion shall not be denied on the grounds of credibility if the party is otherwise entitled to summary judgment. Learner v. Superior Court (1970) 70 Cal.App.3d 656, 660, 130 Cal.Rptr. 51, 54. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Here, the only material issues raised are whether or not Dr. Brown fell below the standard of care and, if so, whether this resulted in injury. However, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Dr. Brown’s care and treatment of plaintiff, including his recommendation of a right below-the-knee amputation, was proper and correct and, therefore, at no time did Dr. Brown fall below the standard of care in the community where he practices, nor did he cause or contribute to plaintiff’s injuries. In fact, as the declaration of Dr. King illustrates, Dr. Brown’s care and treatment of plaintiff was both correct and within the standard of care required of a reasonable vascular surgeon practicing in the professional community.

Continue Reading ›