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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

When Mr. Black entered JFK on September 25, 2007, his skin assessment showed no wound or pressure ulcer. Mr. Black required turning every two hours around the clock. The nursing records disclose that that necessary intervention did not occur on multiple occasions, with periods of 3 hours, 4 hours, and 7 hours where there was no turning.

By the time Mr. Black was discharged from JFK on October 4, 2007, he had developed pressure ulcers which progressed and worsened after his discharge.

As is set forth below, the development of pressure ulcers in this paraplegic patient was not the result of an isolated episode of inadvertence by a JFK employee. Rather, this entirely preventable injury was caused by repeated episodes of neglect over a period of days by multiple employees of JFK. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In order to be entitled to enhanced remedies, plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with recklessness, i.e. engaging in conduct while appreciating the probability that the conduct would cause harm. The First Amended Complaint sets forth facts alleging such conduct on the part of managing agents of its acute care hospital. They describe a systemic breakdown in the carrying out of well-established pressure ulcer prevention protocols by multiple caregivers over multiple days. That breakdown is alleged to have been caused by improper training, improper supervision, improper chart review, improper competency assessment and/or improper staffing levels, or a combination of these factors.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

Physicians and other health care providers, as well as hospitals, can be held liable under the elder abuse statutes. That was the holding in Mack v. Soung (2000) 80 Cal.App. 4th 966. Such persons have care and custody of an elder within the meaning of the elder abuse statutes when they undertake to care for an elder. The Court summed up its holding as follows:

Delaney establishes that health care providers are not exempt from liability for reckless neglect simply because the cause of action arises from the rendition of health care services. Mack v. Soung, supra, at 974.

Each of the required elements of proof to support a claim for reckless neglect of an elder is set out in the First Amended Complaint and is supported by specifically alleged facts. Those allegations together may be summarized as follows. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Aaron Talbot, an elder and dependent adult within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Statutes (W&I Code §15600 et seq.), was admitted to JFK on September 25, 2007. He was diagnosed with a cervical spine fracture. Mr. Black had pre-existing paraplegia. For this reason and because he had a neck fracture, he was at high risk for the development of pressure ulcers.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT
Law Applicable to Demurrers

It is axiomatic that a demurrer does not test the sufficiency of evidence or other extrinsic matters. Four Star Electric v. F&H Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App. 4th 1375, 1379, The only issue for the Court to resolve on demurrer is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matter, states a cause of action. Gervase v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App. 4th 1218, 1224. The judge’s function on demurrer is to treat properly pleaded facts as true without consideration of whether they are provable or not. Ibid.

While these rules of determining a demurrer are well known, it is often valuable to remind the moving party of them. In the case at bar, if each properly pleaded fact in the First Amended Complaint were stipulated to be true, the defendant could not argue that the plaintiff would not be entitled to a verdict under the Elder Abuse Statutes. This is another way of expressing the standard for judging a demurrer. When properly viewed in this way, it is plain that defendant’s demurrer is without merit. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff Has Pleaded Facts Sufficient to State a Cause of Action for Reckless Neglect of an Elder

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is Uncertain Because There Are No Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices

Business & Professions Code §17200 (aka Unfair Competition Law or UCL ) prohibits unfair competition, which includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. An unfair business act occurs if it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. To plead Business & Professions Code §17200, plaintiff must state with reasonable particularity facts to support the statutory elements of the violation. Khoury v. Malv’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612.

Here, plaintiff’s complaint, at page 5, sets forth a claim titled Unfair Business Practices and alleges that plaintiff’s allegations as set forth before and general allegations below constitute the facts in support of this claim. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose 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, 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 pattern of neglect in not following said basic treatments and assessments was not an isolated episode of inadvertence by a single practitioner, but was evidence of institutional indifference in that multiple employees on multiple occasions neglected Aaron. The repeated failure of the staff to follow well-known protocols for the prevention of pressure ulcers and other conditions to which Aaron was susceptible is a gross departure from any standard of care and is evidence of a reckless disregard of health and safety of patients by the managing agents, officers, owners and operators of defendants. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further allegations of reckless institutional neglect are set out in paragraph 26, wherein it is alleged that managing agents of JFK, including the Administrator and Director of Nursing, consistently failed to properly train the nursing staff, repeatedly failed to engage in chart review to assure that proper care planning and treatment was occurring, repeatedly failed to assess the competency of the nursing staff and knowing of the neglect of Mr. Black, took no remedial action.

Paragraphs 19 and 20 set out duties which JFK was required to carry out but failed to do so with references to State and Federal regulations. The breaches of duty all relate to the failure to properly initiate a care plan and carry out a care plan to protect Aaron Talbot from compromise to his health and safety, i.e. the development of pressure ulcers.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The First Cause of Action details the facts which would support a verdict for reckless neglect of an elder on the part of JFK.

It is alleged that Aaron was a patient under the care of JFK from September 25, 2007 through October 4, 2007, with a diagnosis of neck fracture. It is further alleged that Mr. Black suffered from pre-existing paraplegia and, while at JFK, he was plainly dependent upon JFK for virtually all activities of daily living. Paragraph 14 goes on to allege that because of Mr. Black’s condition, JFK knew that he was at high risk for the development of pressure ulcers and that, if they were allowed to develop, they would be difficult to treat because of Mr. Black’s bed-bound status and that there was a significant risk of serious consequences from their progression. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The First Amended Complaint with specificity alleges that the nurses at JFK knew or were obligated to know thatMr. Black was required to be repositioned at a minimal interval of every two hours in order for a proper ulcer-prevention care plan to be carried out.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JFK HOSPITAL’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION

Defendant JFK demurs to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to plead sufficient facts to support a claim for reckless neglect of an elder in violation of Welfare & Institutions Code § J 5600 et seq.

Defendant’s demurrer is without merit and is of a type filed as a matter of course in virtually all elder abuse cases. Its principal purpose is to add a burden to plaintiffs bringing such cases which was not intended by the legislature. In point of fact, the legislature in §15600 of the Welfare & Institutions Code expressed as its purpose in enacting the Elder Abuse Statutes to encourage lawyers and others to take up the cause of the neglected elderly because representation had been difficult to obtain previously due to the vagaries of the law. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s pleading in the case at bar is far more particular in its factual pleading than would be required under standard notice pleading rules. It alleges facts and includes specific charging allegations which if supported by evidence at trial would justify a verdict in plaintiff’s favor on a cause of action for reckless neglect of an elder.

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.

EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE LIABILITY IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION

In a medical malpractice action, the requisite standard of care is determined by the applicable standard of care then existing in the particular professional community. Barton v. Owens (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 139 Cal.Rptr. 494. In Linderos v. Flood (1976) 170 Cal.3d 399, 551 P.2d 389, 131 Cal.Rptr. 69, the Supreme Court determined that the standard of care against which the acts of physicians are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts and can only be proven by their testimony. The rationale for requiring expert testimony in medical malpractice actions was succinctly stated by the court in Barton:

In most instances there is a need for expert testimony on the subject of just what constitutes medical negligence, because the average judge or juror does not possess the necessary level of knowledge about medical malpractice to decide on its own whether the doctor was negligent.
Barton at 494, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 499. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290 provides in relevant part as follows:

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In this case, defendant LMN Hospital propounded Form and Special Interrogatories on plaintiff on October 23, 2007. Plaintiff’s responses were due on November 30, 2007. Responses have not been served and all objections have been waived. (C.C.P. §2030.290.) Despite an attempt to meet and confer with plaintiff regarding these delinquent discovery responses, moving defendant has never received any responses from plaintiff. Therefore, defendant requests this Court to order that all objections to the Form and Special Interrogatories are waived, and issue an order compelling plaintiff to provide responses to the Form and Special Interrogatories.

Request for Production of Documents
Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 provides in relevant part as follows:

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 medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANT LMN HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff, William Brown, initiated a medical malpractice action against LMN Hospital on May 11, 2007.

On October 23, 2007, defendant LMN Hospital served a Request for Statement of Damages, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents by way of regular United States mail on plaintiff. Plaintiff’s statement of damages was due on or before November 12, 2007. Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents were due on or before November 30, 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On December 3, 2007, our office sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery. We asked plaintiff to provide objection free responses on or before December 23, 2007, to avoid a motion to compel. This motion is now necessitated by plaintiff’s continued failure to provide any discovery responses.

Continue Reading ›