Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

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

Allocation of Arbitration Fees

Article 3 of the Defendant Black’s Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement requires that each party pay for the cost of arbitration and the pro rata share of the arbitrator’s fees. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In Armendariz the employees were required to pay their pro-rata share of the expenses and fees of the arbitrator and to pay for all other expenses incurred. The Court in Armendariz states that … it would undermine Congress’s intent to prevent employees who are seeking to vindicate statutory rights from gaining access to a judicial forum and then require them to pay for the services of an arbitrator when they would never be required to pay for a judge in Court. Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal. 4th 108. The Supreme Court stated that arbitration is imposed by the employer and occurs at the employer’s option. Therefore arbitration fees should be borne solely by the employer. Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal. 4th 108, citing Cole v. Burns Intern. Security Services (D.C. Cir. 1997) 105 F. 3d 1484-1485.

Arbitration fees can be upwards to $8,000.00 per day or greater. (The daily fee for many retired judges, for instance, providing services for JAMS.) If Ms. Hall, who is a mother and homemaker, and Mr. Hall, who is a construction worker, both in a similar economic position as the employees in Armendariz, must pay the prohibitive cost of arbitration, they would be substantially deterred from bringing a claim for medical negligence.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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.

Only an expert can determine what relationship Plaintiff’s mental health problems have to his CRPS/RSD, and/or whether they are related to or caused by pre-existing mental health issues. Defendant understands that Plaintiff may attempt to present Plaintiff’s severe mental health problems at trial as side effects of his CRPS/RSD, and as a component of his damages. As such, a mental examination of Mr. Smith is necessary to Defendant’s defense. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant therefore requests a court order allowing plaintiff to undergo a psychiatric examination by David Black, M.D., a psychiatrist, in San Jose, California. Defense counsel understands that the examination will involve a discussion between Plaintiff and Dr. Rappaport regarding Plaintiff’s relevant personal, medical and mental health history and his ongoing mental health problems and medical and psychological stressors.

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 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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Additionally, it is well settled that:

California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence. Munro v. Regents of the University of California, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at pp. 984-985 (quoting Hutchinson v. United States (1988) 838 F.2nd 390.) [Emphasis added.]

Expert Review of the Instant Case Establishes that the Conduct of Dr. Lee Was Within the Community Standard of Care.

The instant case is a medical malpractice action involving allegations which are beyond a layman’s knowledge. Thus, under Landeros and Munro, whether or not the care ar d treatment rendered by Dr. Lee was within the standard of care is a matter exclusively with: In the province of expert testimony. Therefore, Dr. Lee supports his motion with an expert declaration from Robert White, M.D. establishing that the care and treatment rendered by him was within t he standard of care for a vascular surgeon.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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 role of expert testimony in a medical malpractice action was explained in Willard v. Hagenmeister, (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406:

Expert evidence in a malpractice suit is conclusive as to the proof of the prevailing standard of care and learning in the locality and of the propriety of particular conduct by the practitioner in particular instances because such standard and skills is not a matter of general knowledge and can only be supplied by expert testimony. Willard, supra, at page 412; citations omitted. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

See also Blackwell v. Hurst (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 939, 943 (holding that the standard of care in a professional negligence case can be proven only by expert testimony); Norman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1250-1251 (discussing presentation of expert testimony with respect to the standard of care in an elder abuse case.)

Continue Reading ›

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

Here, Article 2 of Defendant Black’s arbitration agreement begins in bold type stating: “All Claims Must Be Arbitrated.” This long clause goes on to state that “… this agreement shall cover all claims or controversies whether in tort, contract, or otherwise ….”

On the other hand, the brief second clause of Article 2 states that: “Filing by physician of any action in court to collect any fee from patient shall not waive the right to compel arbitration of any malpractice claim. However, following the assertion of any claim against physician, any fee dispute, whether or not the subject of any existing court action, shall be resolved by arbitration.” For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

This arbitration agreement requires Ms. Hall to waive her constitutional right to a jury trial and arbitrate all her claims, even if she has a fee dispute with the physician, while on the other hand, Defendant Black is not obligated to waive his right to a jury trial for the only claim he would have against Ms. Hall, a fee dispute.

A one-sided term such as this is unconscionable because … the doctrine of unconscionability limits the extent to which the stronger party, may, through a contract of adhesion, impose the arbitration forum on the weaker party without accepting the forum for itself. Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal. 4th 118.

Continue Reading ›

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

Procedural Unconscionability

Ms. Hall was pregnant and in need of an obstetrician to deliver her baby. At her first visit to Dr. Black, Ms. Hall was presented with the arbitration agreement. She was told to sign it prior to being seen.

In Armendariz, the arbitration agreement was imposed on the employees as a condition of their employment. Here, Ms. Hall was essentially in the same position as the employees in Armendariz. She was required to sign the arbitration agreement or forego receiving prenatal care and delivery from Dr. Black. She was in an oppressive take it or leave it situation. Just as the employees in Armendariz were put in the position of signing an arbitration agreement or risk being unemployed, Ms. Hall was put in the weaker position of signing the arbitration agreement or risk not finding a doctor to deliver her baby. This is classic disparity of bargaining power. The arbitration agreement is therefore a contract of adhesion and is procedurally unconscionable.

Substantive Unconscionability

Defendant Black’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable in two respects, lack of mutuality and the allocation of fees for arbitration. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(1) Mutuality
An arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable if it is unfairly one-sided, requiring one party to the agreement to arbitrate their claims while the other party is not.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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.

As far as Defendant is aware, Plaintiff continues to have ongoing mental health problems. Plaintiff has asserted these problems as the reason why he has not yet completed his deposition in this case. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, because of Defendant’s alleged negligence, he is going to be required to seek medical and/or psychological services in the future. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has testified in his deposition that he has a pre-existing history of depression which was debilitating enough to cause him to miss work and to receive social security disability. Defendant’s medical records suggest other pre-existing mental health problems. Defendant has not been able to fully question Plaintiff about these matters, because Plaintiff has been unavailable for his deposition.

Because Plaintiff has ongoing psychiatric problems, which he alleges are related to, or caused by, his alleged CRPS/RSD, Defendant requested in November 2008 that Plaintiff stipulate to a mental examination. Plaintiff’s counsel refused.

Continue Reading ›

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

Unconscionability

As noted above, to obtain the benefits of C.C.P. Section 1295 and avoid challenges based on being a contract of adhesion and/or unconscionable, Defendant Black was required to comply with subdivision (e) which provides: Such a contract is not a contract of adhesion, nor unconscionable nor otherwise improper, where it complies with subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of this section. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant Black’s arbitration agreement fails to comply with subdivisions (a) and (c).

The unconscionability analysis begins with determining if the contract is one of adhesion. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., (2000) 24 Cal.4th 113, citing Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc, (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 807. An adhesion contract is one in which the drafting party with superior bargaining power gives the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it. Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal, 4th 113, citing Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 690, 694. These restrictions apply to healthcare providers.

Once a contract is determined to be adhesive, then two judicial limitations are placed on its enforcement. First, the contract will not be enforced if it does not meet the reasonable expectations of the adhering party. Second, even if the reasonable expectations of the adhering party are met, the contract will not be enforced if it is unconscionable. Armendariz. supra, 24 Cal. 4th 113, citing Scissor-Tail.Inc. supra, 28 Cal 3d 807.

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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this 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.

DR. STRONG IS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY AS TO THE STANDARD OF CARE APPLICABLE TO DEFENDANTS

To prevail against Defendants in this professional negligence action, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that Defendants’ care and treatment fell below the standard of care, and further, that Defendants’ conduct, if below the standard of care, caused or substantially contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The prevailing standard of care applicable to defendants can be introduced only through the use of qualified expert testimony. Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, 8 cal.4th 992 (1994); Munro v. Regents of the University of California, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 983-984; and Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 63 Cal.App.3d 396, 402. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The requisite standard of care is determined by the applicable standard of care that exists in a particular professional community. Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484. Thus, a health care provider is only required to exercise that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances Mann v. Cracchiolo, (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, at 36.

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 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/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

UNCONTRADICTED EXPERT TESTIMONY ESTABLISHES THAT THE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY DR. LEE WAS WITHIN THE STANDARD OF CARE AND DID NOT CAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED INJURIES

The Accepted Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Actions Must Be Established By Qualified Experts.

In a medical malpractice action based on professional negligence, a plaint must establish the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; a breach of that duty; a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, 229-230. When the defendant is accused of failing to adhere to accepted standards of practice, such standards may be established only by qualified expert testimony. Stephenson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1961) 203 Cal.App.2d 631, 635.

Specifically, the inherent nature of a medical malpractice action, along with the applicable standards of care, involve subject matter that is beyond the competency of laymen to address and therefore, must be addressed by a qualified expert. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.

Continue Reading ›