Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

In addition to the above mentioned, it was believed and further alleged that decedent was exposed to asbestos fibers, particles, and dust as a result of construction remodel work performed on his own personal residences and during the time employed as a maintenance worker at the JV School District, which occurred from the mid-1960s until the late 1970s. As a result of such work, decedent mixed, sanded, and applied joint compound products manufactured/supplied/sold by the following defendants: BI Inc./PM International Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to PM Inc. (BD joint compound); GP Corporation (GP joint compound); and KG Company Inc. (KG joint compound). Upon information and belief, such joint compound did not have a warning on the containers regarding the dangers associated with asbestos, and decedent, as such, did not protect himself with a mask when working with the joint compound products.

CLAIMED INJURIES

According to Defendant: Death; loss of consortium.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

During the time decedent performed the various jobs described, and while working on his own personal automobiles, decedent worked on and/or worked around others working on disc brakes, drum brakes, and manual transmissions. Plaintiffs alleged that decedent and his co-workers routinely replaced, maintained, and performed brake repairs and clutch repairs. Specifically, decedent testified to working on the brake assemblies on automobiles, big rig trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses, which included preparing the wheel wells to replace worn and used brakes and sanding, grinding, and arcing brake shoes for a proper fit to the brake drums. Plaintiffs also alleged that decedent blew dust out of the brake drum, as well as cleaning the brakes using his hands and brushes and/or blowing out the dust in the brakes. Decedent additionally testified to preparing clutches for installation and cleaning out the clutch assemblies with either his hands or an air hose in preparation for replacement. Moreover, after such work was performed, decedent and his co-workers would sweep up. Upon information and belief, this work with asbestos-containing friction products caused decedent to be exposed to airborne asbestos fibers.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

Defendants also contended that plaintiffs had previously blamed the U.S. Navy and several other entities. They contended that decedent was exposed to various asbestos-containing equipment, products, or auxiliary equipment while serving on board ships in the U.S. Navy, including, but not limited to: C Company (C valves); GS Technologies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to G Inc. (G gaskets and packing); OMI Industries Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DLS Turbine Company (DL pumps and turbines); and Y Corporation (Y steam traps and valves).

Plaintiffs had also previously alleged that decedent was also exposed to asbestos fibers, particles, and/or dust from the work with (including installation, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, repair, and/or removal), or supply of, asbestos-containing products or materials from the following defendant contractors: MS and Associates Inc., TD Engineering Company Inc., and TAM Shop Inc. Moreover, upon information and belief, none of the above-mentioned contractor/supplier defendants provided decedent with any warning about the dangers of asbestos or provided him with a mask to protect him from such exposures. As a result, decedent was unaware of his need for any type of safety devices to specifically reduce his possible exposure to, or inhalation of, asbestos fibers, particles and/or dust, and did not use any such devices.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Defendant: Decedent, a 75-year-old retired maintenance man, shade tree mechanic, home remodeler, and former boiler tender/fireman in the Navy, died of pleural mesothelioma on October 11, 2007. Plaintiffs, surviving spouse, and adult children alleged that several defendants manufactured, distributed, or sold asbestos-containing products to which decedent was exposed.

Plaintiffs alleged that decedent’s exposure to work as a shade tree mechanic and work while a part-time mechanic for four years exposed him to brake-wear debris and wear debris from clutches that contained asbestos. Decedent would use an air hose to blow out brake wear debris from brake drums. Plaintiffs also alleged that decedent’s work with ABC joint compound exposed him to asbestos in the joint compound.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The Declaration of Defendant’s Medical Expert Is Insufficient On Its Face to Preclude Existence of a Genuine Issue of Fact for Trial Because He Omits Any Account or Explanation for Defendant’s Failure to Treat the Decedent During the Critical 2-Day Period from December 30 to January 2, 2009.

Defendant’s medical expert’s, James G. Chin, M.D., declaration on its face is insufficient to preclude existence of a triable issue of fact at trial. In his declaration, he does not mention the symptoms and signs of sepsis which the Decedent exhibited on December 31, 2008. (Chin Decl. 28). Dr. Chin only mentioned the Decedent’s urine output on December 31, 2008. Decl. 28). Dr. Chin acknowledges that the Decedent’s temperature jumped to 103.2 and his white blood cell count was 18.5. Significantly, he does not acknowledge existence of other symptoms or signs of sepsis the Decedent exhibited on January 1, 2009, and he does not identify any treatment Defendant provided him on December 31 and January 1 for his symptoms and signs of sepsis.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

A Genuine Issue of Fact Exists for Trial Whether or Not the the Care and Treatment of the Decedent Fell Below the Standard of Care.

Plaintiff’s offers expert medical testimony that the care and treatment rendered the Decedent fell below the standard of care. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that for two (2) days, 48 hours, Defendants failed to treat the Decedent with broad spectrum antibiotics and surgical debridement. When Defendants got around to ordering broad spectrum antibiotics and considered surgical debridement it was too late. The need to immediately start the Decedent on a broad spectrum of antibiotics should have been apparent to the medical personnel who were caring for him. On December 31, 2008, the Decedent had multiple signs of sepsis. He had rapid increase in temperature, dramatic increase in white blood cell count, persistent tachycardia (rapid heart beat), and increasing agitation. These are telltale symptoms and sign of sepsis.

The previous day, December 30, the Decedent’s white blood cell count jumped from 8.1 to 13.2, and, on December 31, his white blood cell count increased to 19.2, and, by 4 p.m., his temperature jumped to 102 degrees.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CMC Is Liable for the Decedent’s Death Resulting from the Errors and Omissions of Medical Personnel

A hospital, whether private or charitable, is liable for the torts and negligence of its employees, including physicians, under the theory of respondeat superior. Czubinsky v. Doctors Hospital ( 1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 361; and Elam v. College Park Hospital (1982) 132 Cal. App. 3d 332. A hospital is negligent if it does not use reasonable care toward its patients. It is the duty of any hospital that undertakes the treatment of an ill or wounded person to use reasonable care and diligence not only in operating upon and treating but also in safeguarding him, and such care and diligence is measured by the capacity of the patient to care for himself. Valentin v. La Societe Francaise de Bienfaisance Mutuelle (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 1,4.

Negligence “is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of harm.” (Rest. 2d Torts, §282.) Defendants were required to exercise the care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances.’ (Citations omitted) Because application of this principle is inherently situational, the amount of care deemed reasonable in any particular case will vary, while at the same time the standard of conduct itself remains constant, i.e., due care commensurate with the risk posed by the conduct taking into consideration all relevant circumstances.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

REASONS WHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED
The Standards Governing Motions for Summary Judgment

A party moving for summary judgment has both a burden of persuasion and a burden of production of evidence. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, and Evidence Code §500. The moving parties bear the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra. There is no obligation on the opposing party … to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor. Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 454, 468.

In professional malpractice cases, expert opinion testimony is required to prove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care [citation], except in cases where the negligence is obvious to laymen. Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 735, 741, citing and quoting Kelly v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal, App. 4th 519,523. Once the moving party meets its burden of production, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence to show there is a triable issue fact as to any essential elements of its cause of action. Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996), 47 Cal. App. 4th 1461, 1465.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

According to the autopsy report of the County Coroner, the cause of death was sepsis (overwhelming infection). The Decedent died on January 3, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.

The misplaced Foley catheter balloon contributed to the sepsis in two ways: First, infected urine that cannot drain, backs up into the kidneys under pressure leading to seeding of bacteria into the blood stream and leads to rapid overwhelming infection. Second, the infection of the urine accompanied by urethral damage led to periurethral abscess formation and ultimately gangrene of the scrotum and perineum.

On December 29, 2008, the Decedent’s white blood cell count had jumped from 8.1 to 13.2 on December 30, 2008, and jumped to 19.2 on December 31, 2008, the day the fevers started.
Based upon the symptoms and signs the Decedent exhibited, the appropriate treatment of the Decedent was: immediate initiation of broad spectrum antibiotics and surgical debridement.

On December 31, 2008, the Decedent had multiple signs of sepsis. He had rapid increase in temperature, dramatic increase in white blood cell count, persistent tachycardia (rapid heart beat), and increasing agitation. These are telltale signs of sepsis.

Two days (48 hours) elapsed from the time the Decedent initially began spiking fevers to the time antibiotics were started.

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 22, 2008, David White, the Decedent, a 44-year-old male, was transported by ambulance to National Hospital, operated by Defendant (CMC), after sustaining a stab wound to his neck. The stab wound was serious but not life threatening. His injuries required two operations by the Trauma Service to stop bleeding vessels in his neck.

During his hospital stay, the Decedent exhibited signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, which included tremor, hallucinations, agitation, sweating and rapid pulse. He was treated appropriately with Ativan, Haldol, and IV Thiamine supplementation for his symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.

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

Until December 30, 2008, the Decedent’s behavior, vital signs, and lab work remained fairly stable. On December 30, his white blood cell count jumped from 8.1 to 13.2.
On December 31, 2008, the Decedent’s white blood cell count increased to 19.2, and by
4 p.m. his temperature had jumped up to 102 degrees. He continued to have fevers throughout the night and continued with increasing temperatures on January 1, 2009 to 103.5 degrees by

6 a.m.

On January 2, 2009 at 10:30 a.m., for the first time medical personnel at National Hospital sought a source of the infection and cultures were ordered. Antibiotics were not ordered until 3 p.m. on January 2, 2009.

Continue reading

Contact Information