Delay In Treatment by Sacramento Hospital Leads To Wrongful Death, Part 3 of 5

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 action and its proceedings.)

Experts who do not have substantial professional experience in the emergency department within the last five years cannot testify as to the standard of emergency care, regardless of his or her expertise. Sigala v. Goldfarb (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1450, 1455-56 [266 Cal.Rtpr. 96].
Section 1799.110 applies to any suit involving a claim of negligent emergency room treatment by a hospital emergency room physician whether or not a physician is named as a defendant. Jutzi v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 637,646-47 [242 Cal.Rptr. 74].

Whether a proposed expert witness satisfies the requirements of Section1799.1 10 is an appropriate subject of a motion in limine. Miranda, supra, at 899, fn. 4.

Donald Li, M.D.

Defendants anticipate that plaintiffs will seek to admit the testimony of Dr. Donald Li, their retained general surgery expert, for the purposes of establishing that the treatment and care provided by Universal’s emergency room physician, Dr. Andrew Gold, was below the standard of care. At deposition, Dr. Li testified that Dr. Gold’s alleged failure to immediately contact an on-call general surgeon upon the patient’s presentation to the emergency department was below the standard of care. (Deposition of Donald Li, M.D.)

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

Dr. Li believes that Dr. Gold’s failure to promptly contact a general surgeon resulted in a delay in the patient receiving the required definitive treatment for his necrotizing fasciitis condition, which was, in his opinion, extensive surgical debridement. (Deposition of Dr. Li) Dr. Li’s comments in this regard go to the heart of his criticisms against Universal. In fact, Dr. Li explicitly testified that Dr. Gold’s purported failure to promptly notify a general surgeon was the hospital’s fundamental error. (Deposition of Dr. Li)

Dr. Li was also critical of Dr. Gold’s conclusion that the patient needed to be transferred because he was not going to be able to receive the appropriate care and treatment at the Universal facility. Dr. Li opined that Dr. Gold was not the appropriate person to make that decision and that Dr. Gold failed to “summon the proper person to make that decision in a timely manner.” Dr. Li felt that a transfer was not required because, in his opinion, Universal had the capability to provide the requisite surgical debridement right then and there. Further, Dr. Li opined that the debridement procedure could have been performed at “virtually any hospital.” (Deposition of Dr. Li) (See Part 4 of 5.)

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

Contact Information