Doctors At Sacramento Hospital Sued For Malpractice, Part 3 of 9

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

It is also 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.

Despite the clear lack of expertise of Dr. Lee regarding the standard of care for plastic surgery and nursing, the clear designation of Dr. Lee, Dr. Lee’s deposition testimony that he had no such opinions, and the fact that they are acting in contradiction to their own motion and the Order of the Court, Defendant Smith now wishes to call Dr. Lee at trial and elicit opinions regarding the standard of care for the surgeon and hospital and whether same were violated.

Counsel for Defendant Smith cites to a declaration filed early in the action, in which Dr. Lee acknowledges he has no expertise regarding the standard of care for surgeons and hospital staff but nonetheless volunteers some opinions regarding a few surgeon issues and nursing matters. This declaration was submitted only to the Court in a law and motion matter, and not to a jury, and since Defendant Smith withdrew their motion for summary judgment, the matter was never ruled upon. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Whether Dr. Lee expressed any opinions in his declaration regarding the plastic surgeon’s and nurses’ standard of care, is a moot point. Clearly, he is not qualified to opine in these areas and it would be a blatant violation of California Evidence Code sections 720 and 801 to allow or to force Dr. Lee to testify regarding topics about which he is not a qualified expert.

Likewise, this would be a violation of the Court’s own order and the holdings of Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907; Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App. 4th 557; and Bonds v. Ray (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140. Had Defendant Smith desired to put on expert testimony regarding these areas, he should have properly designated a qualified expert. (See Part 4 of 9.)

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

Contact Information