Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)
On that issue, defendant has failed to meet her prima facie burden because her moving papers do not include any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that Ms. Smith’s fall treatment had concluded as of April 30. Nowhere in the evidence offered there does any health care provider opine that the care for the fall had concluded or the care that came afterward was completely unrelated to the fall. Again, nowhere do the words appear in Defendant’s evidence that care for the fall had concluded. Without some evidence to that effect, the defendant has failed to meet its burden of producing evidence.
The defense asks the court to make an enormous leap of faith and make that finding by attaching to their attorney’s declaration without foundation medical records that reflect pain medications were discontinued and discharge planning commenced. For the reasons stated in plaintiff’s objections submitted herewith, this evidence is inadmissible to prove her care for the fall had concluded.
Thirdly, there is at least a factual dispute on the question of whether some or all of decedent’s hospital care after April 30, was for the fall. Plaintiff, and logic, dispute any notion that on April 30, 2005, Ms. Smith’s care for the fall had concluded. Tammy Bauer, who guided the medical care from the patient’s standpoint declared that the care in the hospital for the fall continued during Ms. Smith’s entire stay as she continued to have severe or intractable left thoracic pain.
Dr. S., who defendant claims treated Ms. Smith for the fall as she concluded that pain medications the decedent received in the hospital for injuries in the fall may be causing her altered level of consciousness. Similarly, Dr. S. also considered whether or not the seizure disorder she was asked to consult for had caused the many falls decedent had suffered leading up to the final one that put the decedent in XYZ Hospital.
6. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Tammy Bauer, respectfully requests that the Motion of Defendant UNIVERSAL HOMES OF CALIFORNIA for Summary Judgment be denied.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.