Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
THE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY DR. LEE DID NOT CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO PLAINTIFFS’ INJURIES
In California, the substantial factor test defines the scope of conduct subject to liability, i.e., conduct which is a cause in fact of a plaintiff’s claimed injury or harm. That test was set forth in Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041. A cause of injury, damage, loss or harm is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, damage, loss or harm. (Id. at 1052-1053.)
The element of causation is satisfied in a medical malpractice case when a plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to allow the jury to infer that in the absence of the defendant’s negligence, there was a reasonable medical probability the plaintiff would have obtained a better result. (Alef v. Alta Bates Hospital (1992) 5 Cal.App. 4th 208, 216.)
Plaintiffs cannot prove medical causation. Dr. Black’s opinion is to a reasonable degree of medical probability that none of the actions or inactions by Dr. Lee caused or contributed to any injury claimed by the minor plaintiff, Sean Brown.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Here, the evidence reflects that Dr. Lee appropriately managed the shoulder dystocia when it was encountered. He applied appropriate maneuvers followed by delivery of the posterior arm. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these maneuvers caused any injury to Sean Brown. (See Part 5 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.