It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this trip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Albert Greene was injured in a fall at the Sacramento National Sporting Goods store on February 17, 2005. Thereafter, Mr. Greene received medical care and treatment from Defendants Black, Lee, Wong, and Sacramento Valley Medical Center. Mr. Greene was hospitalized for five days after which he was transferred to convalesce for three weeks of physical therapy with no more than a soft collar, and released to home.
Mr. Greene separated from his wife, Frances Greene, on March 11, 2006. Thereafter, Mr. Greene became a resident of an assisted living home in Sacramento, California with his daughter Sylvia Smith exercising a healthcare power of attorney. On April 13, 2006, Ms. Smith arranged for a mobile radiologist to conduct a head-to-toe CT scan due to his decline in mobility. Mr. Greene’s three fractured cervical vertebrae were then discovered. Neurosurgeon, Dr. William White, MD, subsequently performed a full cervical laminectomy in May 2006.
Mr. Greene died on June 23, 2007.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION DOES NOT SATISFY HER BURDEN UNDER CCP § 437c
Summary Judgment is a drastic procedure which is to be used with caution to avoid becoming a substitute for the fact finding process of trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Two Hig v. Bhner (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1105. Moving papers are strictly construed against granting the motion, while opposing papers are liberally construed in favor of denial. Stratton v. First National Life Insurance Co. (1998) 210 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1083. All doubts about the propriety of the motion are resolved against the summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims. Hereda v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1345, at 1353-1354.
A party moving for summary judgment has the burden to furnish supporting documents establishing that the claims of the other party are entirely without merit on any legal theory. Swartzendruber v. City of San Diego (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1896.
A Defendant who moves for Summary Judgment must either prove an affirmative defense which would bar every cause of action pled in the complaint or disprove at least one essential element of each cause of action in the complaint. Chevron USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1544.
Defendant’s Motion herein fails to meet its burden under CCP § 437c in that it fails to provide 1) admissible evidence 2) of an undisputed fact, which 3) either proves an affirmative defense of disapproves at least one essential element of each cause of action. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.