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 wrongful death 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.
Defendant’s Purported Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause of Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries
Plaintiff must prove a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury. Bromme v. Pravitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1499; Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 611-612. Based on competent expert testimony, causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability. As discussed by the Court in Bromme, there is a distinction between a reasonable medical probability and medical possibility. Bromme at 1499. There may be many possible circumstances, which can produce an injury or death. However, Plaintiffs must establish that Defendants’ negligence was the substantial factor in the injury or death. Id. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In medical malpractice cases, the evidence must be sufficient to allow the jury to infer that, in the absence of defendant’s negligence, there was reasonable medical probability that the plaintiffs would have obtained a better result. Morganroth v. Pacific Medical Center (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 521, 533. Where the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion can be drawn, it is a question of law. See Hooks v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 435, 448 (court held that, while proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact, when the facts are undisputed and only one conclusion can be drawn, it is a question of law).
Plaintiff’s injuries as set forth in the Complaint were not a result of any alleged negligence by Dr. Hal Smith. As discussed above, Dr. Hal Smith complied with the standard of care regarding Mr. Brown. As such, nothing Dr. Hal Smith did or failed to do caused the alleged injuries of Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
As set forth in the declaration of our expert, Dr. Gary Johnson, Dr. Hal Smith complied with the standard of care and did not cause plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Based upon the foregoing, Dr. Hal Smith respectfully requests summary judgment be granted or that the Court enter an order for summary adjudication in favor of defendant.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.