Negligence By San Francisco Surgeon Results In Malpractice Suit, Part 7 of 8

It is 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(Please also 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.)


Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall’s surgeries and follow-up care fell below the standard of care and were the cause of her injuries and that she suffered pain as a result of two unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Hall on January 27 and May 28, 2008. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Jones, she has made a complete recovery and healed well. Presently, she experiences very little pain other than pain she characterizes as consistent with her age.

As stated above, the defendants have designated an expert who will testify on the issue of causation. These experts will opine that plaintiff has not been injured by any action, or claimed inaction, by the defendants.

The Defendants’ Alleged Medical Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause Of The Plaintiffs Injuries.

If a result to a patient would have occurred in the ordinary course of events anyway and independently of anything done or not done by a physician, the result cannot be said to have been caused by the physician. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 479; Deckard v. Sorenson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 305, 308; Bennett v. Los Angeles Tumor Institute (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 293, 296 and Frantz v. San Luis Medical Center, supra.

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

Both medical evidence and expert testimony will be available to the jury to support that the defendants’ care and treatment rendered to plaintiff was not a cause of any current complaints.

D. Civil Code Section 3333.2 Limits Recovery Of Non-Economic Damages In A Medical Malpractice Action To $250,000.

Civil Code section 3333.2 provides in pertinent part:

(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfiguring and other non-pecuniary damage. (b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed $250,000.

In light of the foregoing, should the jury find liability on the part of defendants, any award is subject to the provisions of section 3333.2 thereby limiting the total non-economic damages to $250,000.00. (See Part 8 of 8.)

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

Contact Information