Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please 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.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence 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.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On July 4, 2007, plaintiff Travis Lee filed a complaint against several medical defendants, including defendant Richard Brown, M.D. In his First Cause of Action, plaintiff alleges that in or about March of 2006, he presented himself at Universal Medical Center, under the care of defendant Mary Smith, M.D., complaining of a cut he received in his right foot. Subsequently, plaintiff alleges that he presented himself to the emergency room at National Medical Center due to severe pain and discoloration in his right foot and, thereafter, was <a href=”For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.”>diagnosed with gangrene and an amputation was recommended. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant America INS refused to authorize the amputation and, accordingly, he was transported to Universal Medical Center where he underwent a right below-the-knee amputation on April 23, 2006. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that each of the defendants committed professional malpractice in that defendants performed procedures “in a negligent manner and below the standard of care,” and that despite plaintiff’s history of diabetes and gradually worsening condition of his cut, defendants, including Richard Brown, M.D., “conservatively treated and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat [plaintiff’s] medical condition,” resulting in severe and painful gangrene to his right foot.
Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the aforementioned negligence, he sustained the loss of his lower right leg, and continues to suffer great mental and physical pain and suffering.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned allegations, plaintiff cannot prove the essential elements of a breach of the standard of care or causation against the moving defendant. Accordingly, he cannot prove medical negligence against Dr. Brown. As stated in the declarations of Richard Brown, M.D., and Darla King, M.D., the care and treatment rendered by Dr.. Brown conformed, at all times, with the applicable standard of practice. Further, as elaborated in the aforementioned declarations, defendant did not cause, or contribute to, plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. Accordingly, defendant Richard Brown, M.D., is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (See Part 3 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.