| by

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

(Please also 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.)

ARGUMENT

In order to prove causation, Plaintiff must establish a causal link between the harm complained of and the Defendants’ actions. See Keen v. Prisinzano (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 275, 279; Frantz v. San Luis Medical Clinic (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 34, 39. A plaintiff cannot recover where there is only a mere possibility a defendant’s alleged negligence caused the wrong. Morgenroth v. Pacific Medical Center (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 521, 533. The mere possibility that the Defendants’ treatment was the cause of Plaintiffs injury is insufficient to establish a prima facia case. There can be many possible “causes,” indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes probable when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498.

California has adopted the “substantial factor” test for proving cause-in-fact, or actual cause, in negligence cases. Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232, 1238; Rutherford v. Owens-Ill., Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 968.) Per CACI 430, a substantial factor is one that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. As reiterated most recently in Mayes v. Bryan (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1075: A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. Id. at 1095. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

The testimony of plaintiff, Alice Hall, was that not only did this accident cause her injury which led to her admission to the emergency room on the night of this accident, but she also suffered economic damages in that she was off work for three (3) days following this accident. According to her testimony she was not able to work on March 6th, March 7th and March 9th. Based on her income level of slightly more than Fifty-Six Dollars ($56.00) per hour her economic damage immediately following this accident was One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($1,233.00). No evidence was submitted by the defendant to refute that economic loss based on her inability to work for a period of time following this accident.

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

While the defendant in this action provided considerable evidence concerning Ms. Hall’s neck injury, no evidence was ever submitted which refuted her low back injury. Thus, if this jury had followed the instructions given by this court under CACI 3900, 3901, 3903, 3903a, 3903c, and 3903d the jury would have had to have found that the negligence of Charles White, which was admitted, was a substantial factor in causing harm, as defined by the court to this jury. Once Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, then the jury had an obligation to determine the nature and extent of the economic and non-economic damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. However, in this case, because the jury did not follow the law as given to it by the court those questions were not answered.

Continue Reading ›

| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

The same result obtains here. The XYZ Corporate Defendants wholly own Universal Healthcare, Inc. and reap the financial rewards of its operations. To the extent that they have given over all discretionary authority to run the operations to the charge nurses, director of nursing services, and administrator of that facility, under the reasoning and holding of Textron Financial, those individuals are the managing agents of the XYZ Corporate Defendants irrespective of whether these individuals are housed within a separate corporate shell. The conduct by these managing agents in recklessly neglecting Ms. Hill subjects the XYZ Corporate Defendants to elder abuse and punitive damages liability. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In addition to the foregoing, the evidence firmly supports a finding that Universal Healthcare, Inc. is merely an alter ego of the XYZ Corporate Defendants. Two general requirements for application of the alter ego doctrine are (1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow. Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal. 2d 792, 796 (1957). (See Part 7 of 20.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the post-trial stage of civil litigation. 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 also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT

The evidence in this case is overwhelming that the plaintiff, Alice Hall, did in fact suffer an injury as a result of this accident.

In that regard, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of the traffic collision report which was reviewed and referred to by Mr. Berg and Dr. Wagner. On page 3 of 5 the report indicates that there is a complaint of pain to the low back of Ms. Hall as a result of this accident.

Additionally, marked as Exhibit 179 for identification in the trial was the emergency room record concerning Ms. Hall’s admission to Kaiser. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff, Alice Hall, testified that following this accident she was transported by her husband to the urgent care facility of Kaiser. Upon admission to the urgent care it was determined that she should be transferred immediately, according to her testimony, to the emergency room.

Exhibit 179 for identification, which is marked as Exhibit B and attached hereto clearly indicates that at the time of her admission on the date of this accident, March 5, 2005, Ms. Hall did complain of low back pain. In fact, Exhibit 179 shows that not only radiology was performed on her low back, but she was administered morphine as a result of the pain which she incurred.

Continue Reading ›

| by

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

Plaintiffs note that, in response to other questions, Dr. Lee made statements regarding Ms. Hill’s potential mortality rate once she broke her hip. He referred to his opinion that the delay in treatment did not hasten Ms. Hill’s death. Lee Depo. at 103:20-104.6. Dr. Lee then discussed what he believed to be the high rate of mortality among elderly persons who fracture their hip. Id. at 104 8-107:22. After this, he explained well, once she got her hip fracture that was undiagnosed and I — okay, which was undiagnosed, at that moment she became a high mortality. Now, staying the extra days in bed without getting the surgery, as I said earlier, it puts her at a higher risk for all those other things happening Id. at 107:16-22.

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

The Court should preclude testimony along the lines stated in the above paragraph. Dr. Lee specifically ruled out his intent to render testimony regarding the cause of Ms. Hill’s death during his deposition. Given this, his musings about the rate of mortality for patients who need hip surgery and whether and to what extent the delay affected Ms. Hill’s mortality rate (which testimony was at best equivocal in any event), should be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 as entirely irrelevant and potentially confusing the issues remaining in this case for the jury. (See Part 3 of 4.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

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.

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

(Please also 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.)

ARGUMENT

As a threshold issue, Plaintiff cites to no authority indicating that documents, later discovered, cannot be produced in a supplemental discovery response. Plaintiff, by serving a supplement demand before trial, must be prepared for the event that additional documentation or responses would be provided. Defendants did indeed supplement and did so in a timely manner. Plaintiff is well-aware that this is acceptable because she produced her own additional documents. Plaintiff actually produces documentation of decedent David Hill’s pay, documentation that most certainly existed at the commencement of this litigation. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiffs sole goal in targeting this particular document for exclusion seems to be the mere fact that she does not like what the evidence proves. This is not a viable reason for excluding evidence. Most evidence is prejudicial to the party against whom it is offered. But that is not enough to exclude it under Evidence Code section 352. People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 439 ( prejudicial is not synonymous with damaging ); Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 597 (Prejudicial … does not mean “damaging to a party’s case,” it means evoking an emotional response that has very little to do with the issue on which the evidence is offered ).

Continue Reading ›

| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

While the XYZ Corporate Defendants have tried valiantly to insulate themselves from liability by erecting an ever changing, opaque corporate structure, one fact remains clear they own Universal Healthcare, Inc. Every penny of profit Universal Healthcare, Inc. earns goes to XYZ Healthcare California, Inc. which has one shareholder – XYZ Healthcare, Inc. Every penny that goes to XYZ Healthcare, Inc. rolls to its one shareholder, XYZ, Inc. Having reaped all of the benefits of Universal Healthcare, Inc., the XYZ Corporate Defendants cannot now turn tail when they are exposed to liability and pretend that they have nothing to do with Universal Healthcare’s operations.

Indeed, as is discussed below, the XYZ Corporate Defendants control the operations at Universal Healthcare, Inc. in fundamental ways and thus are directly liable for the reckless neglect that Ms. Hill suffered. They supervise the administrator, set the budget, and control the finances of the facility, among other things. Particularly noteworthy, the XYZ Corporate Defendants ultimately set the staffing budget for the facilities, which budget cuts staffing to the bone and, as discussed, was a substantial contributing factor to Universal’s reckless neglect of Ms. Hill in the aftermath of her fall on September 2.

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

Moreover, the fact that the XYZ Corporate defendants delegate patient care to third party employees within a separate corporate entity should not and does not insulate them from liability. See Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1061 (2004).

Continue Reading ›

| by

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

(Please also 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.)

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 PROHIBITING DEFENDANTS FROM ATTEMPTING TO BLAME THE US MILITARY, THE ARMY, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR WAR OVERSEAS FOR CONTRIBUTING TO MR. HILL’S DEATH
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff seeks to exclude all reference to any role that the military may have played in David Hill’s death. Plaintiff refers to Evidence Code section 352, arguing that the probative value of such information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that may ensue if the evidence is revealed at trial. Defendants maintain that Mr. Hill’s service in the military caused or contributed to his mental health issues and such information is therefore relevant to the case and integral to Defendants’ affirmative defense of pre-existing condition and causation. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

FACTS
Decedent David Hill was not only diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but was also placed on a previous psychiatric hold by the US Military just a month prior to his elopement from Sacramento Medical Center. Despite this recent history of mental health issues, Mr. Hill was released to full duty, sent to California (his home was in Arizona) to train other soldiers.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The most recent high-profile real estate fraud case in the Sacramento area involves Christopher Jackson and his company, Genesis Innovations. But in 2009, a Roseville man was charged with defrauding investors in a similar scheme.

An FBI agent investigating a suspected $100 million real estate Ponzi scheme said the man at the center of the probe admitted deceiving his investors. Lawrence Leland “Lee” Loomis, 52, is the founder of Loomis Wealth Solutions and several related companies that the FBI and IRS believe defrauded hundreds of investors and lenders in a multi-layered investment scheme.

Among the allegations is that Loomis lulled investors in his NARAS fund into thinking their money was safe by sending them false statements indicating a steadily-increasing balance. Loomis’ literature promised a 12% annual return.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins. I represent a plaintiff in the real estate fraud case filed recently in Sacramento superior court against Christopher Jackson and Genesis Innovations.

FBI special agent Kathleen Nicolls said Loomis admitted the NARAS statements were false during an interview on August 15, 2009, eleven days before federal agents searched his Roseville offices and Granite Bay home. Agents hauled away hundreds of boxes of documents and dozens of computers.

The revelation came in a civil complaint filed in Sacramento federal court seeking to liquidate $462,300 in cash seized by court order last summer from two Washington Mutual bank accounts controlled by Loomis. The civil complaint sets the stage for a possible criminal indictment.

Continue Reading ›

| by

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, or Sutter.

(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.)

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DR. BLACK’S TESTIMONY AS TO “CREDIBILITY” IS IRRELEVANT AND IMPROPER

There is no foundation for Dr. Black being able to opine that a physician’s credibility drops merely because they see patients for lawyers. In fact, she has testified a 100 times as an expert, presumably for lawyers. This credibility comment was made without any proper basis and is surely not a proper subject for expert testimony (Evidence Code section 801 and 802). As such, it should be excluded. Defense counsel can lay no foundation that Dr. Black knows anything about the credibility of Dr. Wong or is an expert on whether pediatric neurologists have more credibility than general neurologists. Evidence Code section 803 states as follows:

The court may, and upon objection shall, exclude testimony in the form of an opinion that is based in whole or in significant part on matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Evidence Code section §801(a) states:

“If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: (a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and ….”

Continue Reading ›