| 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.)

All witnesses also will agree that when Ms. Hill became entirely immobile after her September 2 hip fracture, she was at increased risk for developing pressure sores. After September 2, Ms. Hill was putting constant pressure on her sacral area either in bed or in her geri chair. This reality required facility staff to reposition her every two hours, check her skin every shift, and use pressure relieving devices while she was in bed or in the chair. According to the documentation, the facility did none of these things. It did not update the care plan — which is the “blue print” for action – to instruct care providers to reposition Ms. Hill. On the overwhelming number of shifts, there is no reference whatsoever to Ms. Hill being repositioned. Aside from one weekly summary (which itself is fraught with assumptions and mistakes), there is not a single reference to Ms. Hill’s skin being inspected. There is no evidence that any pressure relieving devices were used with Ms. Hill.

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

The jury will learn that understaffing at the facility was the underlying cause of Ms. Hill being warehoused after her fall on September 2. In the days after her fall, Station 4 was staffed by a single Licensed Vocation Nurse and several CNAs. The LVN thus was responsible for overseeing over 40 Alzheimer’s patients. The supervising nurse that usually was also working was off September 3, 4, and 5, as was the Director of Nurses.

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.)

From March 1, 2007 to September 2, 2007, Ms. Hill was fully ambulatory without any assistive devices. As a result of Universal’s failure to devise and implement an effective plan of care to address Ms. Hill’s fall risk, she suffered five falls at the facility. During the fifth and final fall on September 2, 2007, Ms. Hill fell to the ground and immediately exhibited signs and symptoms of a hip fracture. Emma never walked again.

A community mobile x-ray was performed on Ms. Hill on September 2, 2007, which stated no evidence for fracture but that acute insufficiency fracture may not be seen in the presence of diffuse osteopenia. The same report noted that Ms. Hill had severe diffuse osteopenia. As the Court will hear, everyone agrees that this x-ray result was questionable and inconclusive and did not rule out fracture. Given this, the facility was required to carefully monitor Ms. Hill for signs and symptoms of a fracture on every shift after her fall. The evidence will show that the facility utterly failed to carry out this responsibility. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

When Ms. Hill — who was previously walking laps around the facility — was unable to walk a full day after the fall, the facility was obligated to notify the doctor and get Ms. Hill medical care. Everyone will agree to this premise, including Universal’s Station 4 supervisor (Anne Smith), Universal’s nurse expert, and Universal’s physician expert.

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.)

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 – TO EXCLUDE DECEDENT’S PRIOR MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff seeks to exclude all reference at trial to plaintiff’s mental health history (except the information about his mental health included with Dan Lennon’s evaluation) under 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 prior mental health issues are 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, 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 sent to California (his home was in Arizona) to train other soldiers. Mr. Hill took an overdose of Wellbutrin on February 23, 2008 and was taken to Sacramento Medical Center where he was placed on a 1799 hold by emergency room physician Stephen Brown, a temporary hold awaiting evaluation by a behavioral health specialist.

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.)

Plaintiff Alice Hall will move the court to grant her motion for new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds set forth within her notice of intention to move for new trial, filed separately.

INTRODUCTION

The jury in this matter returned a verdict on special questions submitted to them on November 7, 2008.

Prior to the matter going to the jury the defendant Charles White by and through his attorney of record, Jeffrey Smith, had admitted liability. Therefore, the only special questions presented to the jury dealt with the issues of damages. In this verdict the jury found that defendant Charles White’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff Alice Hall. None of the other special questions were responded to.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict within the statutory period after the verdict was entered. No written notice of the entry of the judgment has ever been given to this party. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the notice for new trial, plaintiff alleged the following grounds:

1. Irregularity in proceedings of the court and jury;
2. Misconduct of the jury;
3. Inadequate damages;
4. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the verdict is against law;
5. Error of law occurring at trial.

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

Like most of Plaintiff’s motions in limine, this motion is completely unsupported by any case law or authority supporting Plaintiff’s position.

Plaintiff has no basis to exclude the photographs of Mr. Long. The disclosure only requires that the parties attach copies of any discoverable reports and writings and there is no indication that photographs would have to be included with this same disclosure (ironically, Plaintiffs ER expert came to his deposition with a detailed report of his findings, a report that was not disclosed at the time expert disclosures were served). See Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210(c). The photographs have already been provided to Counsel. As mentioned above, Plaintiffs accusation that no attorney declaration was included with the disclosure is blatantly untrue. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiffs accusation that the designation does not adequately describe the general substance of the expected testimony also carries no weight. First, it is important to bear in mind that this is a supplemental disclosure meaning that defendants named these two experts to contest the testimony and opinions put forth by Plaintiffs experts, the Plaintiff is quite familiar with the types of opinions that will be offered.

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.)

THE JURY WAS CORRECT IN FINDING THAT DR. LEE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN HIS CARE AND TREATMENT OF ALBERT GREENE

Much of the testimony on both sides has been discussed in prior filings. Below, Defendant will address only the new matter raised in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Smith testified that an internist should at least know that a dens fracture presents a risk of spinal cord damage (Plaintiffs’ brief, page 9, lines 5-6), but the cited testimony by Dr. Smith refers to a displaced fracture causing spinal compression – – not the situation Dr. Lee was presented with. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, Plaintiffs ignore the extensive testimony of Dr. Smith about this same issue, later in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Smith:

Q. [by Mr. Howard] So what does the standard of care call for treating Mr. Greene at this stage of the game where we have Exhibit 3, where we still see a suspected chronic fracture of the dens and an incomplete opening of the C1? What does the standard of care require regarding treatment of the neck at that stage?

A. I think most internists would be satisfied and reassured that the emergency room physician has confirmed – conferred with the radiologists and that they both felt there was no acute problem here with the neck and that the neck has been cleared.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during the pre-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 brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Dr. Brown is a California licensed medical doctor and is board certified in neurology and psychiatry. (This was in error. Dr. Brown testified at his deposition that he is board certified in psychiatry only, notwithstanding, that both he and Dr. Hall are diplomates of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.) Dr. Brown is designated as an expert to counter defendants designation of Mike Hall, M.D. and Rupert Jones, M.D.

Dr. Brown will testify as to his expert opinions regarding the nature, extent and causation of plaintiff’s injuries, his post injury level of mental and physical functioning as well as the nature and cost of plaintiff’s post injury medical and life care needs. Such testimony will include, but is not limited to expert medical opinions as to diagnosis, reasonableness and necessity of treatment, prognosis, future medical care and life care needs and continuing and worsening symptomology. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In other words, Dr. Brown was clearly designated to express an opinion on a subject to be covered by defense experts Drs. Hall and Jones, as contemplated by section 2034.280.

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.)

Plaintiffs Emma and Sabrina Smith’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Opinion of Dr. Black Regarding the Difference Between a Pediatric Neurologist and an Adult Neurologist

Plaintiff Emma Smith, through her Guardian as Litem, Sabrina Smith, brings the following motion in limine and requests that the court order as follows:

1. To exclude any and all comments or opinions of Dr. Black regarding the differences between a pediatric neurologist and an adult neurologist;
2. To exclude any and all comments or opinions that adult neurologists “who see kids only for lawyers, credibility drops”;
3. To order defendant counsel to caution his witness as to the above referenced rulings;

4. To order defense counsel to approach the bench and make an offer of proof prior to soliciting any testimony that could elicit such an opinion or comment.

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

INTRODUCTION
At the conclusion of the deposition of the defense expert, Dr. Black was asked if she had expressed all of her opinions. Plaintiff’s counsel then questioned his own witness about a separate subject and a new opinion. Specifically, on page 145, Plaintiff’s counsel states that his witness will be testifying regarding whether there is a difference between an adult neurologist and a pediatric neurologist, in terms of their knowledge and ability to review the materials.

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.)

The consequences of this Line of Duty determination can be significant. If a soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization for example, this time must be made up and directly affects the soldier’s Estimated Time of Separation (ETS) date. Moreover, if there are any complications from an injury that was deemed not in the line of duty, the Veteran’s Affairs may determine that the soldier is not eligible for VA benefits, disability benefits or medical treatment for the injury.

Here, the relevance of this investigation and determination of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Hill’s unusual demise by the military cannot be overstated, yet plaintiff seeks to exclude this evidence. Any evidence related to this determination is probative of the issues of consequence in this litigation. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Mr. Hill’s death occurred while he was absent from the military, and under strange or doubtful circumstances. His LOD determination may have significant impact on benefits such as Survivor Benefit Plan, disability retirement and severance pay, etc. Plaintiff Stella Hill is the surviving spouse of the decedent and receives compensation from the military in the form of VA benefits, spousal retirement and family survivor benefits.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please 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.)

Further, in Sesler v. Ghumman, 219 Cal. App.3d 218, 224 (1990), the court found that a driver making a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic must yield to oncoming traffic in each lane of travel. The court in Sesler stated that while a motorist may waive his or her own right-of-way, neither the law nor common sense dictates that the waiver applies to any other motorist. Id. In Sesler, the plaintiff was traveling south when he stopped his motorcycle in a left turn pocket and waited for traffic to clear in the three oncoming lanes; the cars in oncoming lanes 1 and 2 stopped and motioned for the plaintiff to proceed with his left hand turn in front of them. Id. Seeing no hazard in lane 3 (the lane closest to the curb), the plaintiff commenced his turn; but the defendant, who had been traveling north in lane 1, had moved to lane 3 to avoid the cars he saw stopped in front of him and he collided with the plaintiff in the intersection. Id.

Therefore, it is contrary to the law for defendant White to argue in this matter that she had no duty to anticipate that other drivers would not yield the right of way. See Id. at 222. A party has a right to jury instmctions on his or her theory of the case, if they are reasonable and supported by the pleadings and the evidence, or any inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence. See Sesler, 219 Cal. App.3d at 223. In the present action, defendant’s theory was not supported by any evidence. As a result, it was improper for defendant to argue that Plaintiff caused or contributed to this accident. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER ARGUMENTS SOUGHT TO IMPROPERLY MOTIVATE THE JURY THROUGH PASSION AND PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Hall asserted to the Court that there was a substantial probability that, if defendant was permitted to make improper arguments concerning claims of Plaintiff’s contribution to the accident, it would inflame the jury.

Continue Reading ›