| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury 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.

(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.)

Moreover, given the settlement and the fact that the court has indicated that it will ignore the fact that ABC was a party (at the request of Defense counsel) the jury will not be told that there was a settlement or that ABC was a party. This dichotomy is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiff and, clearly, Defendant is attempting to place all of the blame (even through Gail Smith’s effective mea culpa that she failed to chart all of the conversations she alleges she had with Dr. Lee and with Russell Greene) on other parties. Defendant is trying to back door the evidence for the defense that plaintiff failed to properly designate an expert. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Additionally, it is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiffs for the court to preclude disclosure of the existence of ABC as a party who has settled when Defendant is pointing right at them. The jury has the right to know that they were a party, that they settled and that the court will do the math after verdict. Otherwise, clearly all of the evidence relating to the alleged negligence of the staff of ABC is prejudicial under Evid. Code §352.

At this point in the matter, given the evidence that has been adduced, to prevent further undue prejudice to plainitffs the court must, (a) inform the jury that ABC was a party to the matter and that they settled but that the amount of the settlement is irrelevant, …

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 birth injury 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, 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.)

In medical malpractice, the standard of care is based only on expert testimony since the acts of a medical practitioner are to be measured as to those matters peculiarly within the knowledge of experts, which is beyond the common knowledge of laymen. In Huffman, supra, the case held that the law has never held a physician or surgeon liable for every untoward result which may occur in medical practice but it demands only that a physician or surgeon have the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by practitioners of the medical profession in the same locality and that he exercise ordinary care in applying such learning and skill to the treatment of his patient.

Importantly, the standard of care is to be determined by a prospective analysis. The standard of care is determined by what the health care provider is presented with and what a reasonable physician would do in that circumstance, not what he or she could have done if the outcome was foreseen, before it occurred. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Additionally, liability for medical malpractice is predicated upon a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury. See Dumas v. Cooney, 235 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603 (1991). In an action involving the alleged failure to diagnose lung cancer, the Court in Dumas stated:

[C]ausation must be proven with a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case … 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. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted by the jury.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

Defendants’ Fraudulent Mis-Charting Has Been Sufficiently Pled

In their Demurrer, Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs’ “failed miserably” at identifying a single instance of mis-charting. In their FAC, Plaintiffs pled that Defendants engaged in false charting. Specifically, [o]n Sunday, April 13, 2008, the first nurses’ entry was not until 2 p.m., a full 24 hours after a prior entry regarding Abbey’s sleepiness and refusal of breakfast and lunch. By 4:45 p.m. on April 13, 2008, Abbey was noted as being lethargic and nonresponsive to verbal stimuli but responsive to painful stimuli with labored breathing … During the time period of April 12 and April 13, 2008, there are a number of factual inconsistencies that clearly demonstrates blatant mis-charting by Defendants in an attempt to cover up and conceal their neglect. (FAC, paras. 36 – 37). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Thus, Plaintiffs have informed Defendants of the exact time of the mis-charting and they have provided them with the basis of the mis-charting. However, since the Decedent died as a result of Defendants’ neglect, and since Defendants are in possession of the original records (which have not yet been produced in full), Plaintiffs will need to conduct discovery to get the exact details of the false charting (i.e., once they have the opportunity to take Defendants’ nurse and caregiver staff depositions.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

FACTS ALLEGED OF DEFENDANT’S RATIFICATION OF THE RECKLESS NEGLECT

For the purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 828; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591. The court must give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. Blank, supra, at 318; Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34, 42. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has alleged facts to meet the standard of Civil Code §3294(b) that defendant National approved of and ratified each wrongful act and omission of its employees, by one or more of the following: (a) by failing to discipline, reprimand or terminate any said employee or DOE Defendant, (b) by not filing or causing to file any mandatory report of suspected elder abuse or neglect pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code §15630, (c) by billing and accepting payment for the wrongful conduct, (d) by failing to repudiate the wrongful acts and omissions as hereafter alleged, (e) by knowingly employing incompetent personnel, and (f) by knowingly failing to maintain MEDICARE federal regulatory requirements in terms of qualify of care, staffing, and quality control measures pursuant to Title 42 of the Federal Code of Regulations, §482. (See Part 5 of 10.)

Continue Reading ›

| by

(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’ Hank Choo’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion Evidence of Highway Patrol Officer and Traffic Collision Report, and Limitation of Testimony at Trial

Plaintiff requests of the court an order in limine prohibiting the attorneys for all parties offering evidence of, or making any reference to, any conclusions and/or opinions referred to in the Traffic Collision Report generated by Highway Patrol Officer David Smith.

Preliminary Statement

This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on August 9, 2008, when the defendant crashed her vehicle into the rear of a 2000 Range Rover plaintiff was driving. Plaintiff anticipates that defendants will attempt to introduce evidence of Highway Patrol Officer Smith’s opinion that plaintiff Hank Choo was the owner of the 2000 Range Rover. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Opinions In Police Reports Or Elicited By Way Of Testimony Are Inadmissible
It is well settled that as a general rule opinions of police officers should not be admitted in automobile accident cases. Waller v. Southern California Gas Company (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 747. In Waller, the court correctly disallowed the opinion of the police officer as to whether which party, if any, had violated the right of way.

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, U.C. 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

The decision was made to open up decedent’s chest. There was absolutely no blood in the pericardium. The right chest was filled with blood. Large bore catheters were placed including one on the atrium. Rapid blood and fluid infusion was implemented. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On exploration, Dr. Hall found shearing of the right subclavian vein, innominate vein and complete shredding of the superior vena cava. The AICD lead (i.e. the V-lead) was found to have a large swath of superior vena cava and parietal pleura. The azygos vein had been sheared and retracted deep into the chest and was bleeding swiftly. Needless to say, Ms. Smith died unnecessarliy.

In the circumstances of this case, the applicable standard of care required the surgeons (i.e. Hall and Gamic) to stop the procedure when there were drops in blood pressure while “tugging on the lead.” It is common for defibrillator lead, which have coils attached, to become overgrown with tissue in the vessels. This is why one must proceed with caution when trying to cut or lase the leads free of the vessels. Subject defendant physicians should have halted the procedure to assess the problem and explore alternatives, e.g. use of fluoroscopy to explore the area to determine the cause and extent to the problem, use of trans-esophogeal echo to evaluate, etc. The fact the blood pressure was dropping upon “tugging” of the lead and rebounding when traction on the lead was released is evidence the lead was firmly attached to the vessel, and the blood pressure drop was either a reflex from pulling on the myocardium or from blood loss. Either one of these situations would require halting the procedure to evaluate the situation and assess proper action.

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.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

ALL CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT

Most of the facts in this matter are undisputed. The principal disputes of fact appear to be:

1. Whether Hill used vulgar language around Lee: while the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Hill used vulgar speech in her communications with Lee (including, emails in which she used the words “bitch” and “fuck,” and forwarded a video of naked men), Hill apparently does not recall using certain words remembered by others (like “cunt” and “cock”) and does not recall discussing with Lee her boyfriends’ penises. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

2. Whether Hill freely socialized with Lee: While numerous witnesses will testify that Hill regularly and freely socialized with Lee, including dining with him almost every night for 7 years, Hill apparently intends to testify that she socialized with Lee only to “curry favor” with him. (As stated in the Declaration of Gabrielle Hill filed in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.)

3. Whether Hill made any protected complaint or protest: Hill has admitted that she never complained to Lee. However, she apparently contends – and Defendants dispute – that Hill complained to others, who, in any event, did not take part in the decision to terminate Hill’s employment.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical negligence case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(8) Defendants’ nurses and caregivers were absolutely reckless in not receiving proper doctor’s orders for Abbey on April 8, 2008, which is the time they were definitely on notice of Abbey’s rapid and substantial weight loss and her inability to swallow (FAC, paras. 35, 42);
(9) Abbey’s family insisted that she be taken to the hospital on April 13, 2008, where she was diagnosed with severe dehydration (FAC, para. 38);

(10) It was an absolute breach of the applicable regulations to have allowed Abbey to become so severely dehydrated, which neglect was reckless in that Defendants’ exhibited a conscious disregard for the high probability that Abbey would suffer injury (FAC, para. 38 – 40); For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(11) Defendants’ nursing staff and caregivers were aware that Abbey was not drinking and yet they did nothing (FAC, para. 40);
(12) Abbey was so severely dehydrated that she had a free water deficit of a whole gallon of water (or some sixteen, 8-ounce glasses), which fluids her body desperately needed but did not receive (FAC, paras. 39 – 40);

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

SUMMARY OF FACTS cont.

On several occasions, Mr. White’s family and friends lodged complaints with Defendant’s on-duty supervising nurses that Mr. White should not to be given solid foods, which defendant’s supervising agents disregarded and dismissed. In disregard of the Patient Care Plan, and these specific complaints to defendant’s supervising nurse, defendant continued giving Mr. White solid food. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On or about September 28, 2006, Mr. White was again given solid food by defendant’s nursing staff causing him to choke on his food, vomit and aspirate into his lungs. The aspiration event caused prolonged respiratory failure with permanent cognitive deficits, physical injury and overall deterioration in Mr. White’s overall functioning. As a result of the food induced aspiration Mr. White was taken to the ICU where he was placed on a ventilator due to his inability to breath without mechanical assistance. Plaintiff was subsequently provided a tracheotomy and a feeding tube and was rendered bed ridden requiring total assistance with his daily care.

Following the September 28th aspiration, Mr. White remained a patient at National through October 23, 2006, and was fully dependent on defendant for repositioning while in bed to prevent the development of bed pressure sores, ulcerations and skin irregularities.

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.

(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.)

Victor Lee was convicted in Miami, Florida in 1978 of felony drug possession. There have been no subsequent felonies. Defendants respectfully request that any evidence of or reference to defendant Lee’s 30-year-old conviction is only intended to mislead and prejudice the jury, and convey irrelevant character evidence, and should thus be prohibited from mention. This conviction is three decades old and has no bearing on Mr. Lee’s credibility today, thirty years after the fact. Mr. Lee has been straightforward in his testimony about the motor vehicle accident in which he was involved in this case. There is no similarity between the conduct involved in the felony offense and the conduct of Mr. Lee alleged in this case. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Reference to or the introduction of evidence of this remote felony conviction has no probative value and would be highly prejudicial to defendants in that it would unfairly convey the impression that Mr. Lee’s conviction in the early 1970s is relevant to his character today and of his conduct in the subject motor vehicle accident. And would undoubtedly mislead and confuse the jury into believing that such evidence would somehow be probative of the ultimate issues in this case. Further, the introduction of such evidence would require time-consuming rebuttal by defendants.

Continue Reading ›