| 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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

The pattern of neglect in not following said basic treatments and assessments was not an isolated episode of inadvertence by a single practitioner, but was evidence of institutional indifference in that multiple employees on multiple occasions neglected Aaron. The repeated failure of the staff to follow well-known protocols for the prevention of pressure ulcers and other conditions to which Aaron was susceptible is a gross departure from any standard of care and is evidence of a reckless disregard of health and safety of patients by the managing agents, officers, owners and operators of defendants. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further allegations of reckless institutional neglect are set out in paragraph 26, wherein it is alleged that managing agents of JFK, including the Administrator and Director of Nursing, consistently failed to properly train the nursing staff, repeatedly failed to engage in chart review to assure that proper care planning and treatment was occurring, repeatedly failed to assess the competency of the nursing staff and knowing of the neglect of Mr. Black, took no remedial action.

Paragraphs 19 and 20 set out duties which JFK was required to carry out but failed to do so with references to State and Federal regulations. The breaches of duty all relate to the failure to properly initiate a care plan and carry out a care plan to protect Aaron Talbot from compromise to his health and safety, i.e. the development of pressure ulcers.

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.)

Hill’s 2nd Cause of Action for Discrimination Based on Sex Is Unsupported By the Evidence

The thrust of Hill’s gender discrimination claim is that Lee favored his male purported paramour Davis White over her, afforded him preferential treatment and terminated her to give White her accounts. Defendants deny Hill’s claim in all respects. White and Lee were not involved in a romantic relationship at any time during White’s employment. Furthermore, Hill has admitted, and numerous witnesses will testify, that none of her work was taken away and given to White. And, even if Lee was in a relationship with, and favored, White over Hill (and her other male co-workers), this does not constitute gender discrimination as a matter of law. Proskel v. Gattis, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1626, 1630 (1996) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Where, as here, there is no conduct other than favoritism toward a paramour, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that no claim of sexual harassment or discrimination exists ). Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Hill was terminated because she was unable to satisfactorily perform her job as agent, including not closing a single deal for a RLAC client.

Hill’s 3rd, 5th and 6th Causes of Action for Retaliation Are Unsupported By the Evidence

Continue Reading ›

| by

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

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

In Hewitson, and similarly in Rives, the court concluded that the “trial court’s determination of the value of a particular asset [closely held corporation] is a factual one and, if there is substantial evidence to support it in the record, the determination must be upheld on appeal.” Hewitson, 142 Cal.App.3d at 885. The court continued its explanation by stating that if such determination is based solely or in large part on the opinion of an expert, the determination will not be upheld on appeal, unless the opinion satisfies the standard of admissibility set forth in Evidence Code section 801. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Rives (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 138, 149-151; cf.. Solis v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 382, 389-390). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Hewitson court then goes on to explain that Evidence Code section 801, in dealing with the admissibility requirements of opinion testimony by an expert witness, provides in subdivision (b) thereof, three separate but related tests that a matter must meet to serve as a proper basis for an expert opinion. First, the information used must come from (a) the witness’ personal observation, or (b) the witness’ personal knowledge, or (c) an assumption of facts finding support in the evidence. Second, the matter about which the opinion is based must be of a type upon which the expert may reasonably rely. Third, an expert may not base his opinion upon any matter held to be improper as the basis of an expert opinion by constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. Id. (citing People v. Plasencia (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 853, 857).

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.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Nancy Smith was initially seen at Women’s Health Group by Stanley Woo, M.D., on July 21, 2008. Ms. Smith reported a last menstrual period of March 24, 2008, and an estimated delivery date of December 31, 2008. Ms. Smith received her initial prenatal care at California Medical Center by Eric Goldberg, M.D., in Sacramento in May 2008.

At the initial prenatal visit, Dr. Woo noted Ms. Smith to be 16.2 weeks pregnant. On this visit, Dr. Woo performed an ultrasound to document a single viable intrauterine fetus. This was not a fetal anatomic ultrasound and thus no measurements were taken. Further, the testimony by defendants’ experts will be that no measurements were required by the standard of care. Further, all experts agree that if measurements had been taken, they would have essentially shown a normal fetal anatomy. Additionally, all experts are in agreement that the defendants were not required by the standard of care to perform an ultrasound. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

At the initial office visit, blood was drawn for AFP screening. The test results were received on or about July 30, 2008, and were negative for open neural tube defects, Down’s Syndrome, and trisomy 18. There was also no history of neural tube defects in the family. The plaintiffs were informed of the results on or about August 5, 2008.

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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, or Sutter.

PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 340.5, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340.5 provides in pertinent part:

In an action for injury…against a health care provider based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340 provides in pertinent part:

Within one year: (3) An action for … battery.

In Gutierrez v. Mofid, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 898, 218 Cal.Rptr. 313, 705 P.2d 886, the plaintiff alleged that she gave consent only to an exploratory operation to remove a tumor on her appendix.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The First Cause of Action details the facts which would support a verdict for reckless neglect of an elder on the part of JFK.

It is alleged that Aaron was a patient under the care of JFK from September 25, 2007 through October 4, 2007, with a diagnosis of neck fracture. It is further alleged that Mr. Black suffered from pre-existing paraplegia and, while at JFK, he was plainly dependent upon JFK for virtually all activities of daily living. Paragraph 14 goes on to allege that because of Mr. Black’s condition, JFK knew that he was at high risk for the development of pressure ulcers and that, if they were allowed to develop, they would be difficult to treat because of Mr. Black’s bed-bound status and that there was a significant risk of serious consequences from their progression. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The First Amended Complaint with specificity alleges that the nurses at JFK knew or were obligated to know thatMr. Black was required to be repositioned at a minimal interval of every two hours in order for a proper ulcer-prevention care plan to be carried out.

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.

Plaintiffs’ Abbey White, Olivia Lee, and Owen White’s Opposition to Universal Care of Sacramento and Aging Care’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Abbey White (“Decedent” or “Abbey”), by and through her successor-in-interest Olivia Lee, Decedent’s daughter Olivia Lee, and Decedent’s son Owen White (collectively “Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit the following opposition to defendants Universal Care and Aging Care’s (collectively “Defendants”) Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ contend in their demurrer that the first four causes of action of Plaintiffs’ FAC [i.e., Elder Abuse; Violation of Patients Bill of Rights; Concealment; and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”)] fail to state sufficient facts and/or is otherwise uncertain. However, Defendants’ contention is entirely without merit as the FAC contains some 27 paragraphs of detailed factual allegations which clearly apprise Defendants of the claims against them, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, the factual allegations contained in the FAC go much further than simply appraising defendants of the claims against them, they actually set forth in detail the multiple acts and omissions which comprise the reckless neglect. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In fact, in paragraphs 24 through 50, Plaintiffs alleged, in considerable detail, the key factual allegations that clearly demonstrate that Defendants’ reckless neglect of Abbey resulted in her senseless death.

.

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 elder abuse case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JFK HOSPITAL’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION

Defendant JFK demurs to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to plead sufficient facts to support a claim for reckless neglect of an elder in violation of Welfare & Institutions Code § J 5600 et seq.

Defendant’s demurrer is without merit and is of a type filed as a matter of course in virtually all elder abuse cases. Its principal purpose is to add a burden to plaintiffs bringing such cases which was not intended by the legislature. In point of fact, the legislature in §15600 of the Welfare & Institutions Code expressed as its purpose in enacting the Elder Abuse Statutes to encourage lawyers and others to take up the cause of the neglected elderly because representation had been difficult to obtain previously due to the vagaries of the law. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s pleading in the case at bar is far more particular in its factual pleading than would be required under standard notice pleading rules. It alleges facts and includes specific charging allegations which if supported by evidence at trial would justify a verdict in plaintiff’s favor on a cause of action for reckless neglect of an elder.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please 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.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement divisions of any local municipality, such as Roseville, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

The mere fact that plaintiff’s experts had no knowledge of a video clip from a couple of minutes out of one day in Sandra White’s life that was six months prior to the trial in this matter does not discredit or otherwise diminish the evidence, before the jury that determined Ms. White’s future care needs. While defendant argues that plaintiff’s experts’ opinions were “based upon improper or unwarranted matters,” and as such the “judgment should be reversed,” defendant relies solely on the “sub rosa” videotape that was played before the jury.

The twelve jurors in this matter that found in favor of Sandra White also saw this video and had the opportunity to weigh the credibility of both plaintiff’s experts and defendant’s experts in light of all the evidence, including the “sub rosa” videotape. This court should not now usurp that function and make credibility determinations and weigh evidence, which is contrary to the function of the court when evaluating a motion for JNOV. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant’s Analogy Is Easily Distinguished From this Case
Defendant provides an analogy by referencing In re Marriage of Hewitson and In re Marriage of Rives as support for the proposition that plaintiff’s experts’ testimony does not constitute substantial evidence.

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 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.

EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE LIABILITY IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION

In a medical malpractice action, the requisite standard of care is determined by the applicable standard of care then existing in the particular professional community. Barton v. Owens (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 139 Cal.Rptr. 494. In Linderos v. Flood (1976) 170 Cal.3d 399, 551 P.2d 389, 131 Cal.Rptr. 69, the Supreme Court determined that the standard of care against which the acts of physicians are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts and can only be proven by their testimony. The rationale for requiring expert testimony in medical malpractice actions was succinctly stated by the court in Barton:

In most instances there is a need for expert testimony on the subject of just what constitutes medical negligence, because the average judge or juror does not possess the necessary level of knowledge about medical malpractice to decide on its own whether the doctor was negligent.
Barton at 494, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 499. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›