| 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, 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.)

Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290 provides in relevant part as follows:

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In this case, defendant LMN Hospital propounded Form and Special Interrogatories on plaintiff on October 23, 2007. Plaintiff’s responses were due on November 30, 2007. Responses have not been served and all objections have been waived. (C.C.P. §2030.290.) Despite an attempt to meet and confer with plaintiff regarding these delinquent discovery responses, moving defendant has never received any responses from plaintiff. Therefore, defendant requests this Court to order that all objections to the Form and Special Interrogatories are waived, and issue an order compelling plaintiff to provide responses to the Form and Special Interrogatories.

Request for Production of Documents
Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 provides in relevant part as follows:

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.)

ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE.

For all of the above reasons, such testimony and evidence is also irrelevant. Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to determination of the action. (Evidence Code §§210, 780, 1202.) No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. (Evidence Code §350.) Testimony about these supposed standards and practices for police accident-reporting have no application to determine if the subject accidents in this matter are a singular event or multiple events. These standards merely serve to provide guidelines to officers in their report writing duties. These standards were not developed for the purpose that plaintiff and his expert proposed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

POLICE ACCIDENT REPORTING STANDARDS ARE AN ISSUE OF LAW AND INTRODUCTION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL
An experts testimony on an issue of law is not admissible, including an application of law to facts. The experts testimony on these matter usurps the judges and jurys responsibilities. (Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155 (expert opinion on the legal question of duty was not admissible.)

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.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER WHERE THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT
The law governing summary judgment is set out in California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. This Court must determine whether plaintiffs have presented any facts which give rise to a triable issue. California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c provides in pertinent part:

(a) Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.

(c) The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

See also Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623. See also Hills v. Aronsohn (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 753, 759, 199 Cal.Rptr. 816, 819.

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, 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 negligence case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANT LMN HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff, William Brown, initiated a medical malpractice action against LMN Hospital on May 11, 2007.

On October 23, 2007, defendant LMN Hospital served a Request for Statement of Damages, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents by way of regular United States mail on plaintiff. Plaintiff’s statement of damages was due on or before November 12, 2007. Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents were due on or before November 30, 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On December 3, 2007, our office sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery. We asked plaintiff to provide objection free responses on or before December 23, 2007, to avoid a motion to compel. This motion is now necessitated by plaintiff’s continued failure to provide any discovery responses.

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.

However, plaintiff’s experts testified not only to plaintiffs physical limitations, but also to her traumatic brain injury and to her continued future need for care in a supportive environment. Even defendant’s medical and neurological experts, during their trial testimony, agreed that plaintiff Sandra White did in fact suffer a traumatic brain injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Regarding defendant’s seven purported “false assumptions” that supposedly make the evidence presented in this case “insignificant,” plaintiff responds as follows:

Not one of plaintiff’s witnesses was aware of the “sub rosa” video prior to their testimony. Despite defendant’s contention that the sub rosa contradicts the weight of the evidence, plaintiff’s family testified 1) that plaintiff was able to leave the house by herself on occasion and in fact had confusedly wandered in the neighborhood on occasion; 2) that plaintiff was able to dress herself on occasion, but more frequently than not needs assistance; 3) that plaintiff could move her arm somewhat, and that her movement and rotation in her left arm had reduced over recent months; 4) that plaintiff required supervision and was not the same since the collision and that the family tries to watch her as much as they can; 5) that plaintiff could walk unassisted on occasion, having good days and bad days.

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.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN NO TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACTS EXIST

It is well-established that a motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the moving party demonstrates that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c). In making this determination, the court may rely on affidavits, declarations … and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b). For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The summary judgment statute was revised as of January 1, 1993, and now specifies that a party bringing a motion for summary judgment need only establish a defense or only negate a necessary element of the challenged cause of action to justify entry of summary judgment. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(n); cf. Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1050.

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.)

XYZ, in its notice, without reference to particularities or page or lines, claims that the 2nd and 3rd causes of action are uncertain as to the theory of liability and lack of reference to federal regulations (though not required to state a cause of action for medical malpractice or wrongful death). XYZ also claims that the first cause of action for elder abuse is uncertain, again with any citations to page or line or specifics, as to the allegations regarding reckless neglect on the part of employees, managing agents, officers or directors of the hospital. The special demurrer as to each cause of action for uncertainty must be denied. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The second cause of action is for medical malpractice, as it is entitled. By incorporation of the allegations from the general allegations and the first cause of action regarding XYZ’s duties and breach of those duties and standards of care, plaintiff has stated a cause of action of medical malpractice. Failure to identify a particular federal regulation is not required to state this cause of action.

The complaint is for the wrongful death of Mr. Lee by his surviving heir, based on the theories of elder abuse and medical malpractice and includes appropriate damage requests for Mr. Lee’s special damages under the Elder Abuse Act. Paragraph 55 of complaint is allowed by W&I Code §15657, and Quiroz v. Seventh Avenue Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1265. The Elder Abuse Act allows for a claim for Mr. Lee’s special damages including his pain and suffering before his death.

Continue Reading ›

| 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.)

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant argues that since there is insufficient pleading in Paragraphs 18-20 of the Complaint, the complaint must fail. This is the underpinning of the whole of the Demurrer and is wholly without merit. Defendant fails to cite Paragraph 17 of the Second Cause of Action which incorporates all of the facts plead in the first 16 Paragraphs. The argument is specious at best and justifies the court overruling the Demurrer without further consideration. The elements plead including the course of the care prior to death are provided in the earlier paragraphs.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

Defendant bases the argument on Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657 and 15657.2 and ignore §15610 et seq. which define Elder Abuse itself. Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements of pleading Elder Abuse as defined by the code. Defendant is mixing an argument that the damages portion of the claim cannot be made on the facts plead and, further, attempts to insert a requirement for pleading specificity as required if there was a claim for Punitive damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

No such damages claim has been made at this time, as the interplay between C.C.P. §425.13 and the Elder Abuse statutes has not been litigated or established.

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 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.

There are additional problems with a reduction for saved necessities in lost years damages. First, the failure to award plaintiff his full compensation for his lost years damages flies right in the face of the rationale laid out in Hurlbut, which is to provide the injured person with the use of a specific pool of funds during his lifetime. Second, as Professor Fleming’s article also identifies, there is a clear distinction that is made in the recoverable damages in a personal injury action and in a wrongful death action. The distinction between recoveries in personal death actions and wrongful death actions cannot be clearer than the situation here – and as noted above in Overly. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, plaintiffs are bringing a personal injury action against defendants. On the basis of this being a personal injury action, defendants can request periodic payments pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 667.7. What is more, as was shown earlier, section 667.7 only has application and relevance in personal injury actions.

Therefore, it is completely illogical to apply concepts and rules that only have application in the context of wrongful death cases, in order to place a limitation upon “lost years” damages, when the law makes a clear distinction between personal injury and wrongful death actions and where periodic payments can only be utilized in such personal injury actions.

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.)

This case arises from two consecutive accidents involving the same bus, one at the intersection of Seminary and International involving the Universal vehicle, and one half a block away where the bus was driven into several residences across the street. Setting aside the issue of relative liability on the part of both drivers, the fact that only one police report was generated for both accidents is not probative of whether one or more accidents occurred. It is determinative that there was a relationship between the two accidents, as they both involved the same bus and that they were consecutive in time. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Evidence Code section 352 gives the court discretion to exclude evidence if its admission will necessitate the undue consumption of time, or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues and misleading the jury. (Evidence Code §352.) Defendants respectfully request that any evidence of or reference to police accident report writing standards as determinative of the status of the accident as a singular event is only intended to mislead and prejudice the jury, and should thus be prohibited from mention.

Continue Reading ›