| 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 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.)

Similarly, the court in Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, noted:

The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (See Taylor v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 890, 894, citing Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 2, at pp. 9-10.) Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [122 Cal.Rptr. 218].)Id. at 166. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, courts have also recognized that the requirements of Civil Code § 3294 (b) must also be pled factually to properly state a punitive damage claim against an employer/corporation:
” … we fail to see how any of those allegations sets forth facts to show Hospital’s advance knowledge, authorization or ratification. Also, absent from the complaint is any assertion an officer, director or managing agent of Hospital was personally responsible for any of the acts allegedly performed by Hospital.” Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 167-168.

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.

Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Richard Brown, M.D. (C.C.P. §437c); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof.

This Motion will be made upon the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact in this action in that the care and treatment rendered by defendant Richard Brown, M.D., to plaintiff Travis Lee, complied, at all times, with the applicable standard of care. Moreover, the care and treatment of defendant in no way caused, or contributed to, plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. Defendant Richard Brown, M.D., is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

From his own testimony, Mr. Black froze, bringing his vehicle to a stop as it straddled the #2 lane (slow lane) on the Highway 50 westbound, directly in the path of travel of Officer Smith. Smith then slammed on the brakes and tried to steer away from the vehicle in his path by turning his wheel to the right, then skidding. Officer Smith left two parallel skid marks. Smith swerved and braked to avoid Black’s Impala then slammed directly into the side of Ms. White’s 1995 Nissan Altima. The impact was so severe, it crushed the vehicle to the midline of the occupant compartment; she was hit at 30-40 m.p.h. at impact. Only five inches of metal on the side of her vehicle stood between her and the oncoming battering ram of the front end of the police vehicle. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

During the trial, counsel stipulated to the fact that Ms. White was not in any way at fault for the collision. The stipulation was read to the jury. The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict, determining that Officer Smith was 55% at fault for this collision and that Ken Black was 45% at fault for the cause of the collision. Defendant has not challenged this finding by way of defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. (See Part 3 of 10.)

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 case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant National Medical Center’s Demurrer
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s complaint is based on the medical care provided to his mother and decedent, Abigail Hill, by defendants. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ negligent medical care resulted in his mother’s death.

The demurrer of National Medical Center to plaintiff’s complaint and its causes of action should be sustained without leave to amend for the following reasons:

The complaint is uncertain. On the first page of the complaint, plaintiff checked boxes indicating causes of action for “Malpractice/Negligence” and “Wrongful Death.” On page 3, plaintiff checked boxes indicating causes of action for General Negligence and Unfair Business Practices. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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 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 PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD BE STRICKEN

Since plaintiff has failed to properly plead a dependent adult claim, he must comply with the requirements of C.C.P. §425.13 before alleging a punitive damage claim against a health care provider, and the punitive damages must be stricken until leave of court has been obtained. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

But even if plaintiff did not have to comply with § 425.13, the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to support a punitive damage claim against the Hospital. To recover punitive damages plaintiff must prove an intent to injure or despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of a plaintiff’s safety. Civil Code § 3294. In College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 705, the court characterized the addition of the despicable conduct requirement as a new substantive limitation on the award of punitive damages. Despicable conduct is specifically defined in BAJI 14.72.1 as follows:

“…conduct which is so [vile] [base] [contemptible] [miserable] [wretched] or [loathsome] that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary, decent people.”

See also Mock v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331. The court in Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 recognized that despicable conduct must be pled, and it characterized despicable as a “powerful” term. No such conduct has been alleged here.

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, 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.)

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Prohibit Argument or Evidence to Suggest That This is the Only Time the Defendant(s) Have Been Sued for Malpractice

Plaintiffs will move this court in limine, before trial and selection of jury, on the grounds that any such evidence is not relevant to any issues presented in this action, and would be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiffs.

This motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any documents already on file with this Court, and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing of this matter.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Nicholas Smith, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Nancy Smith, in the instant personal injury lawsuit seeks damages for devastating permanent personal injuries sustained during the course of his gestation in this birth injury action. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins
Plaintiffs anticipate that defense counsel may improperly attempt to inform the jury that this case is the first and only medical malpractice claim filed against the defendants. (See Part 2 of 2.)

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 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 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IS UNCERTAIN

The second cause of action is pled collectively against both of the entity defendants and do not contain any specific charging allegations against XYZ Hospital. The only relativity specific allegation in the second cause of action pertains to standards of care applicable to skilled nursing facilities. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Moreover, the second cause of action is entitled medical malpractice, but it contains references to reckless conduct and allegedly improper billing practices, neither of which would constitute medical malpractice as that term is generally understood. It is therefore uncertain as to the theories of liability plaintiff intends to assert in this cause of action.

The second cause of action also references federal regulatory requirements which were allegedly not maintained, but it fails to say what federal regulations were allegedly not followed.

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 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.)

PLAINTIFF HAS ALSO FAILED TO PLEAD WRONGFUL CONDUCT ON THE PART OF AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR OR MANAGING AGENT OF THE HOSPITAL WITH THE REQUIRED PARTICULARITY
There is no vicarious liability under the elder abuse statutes. Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 provides in part:

(c) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney’s fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer. Civil Code §3294 and thus Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 require reckless or otherwise wrongful conduct on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate/employer defendant. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Civil Code §3294 (b) reads as follows:
An employer shall not be liable for damages…based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation

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.)

Plaintiff Peter Greene’s Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant ABC Skilled Nursing Facility and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

The Opposition will be based on the following:

1. Defendant has failed to properly deal with the content of the complaint in that the initial basis for the Demurrer is that Paragraphs 18-20 do not state sufficient facts. Defendant does not cite the court to Paragraph 17 which incorporates all of the facts stated in the First Cause of Action. Thus, no basis for the Demurrer has been stated.

2. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts, including a 10-hour delay in treating a patient with a head injury who was on anticoagulant therapy, was aged, and had suffered a stroke. Further, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant ignored direct orders of the forwarding physician that decedent be restrained to prevent exactly the situation that occurred. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

3. Defendant has confused pleading and proof in the motion. At this time, Plaintiffs have not requested punitive damages in order to meet the requirements of C.C.P. §425.13 and need not meet the pleading requirements of C.C.P. §3294 until the motion to amend the complaint is heard. Thus, the pleading is more than sufficient in view of the pleading of the willful and intentional acts contained in the complaint.

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, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, West Sacramento, or Elk Grove.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

This opposition by plaintiff is made and based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the evidence presented at the trial in this matter, the reporters’ transcripts of the trial proceedings, and upon such argument and further evidence as may be presented at the hearing thereof. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On September 9, 2005, a completely avoidable high-speed collision between two vehicles occurred on Highway 50 at the onramp of Watt Avenue shortly before midnight. Sacramento law enforcement officer William Smith was rocketing down the road, eastbound, with two county probation officers in his vehicle, returning from a police matter in an unrelated incident. Smith was not authorized to be speeding, and he testified he had no right to do so. According to Smith, he was not driving in an emergency fashion, or otherwise permitted to be operating under “Code 3” conditions. Therefore, it is undisputed that he had, at all times relevant, an obligation to adhere to the same rules of the road as a motor vehicle operator as any other citizen.

Continue Reading ›