| 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 slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

Maggie Black Testimony

Ms. Black has testified in relevant part as follows:

She went to the back of the store and took a right turn into the back aisle. She was on her way to the dairy case containing yogurt. There were multiple XYZ Market employees re-stocking in the area of her fall before she fell, and there were boxes everywhere on the sales floor. There were three to five employees re-stocking the aisles adjacent to the area where she was walking just before she fell. There was a woman re-stocking the dairy section about 6′ away when plaintiff fell. Maggie Black stated in answers to written discovery that there were XYZ Market employees “within 10 feet” of where she fell. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

•The woman stocking in the dairy section was no more than five to six feet away from where plaintiff fell.

•She walked by the double doors on her way to get yogurt, and she also saw a male XYZ Market employee come out from the double doors at the back of the store as she walked by.

•As Ms. Black turned into the back aisle, she noticed a XYZ Market clerk stocking meat in the butcher department.

•The clerk in the meat department was about 10′ away (behind her) when she turned into the back aisle.

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 any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Plaintiff Paul Wong’s Opposition to Defendant Olivia Black, M.D.’s, Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the First Amended Complaint
INTRODUCTION

On June 16, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon, defendant Olivia Black, M.D., fell asleep while driving her car and struck plaintiff, Paul Wong, as he was jogging on the sidewalk. Dr. Black caused Mr. Wong to sustain serious and permanent injuries, including: traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, thoracic spine fractures, left fibula fracture, multiple lacerations, severe abrasions (road rash) from his upper back, arms, knees, thighs and toes, and contusions. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

As part of her training at Central Hospital, Dr. Black was taught about the dangerous probable consequences of operating a motor vehicle while sleepy, sleep-deprived, or fatigued. Despite the training, Dr. Black, who is to “do no harm” as a physician, left Central Hospital where she had been working and awake for at least 18 consecutive hours, and drove home in a sleepy and fatigued condition. She was significantly impaired and unable to drive anywhere safely.

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

The competency of a witness to testify is a preliminary fact to be determined by the Court, not the trier of fact. Evidence Code sections 403, 405; Cooper v. Bd. Med. Exam (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 931, 945. Courts have the obligation to contain expert testimony within the area of professional expertise, and to require adequate foundation for the opinion. Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1523 [reversible error to admit foundationally defective expert testimony]. Upon challenge, an expert witness’s qualifications must be established before that witness is permitted to testify. Evidence Code section 720(a). The burden is on the proponent of the expert testimony to demonstrate the witness’s qualifications to testify. Evidence Code section 720. The incompetency of a witness to testify to certain matters renders that witness’s testimony inadmissible. Evidence Code section 720. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Case law establishes that a medical doctor is not automatically qualified to render expert opinions in all areas of medicine.

Continue Reading ›

| by

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/personal injury 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy General, or Sutter Hospital.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Regarding Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
AN EXPERT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IS PERMITTED TO IDENTIFY THE BASIS FOR HIS OR HER OPINION

Evidence Code §801 permits an expert to base his or her opinion on matter “whether or not admissible,” that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Thus, an expert may base his or her testimony on reliable medical authorities including such items as journal articles, books, and other similar reliable authorities that experts traditionally base their opinions on.

Plaintiff has no quarrel with the proposition that the actual content of such journal articles should not be recited by the expert on direct examination. However, the expert must be allowed to identify the medical journal articles upon which she has relied and also identify those medical journal articles that are reliable authorities. (See Part 2 of 2.)

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 slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

FACTS
THE INCIDENT

The incident occurred on March 24, 2005. As she testified at her deposition, Maggie Black, a 38-year-old mother of two children (ages 4 years, and 16 months), was shopping at the Sacramento XYZ Market. Plaintiff fell at about 8:45 a.m. As she was walking with her 4-year-old looking for yogurt, she suddenly stepped on something wet and slippery on the floor. She lost her balance and fell face down, striking her right elbow. She is right handed. The fall occurred near the dairy Blacker located to the left of some double swinging doors that lead back to public restrooms, storerooms, and employee-only areas, such as the employee break room. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

XYZ Market claims it found no evidence of moisture on the floor, but admits for the purpose of this motion that some wet or slippery substance was on the floor. For the Court’s background information, independent witness Mike Burns testified in deposition that he saw Ms. Black walking with her son, and that she suddenly appeared to be slipping and walking in place as if on ice. Her feet slipped out behind her, and she fell face down. Ms. Black testified that she noticed her pants were wet after she fell and spent time sitting on the XYZ Market floor where she fell.

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.

Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and to Dismiss Defendant David Lee, M.D., without Prejudice
BACKGROUND

This medical malpractice action arises from a fetal demise. On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs Kim Hernandez and William Hernandez (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs ) filed a complaint against defendants National Hospital and Dr. David Lee (“Dr. Lee”) alleging a cause of action for medical malpractice. Mr. Hernandez alleged a cause of action for a loss of consortium. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

On February 27, 2005, Mrs. Hernandez signed a Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement. (Color copy of the Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement is attached as Exhibit A ; a courtesy copy of the Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement, in English, is attached as Exhibit B. ) Mrs. Hernandez spoke Spanish so the Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement Mrs. Hernandez signed was written in Spanish. The Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement stated that all disputes as to medical malpractice will be determined by submission to arbitration and not by a lawsuit.

Continue Reading ›

| by

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. 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/bus accident case and its proceedings.)

Defendants Universal Cafe and Randy Smith submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff presented claims for personal injury over the course of a six-day trial. During trial, evidence presented established that plaintiff was making exorbitant claims as a result of a minor scraping contact against the front right corner of a bus she was driving. Evidence further established that plaintiff has exaggerated and misrepresented claims and facts throughout this case. For example, the jury watched plaintiff limp in front of them with a cane for several days, and then saw videotape evidence of plaintiff walking freely and uninhibited without a cane taken just days before trial commenced. Based on all evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff suffered no injury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Clearly frustrated at having been exposed for misrepresentation and deception, plaintiff now moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming that undisputed medical evidence establishes that she sustained an injury.

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 slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Maggie and Charles Black oppose XYZ Market’s summary judgment motion on two primary grounds:

First: There were multiple XYZ Market employees working on the floor near the area where plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet substance, both at and before the time of plaintiffs fall. One of these employees was five to six feet from the substance on which Maggie Black slipped. XYZ Market’s written standards state that it is every employee’s responsibility to detect and correct slip and fall hazards, not just the low level clerks who do the sweep log.

Plaintiff alleges the various employees working in the area of her fall failed their responsibility. There is a triable issue of fact whether these employees used reasonable care in their failure to detect and wipe up the wet area on which plaintiff fell. A jury could also find that these employees actually created the condition through their restocking activities, in which case notice to XYZ Market is presumed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Second: XYZ Market representatives told Charles Black that there was videotape of the area where plaintiff Maggie Black fell, and that they were reviewing the tape. Once litigation commenced, XYZ Market stated that it had no videotape.

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/personal injury 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

While there is no general rule for what qualifies an individual under section 720(a) to render an expert opinion in a medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court explained that the expert must have a general foundation for his testimony, basic education, training, occupational experience as well as practical knowledge of what is customarily done by the health care provider under similar circumstances:
The proof of that standard is made by the testimony of a physician qualified to speak as an expert and having in addition, what Wigmore has classified as occupational experience – the kind which is obtained casually and incidentally, yet steadily and adequately, in the course of some occupation or livelihood.

Continue Reading ›

| by

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

The Evidence Demonstrates Triable Issues Of Whether Defendant Dr. Lee Breached the Standard of Care And Whether She Caused George Jackson’s Brain Damage

Even if the defendant could overcome the several evidentiary defects of her motion, she has still failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that she met the standard of care or that she did not cause George’s brain damage. The defendant’s expert evidence focuses on the events of 17:22, when defendant Lee finally went up to see her patient. At that point., she contends, she reacted quickly and her supervisor endorsed her actions. The defendant necessarily disregards her prior lapses that created the emergency in the first place. In other words, while she boasts that she acted quickly to “put out the fire,” she ignores her own negligence that started the fire in the first place. For more information about this topic, please visit http://www.sacramentopersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/.

The expert testimony of Dr. Jason White, board-certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and a Clinical Professor of medicine at the University of California, explains defendant Dr. Lee’s multiple breaches of the standard of care and how they caused George’s brain damage. The defendant failed to ask for the objective data concerning the fetus’s status. She relied on vague and generalized interpretations from a nurse, rather than soliciting facts that she could use to make a determination.

If she had asked those questions, she would have fully appreciated the growing danger to George. The baby’s baseline heart rate had become 170 beats per minute when not in deceleration, which was not only an increase but abnormally high as well. The baby was already tachycardic at 17:00, but the defendant failed to ask about that. She also would have ordered the Pitocin to be turned off, because that was contributing to the fetal distress.

Continue Reading ›