| 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 nurse’s reference to “variables” means the variable decelerations of the fetus’s heart rate. There are many different types of decelerations of fetal heart rate. “Early decelerations” are decreases in the fetus’s heart rate that start at the beginning of a contraction and stop at the end of the contraction. “Late decelerations” are transient decreases in fetal heart rate that begin at the peak of the uterine contraction and do not return to baseline (the fetal heart rate over a period of time) until well after the contraction has ended. Late decelerations are indicative of utero placental dysfunction (insufficiency of the placenta to perform its function).

“Variables” (variable decelerations) are decelerations that are unrelated to the uterine contractions. They appear on a monitor strip as drops from the baseline heart rate and promptly return to baseline. Typically, this fetal heart pattern is the result of umbilical cord compression (the cord is compressed, which impairs the flow of blood and oxygen to the fetus) or maternal hypertension (which is part of pre-eclampsia). Variables that are persistent and continue to drop to very low heart rate levels, and that lengthen in duration, can indicate fetal distress. For more information about this topic, please visit http://www.sacramentopersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/.

According to the hospital’s Physician Order records, defendant Dr. Lee ordered 8 liters of oxygen by mask and ordered the nurse to turn off the epidural (but not the Pitocin). This is a substantial amount of oxygen delivered in a manner intended to oxygenate the blood immediately. By using a mask (as opposed to a nasal cannula, which blows oxygen into the nostrils), the patient gets oxygen regardless of whether she breathes through her nose or her mouth. The amount of oxygen and the manner in which defendant Lee ordered it delivered indicates a concern about the variable decelerations. The reason for ordering 8 liters of oxygen by mask is to try to increase immediately the oxygen in the mother’s blood, which in turn oxygenates the fetus’s blood.

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 malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT
PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST DR. Black BECAUSE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENT FAILS TO CONFORM WITH C.C.P. SECTION 1295. FURTHER, THE AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION AND IS UNCONSCIONABLE
Failure to Conform with C.C.P. Section 1295

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1295 provides in pertinent part:

(a) Any contract for medical services which contains a provision for arbitration of any dispute as to professional negligence of a health care provider shall have such provision as the first article of the contract and shall be expressed in the following language: It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently, or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(b) Immediately before the signature line provided for the individual contracting for the medical services must appear the following in at least 10-point bold red type:

NOTICE: BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL. SEE ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CONTRACT.

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 malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement prepared by Defendant Black was signed by Ms. Hall in Italian, her primary language, on February 27, 2006, almost two-and-a-half years before the medical treatment in question.

Defendant Black attempted to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure 1295 (a), (b) and (c) to make the agreement enforceable as a Section 1295 medical malpractice arbitration agreement. However this effort was undercut by Defendant Black’s insertion of Article 2 into the arbitration agreement.

Article 2 of the arbitration agreement begins in bold type stating: All Claims Must Be Arbitrated. The clause goes on to state that “… this agreement shall cover all claims or controversies whether in tort, contract, or otherwise….” For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The second clause of Article 2 states that:

Filing by Physician of any action in Court to collect any fee from patient shall not waive the right to compel arbitration of any malpractice claim. However, following the assertion of any claim against Physician, any fee dispute, whether or not the subject of any existing Court action, shall be resolved by arbitration.
As set forth below, Plaintiffs contend that the insertion of Article 2 undermines and invalidates the application of C.C.P. 1295 to the arbitration agreement.

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/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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Attorneys for Defendants, Frank White, M.D., Max Green, M.D., and XYZ MEDICAL GROUP.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Introduction and Summary of Plaintiffs’ Reply

Plaintiffs’ opposition is a confusing quagmire that improperly attempts to interweave Mr. and Ms. Lee’s claims regarding their son’s birth injuries. Mindy Lee’s claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ( NIED ) is not the subject of moving parties’ motion. Plaintiffs’ opposition confuses the relevant case law as delineated by the Supreme Court and misapplies the facts of the case at bar.

The Moving Parties Do Not Dispute Timothy Lee’s Right to Allege a Cause of Action for NIED.

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.)

Defendant Universal Medical Center (“Defendant”) moves for a mental examination of plaintiff Randall Smith ( Plaintiff) by David Black, M.D., a psychiatrist, at his office located in San Jose, California.

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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a medical negligence case. Plaintiff Randall Smith claims to have developed complex regional pain syndrome ( CRPS ), also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy ( RSD ), from an IV needle insertion he received prior to undergoing an endoscopy on December 7, 2006, at General Hospital, part of defendant Universal Medical Center. Plaintiff claims that his CRPS/RSD went undiagnosed until January 24, 2007. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has sought, and alleges that he will be required to seek, psychological services because of his alleged CRPS/RSD. In early January 2007, he sought psychiatric treatment at ABC Psychiatric Facility, because he experienced suicidal and homicidal thoughts related to his pain after the above IV placement. Both Plaintiff’s counsel, and his medical records, disclose that in September or October, 2008, Plaintiff sought inpatient psychiatric care, apparently because Plaintiff attempted suicide.

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.)

When she arrived at the hospital at 0615, Ms. Jackson was in early labor. She also had a blood pressure of 171/108, which is quite elevated (above normal). Her previous blood pressures were approximately 100/60, so Ms. Jackson’s blood pressure was dangerously high. She also had 3+ protein in her urine, which is also elevated. (Normal is 0.) She also had pedal edema (swollen feet).

Ms. Jackson thus had a condition known as pre-eclampsia; in fact, it was severe.

Severe pre-eclampsia increases the risks to the mother and the child. Those risks include: heart failure, stroke, seizure, and placental abruption. These can cause severe brain injury or death to the baby. This condition indicated that Ms. Jackson’s labor must be closely monitored. A woman with severe pre-eclampsia should be delivered as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid these serious consequences. For more information about this topic, please visit http://www.sacramentopersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/.

At 12:30, Ms. Jackson was placed on Pitocin. Pitocin is a drug that is used to induce labor or augment labor. For Ms. Jackson, it was being used to augment labor because she was having inadequate contractions. If a patient in Ms. Jackson’s condition is on Pitocin, then the baby is at greater risk for hypoxia. This is because Pitocin increases the contractual forces of the uterus, reducing placental blood flow and its ability to transfer oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from the fetus. The standard of care in 1998 required a physician, whether attending or a resident, to be aware of these greater risks to the baby associated with the use of Pitocin in women with Ms. Jackson’s condition.

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 wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Nancy White filed a complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging wrongful death relating to the treatment and care defendant provided to her mother and decedent, Alice Miller. According to plaintiff, defendant UMC’s treatment at a cardiac catheterization laboratory and the patient’s subsequent ICU admission to UMC resulted in plaintiff’s mother’s death on September 27, 2007.

Plaintiff alleges that she is the daughter of decedent. Plaintiff does not identify other heirs.

All five causes of action are titled “General Negligence,” but based upon wrongful death allegations.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that UMC failed to provide the proper standard of care of surgical intervention and repair ; and that defendant failed to provide timely assistance to the medical emergency thereby not providing the proper standard of medical care for emergencies. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff’s second cause of action sets forth additional theories. It is contended that UMC is legally obligated to provide adequate service providers, “and to provide adequate surgical staff to respond to STAT requests for assistance”; and to restrict the “permitted hours of operation to the times in which UMC has sufficient surgical staff to respond to STAT requests”; and that UMC’s “surgical staff did not respond to three pages for STAT assistance in a timely fashion that meets [the] acceptable standard of care.”

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.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, Paul Davis, D.C. and Universal Chiropractic, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”), hereby move this Court in limine before jury selection or the trial’s commencement for an order precluding Plaintiff’s expert, Steven Strong, M.D., from providing any standard of care testimony against Defendants on the ground that Dr. Strong is not qualified to render such opinions. This motion is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the records and files of this action, and such further evidence or argument as may be submitted before or at the time of the hearing of this matter. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Sylvia White (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), sought chiropractic care and treatment with Defendant, Paul Davis, D.C., at his facility, Universal Chiropractic, Inc., on an intermittent basis between July 2004 and October 2006. Plaintiff filed an action for professional malpractice against the defendants based on professional malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to the underlying alleged malpractice.

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 automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff next treated at Occupational Medical Center on July 14, 2004, with complaints of pain in the left thigh, left groin, pelvis, and left lower abdomen. He was diagnosed with a left thigh strain, left groin strain, abdominal wall strain, testicular contusion, left thigh contusion, chest wall contusion, and closed head injury. He was referred to physical therapy and placed on temporary disability. Plaintiff was evaluated again on July 19, 2004, at which time his complaints remained the same and he was to continue with physical therapy.

Plaintiff then waited more than two months after the car accident to seek further medical treatment, when he presented to orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Black on October 12, 2004, with complaints of pain in the lumbar spine, right buttock which radiated to the right foot, as well as pain in the left thigh and groin. He was referred to physical therapy. By a November 28, 2004 visit, it is noted that the physical therapy had improved his symptoms, and he was released to return to his job as an emergency responder for vehicles that are disabled on toll bridges, on or about November 29, 2004. Thereafter, plaintiff has only seen Dr. Black sporadically and returned to work at a physical job, with the exception of occasional flare ups where Dr. Black has taken him off work for short periods of time.

At the time of trial, plaintiff presented to the jury $15,221.75 in medical specials. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff testified at trial that he currently has pain in the left hip/pelvis area which he rates as a 3 on a scale of 0-10. He did experience more acute flare ups 1-2 times a year since he has been released back to work and has returned to Dr. Black, who has sent him to physical therapy and taken him off work for a week or two.

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 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.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE WHEN THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c)(f) provides authority for the grant of summary judgment if a party contends the cause of action (for medical malpractice) has no merit.

The entry of summary judgment is mandatory where the documents disclose no triable issue of material fact. Kraslev v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 432. A defendant is entitled to summary judgment where the record establishes, as a matter of law that a cause of action asserted against him cannot prevail. County of Los Angeles v. Security Insurance Comparny of Hartford (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 808, 816.

A defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(o)(2)) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exist is to that cause of action. Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977. In Fraser Dame, etc. v. Bacarro Blum, etc. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the court stated:

Continue Reading ›