Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Sacramento Hospital And Surgeon Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 9 of 9

November 30, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

Section 3333.1, subdivision (a) suspends the common law “collateral source rule,” under which a defendant is ordinarily precluded from introducing evidence of compensation and benefits that plaintiff receives from other sources, such as medical and disability insurance. (See, e.g., Arrambula v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1009; Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 242.)

Section 3333.1 assumes that with the admission of evidence concerning collateral source benefits, the trier of fact would take the plaintiffs receipt of such benefits into account by reducing damages. (Barme v. Wood (1984) 37 Cal.3d 174, 179-180.) Importantly, the plaintiff is protected when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced. Subdivision (b) of section 3333.1 provides that when evidence of collateral source benefits is introduced by a defendant, the provider of such benefits is precluded from recouping its payments either directly from the plaintiff or in a subrogation action against the defendant.

The effect of section 3333.1, thus, is to shift the cost of plaintiffs medical expenses from malpractice insurers to other insurers and entities, thereby effectuating MICRA’s intent of reducing the costs of malpractice insurance and making sure that health care providers can afford to practice in California. (Ibid.; see also, American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital (1984) 36 Cal.3d 359, 371.) Section 3333.1 has been held constitutional. (Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 166 [due process and equal protection challenges]; Barme v. Wood, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 180.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Car Accident Leaves Sacramento Woman With Catastrophic Back Injuries, Part 2 of 4

November 30, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL DAMAGES cont.

Ms. Johnson continued her chiropractic care with Michael White, D.C. at Valley Chiropractic on May 14, 2009. Ms. Johnson presented at that time with worsening neck and back pain with radiation into her shoulders and arms. She also complained of daily headaches, jaw pain, vertigo, and difficulty sleeping. Examination of her cervical spine revealed discomfort and tenderness to palpitation at C1-C7. Dr. White noted the presence of trigger points in the upper trapezius, myofascial sternocleidomastoid muscles and suboccinpitl areas. Examination of Ms. Johnson’s thoracic spine revealed tenderness to palpitation at T1-T12 and trigger points in the erector spinae muscles, and myofascial triggers points of the trapezius bilaterally. Spurlings and Soto Hall tests produced positive results. Ms. Johnson’s lumbar spine examination revleaed spasm of the erector spinae bilaterally, tenderness at L1 through L5 and S1. Straight leg test was positive in both right and left legs, Braggards sign test was positive bilaterally, and Patrick-Fabre test was positive on the left and right.

Dr. White diagnosed Ms. Johnson with a concussion, cervical sprain/strain injuries with somatic dysfunction, thoracic sprain strain with dysfunction, lumbar sprain/strain injuries with ligament instability, rotator cuff sprain/strain, medial epicondylitis, and vertigo/dizziness. He recommended chiropractic manipulation and physiotherapy in the form of heat and electrical stimulation.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Veterinary Group Sued For Medical Negligence, Part 4 of 4

November 29, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

A [veterinarian] is not necessarily negligent just because [he/she] chooses one medically accepted method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice.In Williamson v. Prida, supra, the plaintiff’s expert testified that he didn’t agree with some of the defendant veterinarians’ treatment decisions, that he “couldn’t see the reason” for their choice and that he thought their treatment was overzealous. The court of appeal confirmed that such expressions of personal preference or personal opinion are not probative of any issue before the court in a professional negligence case:

Sacramento Boy Suffers Birth And Brain Injuries At Local Hospital, Part 2 of 5

November 28, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

David Greene was seen and evaluated by a speech therapist, Hadley Smith, Ph.D. On two separate occasions, specifically October 29, 2002, and approximately ten months later. Additionally, plaintiff was seen and evaluated at ABC Pediatric by registered physical therapist, Cynthia Lee, P.T., P.C.S. Also on two separate occasions, specifically September 20, 2002 and about ten months later. Two videotapes were produced in conjunction with the ABC Pediatric therapy evaluations.

A number of David Greene’s medical experts recommended these tests be done in order to further provide them with additional information in which to base their expert opinion. This was done. True and correct copies of each and every report by Hadley Smith, Ph.D. and Cynthia Lee, P.T. are attached hereto as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS, STEFAN HALL, M.D., HANK WHITE, PH.D., AND SALLY JACKSON MAY PROPERLY RELY UPON AND TESTIFY REGARDING THE TEST RESULTS AND VIDEOTAPES DONE BY HADLEY SMITH, PH.D. AND CYNTHIA LEE, P.T.

Evidence Code §801 states:

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Automobile Experts Testify In Sacramento Brain Injury Case, Part 2 of 6

November 27, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs designated David Goldberg as an expert witness to testify about issues pertaining to liability, accident reconstruction and biomechanics. Mr. Goldberg’s curriculum vitae outlines his extensive training, education and experience over the last twenty-five plus years. (Exhibit 1.) Specifically, he has “investigated more than 5,000 traffic collisions” and he has “completed more than “1,500 hours of specialized training in traffic investigation, reconstruction and biomechanics.” (Exhibit 1, p. 8.) His areas of expertise include accident reconstruction, biomechanics, occupant kinematics, occupant protection systems and fraud. (Exhibit 1 generally and p. 8.) Mr. Goldberg’s 1,500-plus hours of specialized training include, without limitation, topics such as Injury Biomechanics & Occupant Kinematics, Biomechanics of Accidents, Biomechanics of Impact Trauma – Limits of Human Tolerance.

Mr. Goldberg’s specialized training in biomechanics and accident reconstruction has accumulated since he received his undergraduate degree in 1986, and his experience includes is over twenty-seven years with the Sheriffs Department as a traffic accident investigator. (Exhibit 1.) Finally, Mr. Goldberg has testified in over 150 trials. (Exhibit 1, p. 8.) Under these facts and circumstances, defendants’ motion to limit Mr. Goldberg’s testimony to exclude opinions and testimony pertaining to biomechanical issues must be denied.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Doctor’s Post-Op Knee Treatment Falls Below Standard Of Care, Part 8 of 9

November 27, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

Civil Code Section 3333.2 Limits Recovery Of Non-Economic Damages In A Medical Malpractice Action To $250,000

Civil Code section 3333.2 provides in pertinent part:

(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfiguring and other non-pecuniary damage.

(b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed $250,000. In light of the foregoing, should the jury find liability on the part of defendants, any award is subject to the provisions of section 3333.2 thereby limiting the total non-economic damages to $250,000.00.

Civil Code Section 3333.1 Permits Defendants To Introduce Evidence Of Collateral Source Benefits

Subsequent to the alleged malpractice by defendants, plaintiff received insurance benefits. Under Civil Code section 3333.1, defendants can introduce evidence of these benefits at trial. Subdivision (a) of section 3333.1 provides, in pertinent part:

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Orthopedic Surgeon Sued For Malpractice, Part 2 of 5

November 26, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

The primary requirement for the granting of the motion is that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. Robinson v. North American Life & Cas. Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 111, 118, 30 Cal.Rptr. 57.

The court will grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference drawn therefrom to support the verdict. Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681,534 P.2d 377.

Plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted if, on the whole evidence, any cause of action alleged in the complaint is supported and no substantial support is given to the defense alleged by defendant. Gordon v. Strawther Enteprises. Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 504, 515,78 Cal.Rptr. 417. The court may grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the entire verdict, or a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on fewer than all issues. See Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 310,323-324,274 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hansen v. Sunnyside Product Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.

B. The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff’s Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury’s
Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Negligent Doctors Cause Sacramento Woman To Lose Foot, Part 2 of 5

November 25, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff’s Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury’s Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent.

As set forth in the minutes of the Court, Plaintiff Johnson presented substantial evidence supporting her claims for medical professional negligence against the Regents of the University of California ( Regents ) based upon the professional negligence of the Regents’ employees. In fact, the jury found that defendant’s employees, Ellen White, M.D., and Phillip Brown, M.D., were negligent in their diagnosis or treatment of Plaintiff. Yet, the jury did not rule that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Johnson’s negligence claims against the Regents was supported by the uncontradicted testimony of Morgan Lee, M.D., the only qualified orthopaedic expert who testified at trial. Defendant did not present any expert testimony regarding the specific claims of medical negligence relating to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, as no other orthopaedic expert testified on behalf of defendant.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Veterinary Malpractice Suit Filed After Champion Horse Dies, Part 3 of 4

November 25, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this veterinary medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The fact that certain veterinarians may disagree as to the usage, preference, or desirability as to any particular method for conducting a prepurchase examination indicates the existence of a professional difference of opinion only. It does not establish a standard of care.

The relevant legal precedent on this issue was established the California Supreme Court in Meier v. Ross General Hospital, 69 Cal.2d 420 (1968). In an action against a psychiatrist in a hospital for the death of a mentally disturbed patient who jumped from a second story window, the court established that negligence could not be found merely because another treatment acceptable to, or even preferred by, other physicians could have avoided the death of the patient. The Meier case stands for the proposition that in determining whether a defendant breached a standard of care, the court may not engage in “but-for” reasoning. This basic rule was reaffirmed in Clemens v. Regents of the University of California, 8 Cal.App.3d 1, 13 (1970):

A difference of medical opinion concerning the desirability of one particular medical procedure over another does not … establish that the determination to use one of the procedures was negligent. (Meier v. Ross General Hospital, 69 Cal.2d 420).

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Knee Replacement Complications, Part 7 of 9

November 24, 2011 | by Moseley Collins

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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

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

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall’s surgeries and follow-up care fell below the standard of care and were the cause of her injuries and that she suffered pain as a result of two unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Hall on January 27, 2009 and May 28, 2009. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Lee, she has made a complete recovery and healed well. Presently, she experiences very little pain other than pain she characterizes as consistent with her age.

As stated above, the defendants have designated an expert who will testify on the issue of causation. These experts will opine that plaintiff has not been injured by any action, or claimed inaction, by the defendants.

The Defendants’ Alleged Medical Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause Of The Plaintiffs Injuries.

If a result to a patient would have occurred in the ordinary course of events anyway and independently of anything done or not done by a physician, the result cannot be said to have been caused by the physician. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 479; Deckard v. Sorenson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 305, 308; Bennett v. Los Angeles Tumor Institute (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 293, 296 and Frantz v. San Luis Medical Center, supra.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.