| 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, 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 medical malpractice lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Prohibit Argument or Evidence of Sympathy for the Individual Defendant Physician

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs will move this court in limine, before trial and selection of jury, regarding the following orders:

1. Don’t put a yoke over any of the individual defendant physician by a verdict.
2. Don’t shame any of the individual defendant physician by a verdict against them.
3. Don’t hurt any of the individual defendant physician’s reputation.
4. Don’t put the individual defendant physician out of business.
5. Don’t jeopardize the individual defendant physician’s medical licenses.
6. Don’t hurt the defendant financially by your verdict.
7. The individual defendant physician will have to personally pay this verdict.

8. A medical malpractice verdict will discourage good doctors from trying to help patients.

This motion is made on the grounds that such evidence is not relevant to any issues presented in this action, and would be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiff.

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.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant XYZ, Ins. Co.’s Accident Reconstruction Expert Testimony
INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of a major automobile collision that occurred on Highway 50 westbound near the Sunrise exit on June 17, 2009. At that time, Ms. Black’s vehicle became disabled and stalled on the freeway and was struck with great force by defendant’s vehicle. The collision resulted in extremely serious injuries, including a fractured neck and a traumatic brain injury.

The purpose of this motion in limine is to exclude accident reconstruction testimony by defendant’s experts due to defendant’s insurance company’s intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence, namely the defendant’s vehicle. As is explained in more detail below despite a specific written request to preserve such evidence, the defendant’s vehicle was not only destroyed but plaintiff’s counsel was misled by defendant’s insurance adjuster as to the availability of the vehicle for inspection by plaintiff’s experts.

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

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, 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

For two (2) days, 48 hours, after the Decedent’s white blood cell count increased to 13.2 on December 30, 2008, and to 19.2 on December 31, 2008, and he showed other telltale symptoms or signs of sepsis, rapid increase in temperature, persistent tachycardia (rapid heart beat), and increasing agitation, medical personnel at National Hospital failed to treat him for sepsis. It was not until January 2, 2009, medical personnel begin to look for a source of his infection and ordered cultures and antibiotics. Before they could begin to treat the Decedent appropriately for sepsis or presumed Fournier’s Gangrene. It was much too late. David White expired.

The care and treatment medical personnel at National Hospital rendered the Decedent fell below the standard of care. The standard of care required medical personnel to immediately initiate broad spectrum antibiotics and have the patient undergo surgical debridement without waiting to identify a source or cause of the infection.

Defendant’s standard of care witness, James G. Chin, M.D., in his Declaration mentions that the Decedent’s temperature on January 1, 2009 was 103.2 and his white blood cell count was 18.5.

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

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, 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER WHEN THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT

It is well established that the purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to “penetrate through evasive language and adept pleading and ascertain the existence or absence of triable issues.” Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 628, 637. Therefore, it is proper to grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no triable issue as to any material fact or if the action has no merit.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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 papers submitted show 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 … (o) A cause of action has no merit if either of the following exists:(1) One or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, even if that element is separately pleaded … (p) For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication …

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

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, 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
SUMMARY OF ISSUE PRESENTED

In this matter, it is likely that the defendant will attempt to offset his obligation for the minor plaintiff’s damages, specifically the need for future medical and other services, by introducing evidence which provides that some future services or benefits may be available to plaintiff from governmental agencies and programs.

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of such evidence on several grounds:

(1) collateral source precludes such evidence;
(2) Civil Code Section 3333.1., which abrogates only part of the collateral source rule in medical negligence actions, does not permit the introduction of such evidence, and

(3) there is no certainty that the minor plaintiff will actually be able to receive, now or in the near or distant future, any such benefits in these troubling economic times with ever-increasing public budget cuts.

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

THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE PRECLUDES THE INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE MINOR CHILD MAY, IN THE FUTURE, BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SOME BENEFITS OR SERVICES FROM THE GOVERNMENT

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, 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.)

Plaintiff, by counsel, serves and files this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Stanley Black, M.D. and ABC Medical Group’s Demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs Complaint.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS STANLEY BLACK, M.D, AND ABC MEDICAL GROUP’S DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

In response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, defendants Stanley Black, M.D., and ABC Medical Group have filed a demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of, Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendants Black and ABC Medical Group argue that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, for medical negligence, on the grounds that it duplicates the Second Cause of Action, for Wrongful Birth.

As will be seen from the following Points and Authorities, inconsistent pleadings have long been permitted, and therefore defendants Black and ABC Medical Group’s demurrer, upon grounds of inconsistency, is without merit.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain injury 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.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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, 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

On December 28, 2008, Mr. White continued to be severely agitated and hallucinating. He required medications such as Ativan, Haldol, and Versed to control his alcohol withdrawal symptoms. He was restrained and a sitter was assigned to sit at his bedside to prevent him from climbing out of bed and pulling at his tubing. A Foley catheter was reinserted per physician’s order as Mr. White continued to pull the condom catheter out. The Foley catheter was draining well after placement. Mr. White white blood cell count on this date was 7000, which is within normal range.

On December 29, 2008, Mr. White continued to hallucinate and tried to get out of bed. The Foley catheter on this date showed it was patent and draining clear yellow urine. Mr. White white blood cell count was 8100, within normal range. On December 30, 2008, the Foley catheter was draining clear yellow urine. The urine out put on this date was 1300 cc. Mr. White was still agitated in spite of being medicated with Ativan and Haldol. His white blood cell count was 13,200.

On December 31, 2008, the Foley catheter was draining clear yellow urine. The urine output on this date was 925 cc. On January 1, 2009, Mr. White’s temperature was noted to be 103.2. His white blood cell count was elevated above normal at 18,500. Dr. Nguyen performed an aspiration of a hematoma on Mr. White’s neck to try to decipher the source of infection. This area was ruled out as a source of the infection.

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

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, 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Paul White’s Memorandum of Point & Authorities in Opposition to Defendant the Regents of the University of California’s Motion for Summary Judgment
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Paul White sued Defendant, the County Medical Center (CMC), for wrongful death and professional negligence (medical malpractice). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in the care and treatment rendered his father, David White, which resulted in his death on January 3, 2009. On December 22, 2008, David White was transported by ambulance from Fairview and Main Streets in Sacramento to National Hospital in Sacramento to be treated for a stab wound to the left side of his neck.

After his admission, David White, the Decedent, remained in the hospital and was treated appropriately for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.

The Decedent’s death at National Hospital was caused by sepsis due to inflammation and abscess formation in the penile urethra due to a misplaced Foley catheter balloon.

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

Continue Reading ›

| by

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 car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

SIMILAR ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE SHARED EXPERTS

Dr. Brown and Mr. West are not the same party. They are not married, or even related. They are not represented by the same attorney. One is the purchaser of the tire, the other is not One has privity of contract with Valley Chevrolet and The Auto Center, the other (West) does not. The defendants have cross complained against Dr. Brown for the damages claimed by Mr. West.

Dr. Brown has not hired Mr. West’s experts (save, Mr. Goldberg), and has no contract or agreement with those experts. Either plaintiff could settle with one or more of the defendants leaving the other plaintiff to go it alone.

Nevertheless, XYZ argues that Dr. Brown should be forced to withdraw Drs Bakstrom and Hall, and rely upon Mr. West’s experts instead. There is no compelling reason to do so. Dr. Brown has identified a perfectly reasonable number of experts, and the expected testimony of those experts is expected to overlap barely, if at all.

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

Continue Reading ›