| 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 case and its proceedings.)

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

On November 30, 2006, Dr. Gregory Brown performed a left total knee revision of the femoral and tibial components. Dr. Brown found significant internal rotation of the tibia, which was approximately 20 degrees up the tibial tubercle. The femoral component was also found to be internally rotated about 5 degrees. As such, Dr. Brown decided to perform revision of the tibial and femoral components to provide further stability to Ms. White’s patella rather than do a tibial tubercle osteotomy. . His post-operative diagnosis was dislocation of the patellar component status post total knee arthroplasty and malalignment of the left total knee arthroplasty components. . Ms. White was discharged after almost one week on December 5, 2006 with instructions to follow up, receive home health care and physical therapy, and have a home safety evaluation.

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 elder abuse 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 case and its proceedings.)

Stein had a duty of ordinary care as a licensed Administrator, and a more specific duty to ensure that sufficient funds were available to hire and retain sufficient numbers of sufficiently trained staff to meet the individualized needs of each resident patient and to ensure that the facility’s operation complied with legal standards and also with the standard of care.

Davis had a duty of ordinary care as Director of Nursing, and had a more specific duty to ensure that care was provided in an organized and effective manner by all care giving disciplines within the facility, that changes in patient condition and problems with patient care were identified, assessed, reported and resolved and in particular that patients who needed transfer to hospital or in other care settings were promptly transferred.

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 case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT
PLAINTIFF IS THE PREVAILING PARTY AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL OF HER STATUTORILY RECOVERABLE COSTS
Plaintiff was Entitled to Bring Her Case In Unlimited Jurisdiction

At the time of filing the subject lawsuit, Ms. Hill had economic loss totaling $27,000. As a result, at the time of filing her lawsuit, the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000. California Code of Civil Procedure § 85(a) defines a limited civil case as one where:

(a) The amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). As used in this section, amount in controversy means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.

Since Ms. Hill had economic damages which exceeded $25,000, it was proper for her to file her case in unlimited jurisdiction. Filing the case in limited jurisdiction would have required Ms. Hill to concede her reasonable and necessary medical expenses, her lost wages and any non-economic damages.

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

(Please also 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.)

Maintenance and Inspection of the Floor

At the time of the incident, Safeway had in place procedures to inspect and maintain the floors. Safeway assigned a courtesy clerk to clean and inspect the floors at least once every hour. Courtesy clerks were responsible for documenting that they were conducting their sweep activities by “punching” the Sweep Log, sliding their employee time card through the time clock, pressing a button designating a sweep. In addition, as set forth in the Declaration of Safeway store manager, David Hall, employees are trained to clean up anything they observe on the floor, management continuously walks the store to monitor the condition of the floors, and an outside maintenance crew maintains the floors each night.

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

Safeway courtesy clerk Herbert Lee was assigned to inspect and sweep the floors between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., on March 24, 2009. As set forth in the Declaration of Mr. Lee, during his sweep hour, he sweeps and inspects the entire store, and then punches the Sweep Log immediately after completing his inspection. Mr. Lee punches the Sweep Log only after he completes an entire sweep of the floors to indicate that the floors were clean and dry at that time.

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

(Please also 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.)

As instructed, on January 12, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for another follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee and left heel pain. Dr. Hall windowed the heel of the cast to relieve pressure and decrease plaintiff’s pain. Dr. Hall discussed the possibility of a lateral release of the patella with scope. He explained the risks and benefits of the procedure to plaintiff.

Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a pre-operative evaluation at which time she reported pain in her left knee. She was able to perform an SLR but there was maltracking of the patella. Dr. Hall and plaintiff discussed the risks and benefits of an arthroscopy and lateral release with possible medial repair. The arthroscopy with lateral release of plaintiffs left patella was performed on January 27, 2008. The scope showed maltracking and subluxing laterally. In addition, flexion was limited. The lateral release was performed and improved the position and tracking of the patella significantly with 90 to 95 degrees of flexion achieved.

On February 5, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain in her left knee but reported that it felt stronger. She was able to perform a SLR with little assistance. The knee was placed in an extension splint. X-rays taken on this date do not show any complications with the tibial and femoral components.

For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco 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 case and its proceedings.)

In the months after the May 28, 2005 surgery by Dr. Hall, Ms. White experienced intensified pain in her left knee and continued to have problems with the maltracking of that patella. Ms. White had difficulty walking, squatting, kneeling, pushing, pulling, and sitting or standing for prolonged periods, and had a burning pain which radiated down the lateral aspect of her lower leg from the knee to her ankle with numbness on the plantar aspect of her left foot. On November 23, 2005, Ms. White was noted to have recurrent lateral dislocation of patella, status post total knee replacement and revision. She was referred to orthopedic specialist for a second opinion.

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

On February 3, 2006, Ms. White presented to orthopedic specialist, Dr. Michael Young, for a second opinion. Dr. Young noted that Ms. White’s patella was dislocated laterally, and when compared to October of 2005 it was worse due to the wear.

On June 2, 2006, Ms. White presented to orthopedist Dr. Gregory Brown at UCI Medical Center for another opinion, whose impression was that Ms. White either had malpositioning of the femoral and/or tibial component, which could be accounted for both components being internally rotated on the respective positions.

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

As described above, RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were present at the hospital, in the rooms with MALYIA JEFFERS and personally and contemporaneously observed and understood the injury producing events. On the morning of November 29, 2010, they noticed their daughter had a fever and a cough. They noticed that a dark skin discoloration (purpura) began to develop that was easily visible to them. They took her to METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO for help. After they arrived the staff told them to wait. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG repeatedly asked defendants to see and treat their child.

Defendants continued to make them wait. Defendants promised her parents the doctor would see MALYIA soon but didn’t keep this promise. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG saw their daughter get weaker and sicker hour after hour as defendants chose to delay treatment. They saw the bruising on her body increase affecting her legs, arms and face. The parents became more and more distressed as defendants delayed treatment. They saw MALYIA grew sicker and weaker until she could no longer stand. She was crying for help because she was so sick. They grew desperate holding MALYIA as the waiting minutes turned into hours. The parents begged the hospital staff to treat their daughter.

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 case and its proceedings.)

During the litigation, defendants made two 998 offer’s to compromise. The first for $4500, the second for $7500. Plaintiff made two 998 offers to compromise. The first for $45,000, and the second for $18,000. The second 998 offer was served on the defendants on January 6, 2010.

Prior to making the second 998 on offer to compromise in January of 2010, Plaintiff’s incurred the following recoverable costs:

a. Filing fees, $371.90;b. Service fees for John Lee, $60;c. Service fees for Sophia Lee, $83;d. Hill deposition transcript, $507.45;e. Lee deposition transcript, $329;f. Counsel travel to Lee deposition $368.;The total of these costs are $1,719.35

Following the 998 offer to compromise, Ms. Hill incurred the following recoverable costs:

a. Deposition of Dr. White, $308.05
b. Deposition of Dr. Ross, $384.80
c. Service fees for Sgt John Smith, $318.00
d. Witness fees for Linda Lane, $372.20
e. Witness fees for Alberto Miller, $35.00
f. Jury fees, $538.26
g. Court recorder fees, 400.00
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 elder abuse 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 case and its proceedings.)

REVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NATIONAL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, INC., AND THE HILL DEFENDANTS

First Cause of Action for Negligence:

Various individual defendants associated with National Convalescent Hospital, operated various aspects or portions of a skilled nursing facility known by the name National Convalescent Hospital. In other words, more than one defendant associated with the operation of National Convalescent Hospital was engaged in its operation.

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

Davis was appointed Director of Nursing per 22 Cal. Code Regs. §§72301, et seq. Stein, whether appointed, designated or licensed to do so, or not, together with various other defendants including Hill, and National Convalescent, acted as “Administrator,” and had a duty to act as Administrator of the facility. In other words, Stein shared responsibilities to administer the facility with Hill defendants and others.

Co-defendants PacifiCare, Novacare, and/or XYZ entered into agreements with the owners, operators and licensees of the facility to secure skilled nursing facility services. National undertook to satisfy the responsibility of PacifiCare, et al. to provide such services.

.

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

(Please also 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.)

On November 17, 2007, the plaintiff was discharged from Universal Community Hospital and was ambulating well without any significant problems noted. On that same day, plaintiff was transferred and admitted to Community Care and Rehabilitation Center ( CCRC ). On November 20, 2007, Dr. Hong (no longer a defendant in this matter) briefly evaluated plaintiff and ordered that she continue to mobilize with her left leg until re-evaluated. Plaintiff was discharged from CCRC on November 26, 2007.

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

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall on December 1, 2007 for a two-week follow-up visit. He noted plaintiff had problems with flexion and instability. Plaintiff could not perform a seated leg raise (“SLR”) and the medial side of her knee showed some “bogginess.” Dr. Hall stated that the wound felt boggy and soft on palpation. Dr. Hall decided to place plaintiff in a cylinder cast in extension because of her inability to perform an SLR.

Continue Reading ›