Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(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.
The defendant also would have gone to Ms. Jackson’s room immediately to assess the status. Upon coming to the 1 room by 17:01 or 17:02, the defendant — if she acting as a reasonable and prudent physician within the standard of care — would have acted to deliver George immediately. That delivery would have been accomplished 22 minutes earlier and have resulted in a substantially better outcome for the baby.
Thus, even if the defendant could correct the many defects of its motion for summary judgment, she cannot overcome the testimony of Dr. White. That testimony shows triable issues of whether the defendant breached the standard of care and caused or contribute to George’s brain damage.
Conclusion
The defendant’s motion is based on documents and expert testimony that are inadmissible. The defendant cannot timely cure these defects and, even if it could, its evidence fails to establish a right to judgment as a matter of law. The expert testimony of plaintiff George’s expert, Dr. White, shows that the defendant breached the standard of care in several ways, causing or contributing to George’s injuries. The defendant’s motion, therefore, should be denied.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.