Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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 presents the following specific arguments and facts in support of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:
1. On June 8, 2011, the jury found that two physicians employed by defendant Regents of the University of California were negligent in their medical treatment of Plaintiff during her May 2009 hospitalization at the University Medical Center Hospital for her Charcot Foot (“Charcot’s”).
2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in case.
3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff’s left foot during the acute phase of Charcot’s, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
4. Dr. Lee explained the time limited process of Charcot Foot, and the absolute necessity of casting/booting the foot during the acute phase when the bones are subject to fractures and dislocations or subluxations. This testimony was uncontroverted.
5. Dr. Lee unequivocally testified that the failure to cast the foot in Plaintiff’s case during the acute phase was the proximate cause of the severe injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. This testimony was uncontroverted.
6. Defendants put forth a speculative theory, unsupported by evidence, that longstanding mini fractures were in Plaintiff’s foot and this may have contributed to the injury. However, Dr. Lee, Plaintiffs expert, refuted this theory by showing an x-ray of the Plaintiff’s good, right foot, demonstrating the absence in that foot of mini fractures and thereby making it almost certain not to be in the other Charcot foot since the daily wear and tear is on both feet. Dr. Lee clearly ruled out any cause of Plaintiff’s injury other than the negligence of the employees of the defendant during Plaintiff’s May 2009 hospitalization. (See Part 4 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.