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.)
7. Defendant’s expert radiologist, Dr. Greene, who opined that casting did not prevent injury once the breakage of bones started, was not a qualified expert in orthopedics. Additionally, she was a non-treating radiologist whose opinion was discredited at trial when she testified that she did not know, in forming her opinion, if the patients whose x-rays she reviewed had been casted. Consequently, her testimony is legally insufficient to rebut the testimony of Plaintiffs expert orthopedic surgeon.
8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiffs injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided.
Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents’ employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
9. Plaintiff was under the exclusive care and control of defendants at the time of the injuries. There were no intervening causes. In this case, it is not possible to separate the negligence from the cause of Plaintiffs injuries. It is apparent that the jury improperly speculated about some other unnamed and unknown cause that was not part of the evidence presented at trial. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.