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.)
10. Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to understand the medical issues here. The Charcot process is time limited, and during the acute phase the foot must be protected from bone fractures and joint dislocations by casting or booting. After the process quiets down and the bones harden again, when the cast is removed a properly treated foot is preserved in its original state, without injury. This is precisely why Plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lee, testified that in order to avoid the catastrophic injuries which Plaintiff now suffers, a foot presenting as Plaintiffs did must be casted or booted. This explanation, provided by Plaintiffs expert, was also uncontroverted.
In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiffs foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiffs foot carries a high risk of amputation.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Based on the evidence, Plaintiff, an elderly woman who must care for herself, personally suffered great physical and mental injuries, and financial loss due to those injuries. Future medical expenses, surgeries, and home care will be required to correct Plaintiffs medical condition. As the evidence showed at trial, defendant, the Regents, is responsible for Plaintiffs catastrophic injuries, and past and future physical and mental pain and suffering. For these reasons, the verdict against Plaintiff must be overturned based on the professional negligence of the Regents’ employees, Drs. White and Brown, who were specifically found by the jury to be negligent.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence presented at trial, each of the Plaintiffs claims against defendant Regents was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. No other reasonable conclusion can be legally deductible from the evidence. In particular, Plaintiffs claims of medical professional negligence against the Regents based upon the medical negligence of its employees, Dr. White and Dr. Brown, were proven without contradiction, as found by the jury. But for said negligence, Plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries she sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this Court must grant Plaintiff Johnson’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.