Negligent Hospital Staff Causes Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Man, Part 5 of 8

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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)

The Standards Governing Motions for Summary Judgment

A party moving for summary judgment has both a burden of persuasion and a burden of production of evidence. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, and Evidence Code §500. The moving parties bear the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra. There is no obligation on the opposing party … to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor. Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 454, 468.

In professional malpractice cases, expert opinion testimony is required to prove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care [citation], except in cases where the negligence is obvious to laymen. Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 735, 741, citing and quoting Kelly v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal, App. 4th 519,523. Once the moving party meets its burden of production, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence to show there is a triable issue fact as to any essential elements of its cause of action. Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996), 47 Cal. App. 4th 1461, 1465.

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

The declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment must be liberally construed, while the moving party’s evidence must be construed strictly, in determining existence of a triable issue of fact. D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21. (See Part 6 of 8.)

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

Contact Information