Parties Battle Over Factual Basis For Sacramento Elder Abuse Suit, Part 5 of 8

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse 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.)

The separate statement provides what it purports to be a summary of responses to interrogatories 25 and 45, but fails to make reference to the specific portions of the lengthy discovery responses it purports to summarize. Moreover, there is no reference to or summary of the voluminous medical records with Plaintiffs response refers to and incorporates under C.C.P. §2030.230. Accordingly, the separate statement is deficient. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(d).

It is not the court’s (or Plaintiffs’) responsibility to pour over lengthy documents to find the evidence on which defendants rely to determine whether defendants’ characterization of the interrogatories and plaintiffs’ responses, are accurate. The “Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication” is: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1208. Defendants’ deficient separate statement makes the in determining the presence or absence of material issues of fact extremely difficult if not impossible. If defendants had asked discrete questions requesting factual support for each element of each cause of action and provided the response thereto, perhaps it would be a more a manageable task.

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

Defendants could have (as do most movants for summary adjudication in medical cases) presented affirmative evidence in support of their motion in the form of declarations of experts establishing that the facts set forth in the discovery response and medical records establish the absence of material issues of facts on the various causes of action. Instead, defendants rely solely upon discovery responses which defendants concede includes some facts to attempt to establish the absence of facts supporting plaintiffs causes of action. In doing so, it is respectfully submitted that Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of proof, and accordingly the motion must be denied. (See Part 6 of 8.)

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

Contact Information