The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.
Thereafter, on April 23, 2006, plaintiff underwent a right leg arteriogram, performed by Dr. Brown, and skin oxygen saturation studies of his right lower extremity in order to determine the extent of the vascular disease. These studies revealed the blood supply in plaintiff’s ankle and proximally to the lower portion of the anterior tibia and peroneal arteries was very poor. In addition, the ulceration had extended laterally, including some of the heel area and involving all of the toes, and the oxygen saturation was only adequate from the ankle upward. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Accordingly, due to the lack of blood supply and tissue oxygenation, severe sepsis, and the intolerable pain plaintiff was experiencing, Dr. Brown recommended that a below-the-knee amputation be performed. That same day, April 23, 2006, Dr. Woo, assisted by Joe Black, M.D., performed a right below-the-knee amputation of plaintiff’s right foot. Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well and there were no complications.
Notwithstanding, as elaborated infra, plaintiff cannot prove the essential elements of a breach of the standard of care or causation against the moving defendant.
As stated in the declarations of Richard Brown, M.D., and Darla King, M.D., the care rendered by Dr. Brown conformed, at all times, with the applicable standard of practice. Further, as elaborated in the aforementioned declarations, Dr..Brown did not cause, or contribute to, plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. Accordingly, defendant Richard Brown, M.D., is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (See Part 5 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.