Sacramento Family Files Malpractice Suit Against Hospital For Birth Injuries, Part 2 of 6

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

(Please also 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.)

In October 2002, Mrs. Smith watched a television show regarding DRD. She immediately knew that the diagnosis her daughter had carried for nearly four years, made by Dr. Hill, of spastic diplegia due to birth trauma, was incorrect. She therefore called her pediatrician and was referred to endocrinologist, Bob Greene, M.D. On the same day as the appointment Dr. Greene prescribed a trial dosage of L dopa/Sinemet for Emma. Within literally hours Emma’s symptoms began to disappear.

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


During the deposition of the defense expert witness, Dr. Nancy Black, she commented repeatedly that Mrs. Smith did not bring Emma to the same doctor during this four year period. Quotes from the deposition representative of said comments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. She states that “the kid has been everywhere. The mother was shopping around.” Ultimately, she gives the opinion, based on nothing other than utter speculation, that Emma probably would have been diagnosed somewhat earlier had she just continued to follow up with the first neurologist.

Dr. Black gives this unfounded opinion despite the fact that she admits that Mrs. Smith had Emma participate in all testing ordered by Dr. Hill and that all the testing was normal. Admittedly Dr. Hill did not set a return appointment.

Such comments and certainly such an opinion are inappropriate as speculative, irrelevant, and misleading. This is not the proper subject of expert opinion. It invites the jury to speculate that the mother was in some manner at fault and what might have happened with different facts, foundational tacts that cannot be proved. As such, all such comments and opinions should be excluded. (Evidence Code sections 350,352, 801 and 803.) (See Part 3 of 6.)

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

Contact Information