Sacramento Man Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury Due To Doctor’s Reckless Conduct, Part 9 of 9

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this traumatic brain 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, 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.)


Dr. Brown seeks to strike the following allegations from Paragraph 13, Page 3, line 27 to Page 4, line 2 of the Complaint:

Witnesses at the accident site described Melissa Brown, M.D., as being dazed and confused, and acting like a spectator who did not understand what was going on.

Without any supporting authority, Defendant simply claims these allegations “add nothing to the elements of the complaint or the allegations of punitive damages and should be stricken.” Facts pertaining to witness observations at the scene are relevant to, inter alia, issues of Dr. Brown’s egregious conduct and how impaired she was at the time of the incident. This fact helps establish that Dr. Brown drove a vehicle with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, including David Hall. Plaintiff’s factual allegations describing Dr. Brown at the scene are integral to the negligence causes of action in the Complaint and Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages. Defendant’s vague objection hardly justifies striking this salient fact.

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

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. Should the Court be inclined to strike any portions of the Complaint, Plaintiff prays for leave to amend. The same liberal policy re amendment of pleadings applies as on sustaining demurrers. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 7:203. Therefore, as long as the defect is correctable, an amended pleading will usually be allowed. Id. See also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 168 [relying on C.C.P § 576, which authorizes the court to allow amendment of pleadings at any time “in furtherance of justice.”]
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information