Sacramento Pediatric Neurologist Makes Critical Error With Birth Injury Diagnosis, Part 6 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.)


Evidence Code section 350 states that only relevant evidence is admissible. Speculation in itself is not evidence and evidence which produces only speculative inference is irrelevant. (People v. De la Plane (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 223) Evidence Code section 352 allows the court in its discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury. Testimony which invites improper speculation by the jury is construed to be misleading, confusing, and can be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. (Cox v. Superior Court (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 670, 675.) In this case, Dr. Hill treated this child for months, from March 2001 through January 2000. She then left the University. It is purely speculation that had Emma sought out Dr. Hill again that she would have made a diagnosis she ruled out earlier.

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

During the time frame that Dr. Hill treated Emma she was only part-time at Universal Hospital, working two days a week in the clinic. She started at Universal Hospital in May 2000 and left in February 2000. It is also pure speculation that had she seen the original pediatric neurologist, Dr. Trauner, Dr. Lee or Dr. Skoglund who were available during this entire course of time, that any of them would have made this diagnosis. There is no duty to return to a physician who is wrong.


It is just as likely a scenario that once she labeled Emma as suffering from a non-reversible birth injury, Dr. Hill would have done nothing but compounded the problem. By not giving her the medication L dopa, her muscles would have atrophied, her tendons shortened, and she would have been permanently crippled. Plaintiff can not recover for this could have been scenario and Defendant Hill cannot limit her liability to an if I had one more chance analysis. Both are pure speculation. Neither of which belong in this trial.

Evidence Code section 803 states as follows:

The court may, and upon objection shall, exclude testimony in the form of an opinion that is based in whole or in significant part on matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion …(Evidence Code section 803)

Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests that any comments or opinions regarding the mother’s failure to return for additional appointments to other health care practitioner, including Dr. Hill, would have led to a correct diagnosis be excluded.

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

Contact Information