Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant James Lee M.D.’s, Motion for Summary Judgment
POINT AND AUTHORITIES
The Testimony of Dr. Stuart Raises a Triable Issue of Fact as to Whether Dr. Lee’s Treatment Fell Below the Standard of Care and Was a Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Injuries.
To be entitled to summary judgment in his favor, Dr. Lee is required to present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely that not that his treatment fell below the standard of care. (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.) The testimony of defendant Paul Stuart, M.D., raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the conduct of Dr. Lee was the cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
As set forth in plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, it is undisputed that at some point during his hospital stay plaintiff suffered the following injuries: laceration of the left iliac vein, laceration of the mesentery and small bowel perforation, posterior laceration of the bifurcation of the abdominal aorta and an anterior wall laceration.
Defendant Dr. Stuart’s treatment of plaintiff began on June 19, 2006, when plaintiff suffered from respiratory failure and complications of aspiration pneumonia and a pulmonary embolism. On June 28th, plaintiff’s blood pressure again dropped and a central venous catheter was placed in his groin by Dr. Stuart. It is Dr. Stuart’s opinion plaintiff was already suffering from an internal bleed before he placed the central venous line.
Q: Did you have any reason to believe that the bleed – that there had not been a bleed before you performed your lines?
A: Did I have any reason to believe that the bleed
Q: Right. That this patient wasn’t bleeding internally before the central venous line was placed or the arterial catheter was placed.
A: No. It was obvious that he was already bleeding.
Q: And what did you base that on?
A: The fall in the hemoglobin. The hypotension and the tachycardia. His heart rate being 140. The blood pressure being low, and the hemoglobin having already dropped..” (See Deposition of Dr. Stuart submitted in support.) (See Part 2 of 2.)
For more information you are welcome to contact personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.