San Francisco Surgeons Shift Blame For Obvious Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 2

(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, continues below.

If Dr. Stuart is correct then the bleed must have been caused by either Dr. Green’s or Dr. Smith’s conduct during the initial surgery on June 16th or, during the placement of the arterial and femoral line by Dr. Lee on the 24th. Either way, according to Dr. Stuart he did not cause any of the injuries.

The following colloquy is supportive:

Q: Okay. Now here he [Dr. Smith] says in his operative findings: The posterior laceration of the bifurcation of the abdominal aorta and an anterior wall laceration directly behind the first wound of the left common iliac vein. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you cause any of those lacerations?
A: No.
Q: How do you know that?

A: Because I think it would be a – it would be essentially a physical impossibility for me to have done that.

Assuming Dr. Stuart did not cause these injuries, then they had to be caused by either Dr. Smith, Dr. Lee or Dr. Green. At a minimum, Dr. Stuart’s testimony raises a triable issue of fact as to whether or not Dr. Lee caused plaintiffs injuries.


Based upon the foregoing questions of law cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the proceedings because questions of material fact abound, and neither a summary judgment or summary a judication are proper remedies to be ordered by this Court. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny defendant Dr. Lee’s summary judgment motion, and alternatively, that it deny defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.

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

Contact Information