Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
PLAINTIFF CANNOT CAUSALLY RELATE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT TO ANY
PURPORTED DAMAGES OR INJURIES
A medical malpractice plaintiff must show that defendant caused his/her injury. Causation provides the essential link between the negligent act and the damage suffered by the party seeking recovery. The Court of Appeal has held that “a plaintiff, in order to establish liability, must prove more than abstract negligence unconnected to the injury.” Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers (1955) 168 Cal.App.3d 912, 916. It is plaintiff’s burden to plead and prove the element of causation to support his claim for damages. In Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, the Court observed:
“The law is well settled in a personal injury action, causation must be proved within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.” (Citations omitted.) That there is a distinction between a reasonable “probability” and a “possibility” needs little discussion. There can be many possible “causes,” indeed, an indefinite number of circumstances which can produce injury or disease.
A “possible” cause only becomes “probable” when, in the absence of other reasonable causal connections, it becomes more likely than not, that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” (Citations omitted). Jones at 402-403.
Plaintiff cannot establish that any act or omission by this moving defendant caused or contributed to any injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, this moving defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The declaration of surgical expert Dr. Lee establishes that there is no injury to plaintiff which was caused by this defendant. (See Part 8 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.