Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/brain injury case and its proceedings.)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Nancy White filed a complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging wrongful death relating to the treatment and care defendant provided to her mother and decedent, Alice Miller. According to plaintiff, defendant UMC’s treatment at a cardiac catheterization laboratory and the patient’s subsequent ICU admission to UMC resulted in plaintiff’s mother’s death on September 27, 2007.
Plaintiff alleges that she is the daughter of decedent. Plaintiff does not identify other heirs.
All five causes of action are titled “General Negligence,” but based upon wrongful death allegations.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that UMC failed to provide the proper standard of care of surgical intervention and repair ; and that defendant failed to provide timely assistance to the medical emergency thereby not providing the proper standard of medical care for emergencies. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiff’s second cause of action sets forth additional theories. It is contended that UMC is legally obligated to provide adequate service providers, “and to provide adequate surgical staff to respond to STAT requests for assistance”; and to restrict the “permitted hours of operation to the times in which UMC has sufficient surgical staff to respond to STAT requests”; and that UMC’s “surgical staff did not respond to three pages for STAT assistance in a timely fashion that meets [the] acceptable standard of care.”
The second cause of action concludes with an allegation that the failure of any surgeon or qualified medical physician to timely respond to the STAT request for assistance affected decedent’s chances for survival, and that this refusal, either deliberate or unintentional, either due to the late hour or due to the fear of liability, constitutes medical negligence, especially under “loss of chance.”
Plaintiff’s third cause of action also alleges medical negligence but focuses on defendant’s alleged failure to obtain proper informed consent; and that decedent’s “informed consent was no longer valid once the patient’s clinical status changed”; and that decedent’s family “would not have consented to the catheterization given [decedent’s] current, precarious medical status”; and that defendant should prevent elective procedures on patients … that a UMC’s staff surgeon had declared too unstable for surgery.
Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action alleges that defendant had a legally recognized responsibility to ensure that only qualified physicians are permitted to practice at UMC; and that defendant failed to contract with physicians who were trained, and/or experienced, and/or skilled, and/or qualified to provide prompt, life-saving care.
Finally, plaintiff’s fifth cause of action alleges that UMC’s patients should be able to reasonably assume that any physician practicing at UMC has been approved by UMC to do so and has been deemed to have the requisite skills, training and experience to perform the procedures as allowed by UMC ; and that UMC has an obligation to oversee and/or supervise independent contract physicians to have backup procedures and policies that will protect patients. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.