Sacramento Man Dies After Medical Malpractice, Part 3 of 8
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.
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, 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 wrongful death case and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFFS APPEAR TO MISUNDERSTAND THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING OF THE VERDICT
As mentioned in Defendant's previous filing, a JNOV must be denied if there is ANY substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict. See authorities cited therein.
Instead, ignoring the testimony cited in the prior Opposition, Plaintiffs appear to argue that there was evidence that COULD support a verdict for the Plaintiffs, and base their arguments for both motions thereon. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Unfortunately, even the cited testimony is mischaracterized in their moving papers.
Physical Therapy Order By Dr. Lee
First, Plaintiffs claim (Points and Authorities, pg. 5, lines 15-17) that Dr. Lee's treatment plan was overall full body physical therapy... [Emphasis added], appearing to suggest that the plan included physical therapy of the neck.
Actually, the cited testimony belies such a claim, In fact Dr. Lee wanted no therapy to be provided to the neck at all. He testified (Reporter's transcript, page 51, line 18 to page 52, line 23):
Q. [by Mr. Howard] And what treatment did you order for Mr. Greene on February 24th of 2005? What did you want the rehab hospital to be doing with him?
A. Very important now, I say again, therapy is not for neck. Neck is for the resting on the neck. Patient have to get up and rehab, try to get up and ambulate. That's very important, too, to restore his, you know, regular ambulatory activity, everything else. That's why many go physical therapy. But the treatment for the neck is usually resting, not by physical therapy.
Q. So when he goes to rehab then in February 24th of '03, you have - you intend for them to engage him in overall full-body physical therapy?
Q. Not just for the neck?
Q. Did you want them to avoid the neck?
A. Avoid the neck? If they want to put a heating pad. That's their special field. 1 cannot comment on that.
Q. Okay. Physical therapy is not your specialty either, is it?
A. No, it's not mine.
Q. Okay. Did you give any precautions? Did you tell them, you know, He has a possible cervical fracture, so consider that in your physical therapy ?
A. They should know because they have a cervical collar and diagnosis there in the history. They should read that. They should know that.
Q. Okay. You didn't put that in your order, did you?
A. In the order?
Q. Yes. When you ordered physical therapy for Mr. Greene, at the rehab center, you didn't write in your order special precautions for possible cervical fracture?
A. I didn't put a special precaution, no. (See Part 4 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.