Sacramento Medical Malpractice 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, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

Discussion of Dr. Lee’s Testimony cont.

Additionally, at another point in his deposition, Dr. Lee testified that his best understanding of where the pressure sore began was with reddening at XYZ. Lee Depo. at 87:6-88:2.

From the totality of Dr. Lee's deposition testimony it is clear that he cannot testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. Hill's pressure sore did not begin at XYZ Healthcare. Indeed, he testified to precisely the opposite in his deposition. Given this, Dr. Lee should be precluded from offering the opinion at trial that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Ms. Hill's pressure sore began at XYZ Healthcare.

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

Inquiries Should Be Made As To Whether Dr. Lee Has Been Apprised Of His Fifth Amendment Right To Not Incriminate Himself Regarding Potentially Criminal Conduct

Dr. Lee signed two declarations in connection with his expert work in this matter. One declaration was in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment. The other declaration related to his efforts to have his deposition taken in SanDiego rather than Sacramento. Both declarations contain significant and material false statements.

While Dr. Lee can follow the lead of his counterpart nurse Cece Brown and suggest that the false statements in his declaration in support of summary judgment were unintentional oversights, plaintiffs do not believe the same can be said for his declaration seeking to have his deposition in Fresno rather than Sacramento.

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Sues Skilled Nursing Facility Doctor For Elder Abuse, Part 4 of 4 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

Dr. Lee Should Be Precluded From Rendering The Opinion That Ms. Hill Did Not Develop Her Pressure Sore At XYZ Healthcare

During the earlier part of his deposition, Dr. Lee offered opinions that were at best vague and contradictory whether he could or would render an opinion regarding whether Ms. Hill did or did not develop her pressure sore at XYZ Healthcare. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

For example, after being impeached with the woeful inaccuracies in his deposition in which he stated that Ms. Hill had been in transit for 30 hours instead of 6 or 7 hours (actually it was 5.5 hours), Dr. Lee testified:

A: Well, yes. Instead of the 30 it's a small number, 6 or 7 hours. Could decub occur in 6 or 7 hours? Yes. Could the decub be caused from pressure? Yes. Could it be from urine? Yes. Could it be from lack of turns? Yes. But I'm not gonna testify to what actually caused the decub.
(Lee Depo. at 68:19-25.)

Shortly thereafter, however, Dr. Lee testified:

Q: Will you be testifying that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty Ms Hill did not develop the pressure sore that was documented upon her admission to Kaiser at XYZ Healthcare?
A. Correct.
(Lee Depo. at 69:11-15.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Doctor Sued For Role In Elder Abuse Case, Part 3 of 4 " »

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, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

Plaintiffs note that, in response to other questions, Dr. Lee made statements regarding Ms. Hill's potential mortality rate once she broke her hip. He referred to his opinion that the delay in treatment did not hasten Ms. Hill's death. Lee Depo. at 103:20-104.6. Dr. Lee then discussed what he believed to be the high rate of mortality among elderly persons who fracture their hip. Id. at 104 8-107:22. After this, he explained well, once she got her hip fracture that was undiagnosed and I -- okay, which was undiagnosed, at that moment she became a high mortality. Now, staying the extra days in bed without getting the surgery, as I said earlier, it puts her at a higher risk for all those other things happening Id. at 107:16-22.

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

The Court should preclude testimony along the lines stated in the above paragraph. Dr. Lee specifically ruled out his intent to render testimony regarding the cause of Ms. Hill's death during his deposition. Given this, his musings about the rate of mortality for patients who need hip surgery and whether and to what extent the delay affected Ms. Hill's mortality rate (which testimony was at best equivocal in any event), should be excluded pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350 and 352 as entirely irrelevant and potentially confusing the issues remaining in this case for the jury. (See Part 3 of 4.)

Continue reading " Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Woman At Elder Care Facility, Part 2 of 4 " »

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, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(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.)

Plaintiffs Emma Hill and Noelle White’s Bench Brief Re Anticipated Testimony of Harold Lee, M.D.

Defendants have stated their intent to call their physician expert, Harold Lee, M.D., during trial.
Plaintiffs file this anticipatory bench brief in an effort to avoid protracted discussion at sidebar in the jury's presence regarding various aspects of the scope of Dr. Lee's testimony.

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

Dr. Lee Should Be Precluded From Offering Testimony Of Any Kind Relating To Ms. Hill's Cause Of Death

First, Dr. Lee should be precluded from offering testimony of any kind relating to Ms Hill's cause of death. In his deposition, Dr. Lee specifically testified that he would not be offering any opinion as to causation at trial:

Q: Are you going to render an opinion that sepsis from an infected sacral ulcer was not a cause of death for Ms. Hill?
A: Well, what I'm gonna say is it's anyone's guess whether it was the sacral infection or a urinary tract infection.

Q: So you're not -- you're not gonna offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what the cause of death was for Ms. Hill; is that right?
A: Correct.
(Lee Depo. at 103:5-15.)

Continue reading " Expert Medical Testimony At Issue In Sacramento Elder Abuse Case, Part 1 of 4 " »

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.)

THE JURY WAS CORRECT IN FINDING THAT DR. LEE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN HIS CARE AND TREATMENT OF ALBERT GREENE

Much of the testimony on both sides has been discussed in prior filings. Below, Defendant will address only the new matter raised in Plaintiffs' moving papers.

Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Smith testified that an internist should at least know that a dens fracture presents a risk of spinal cord damage (Plaintiffs' brief, page 9, lines 5-6), but the cited testimony by Dr. Smith refers to a displaced fracture causing spinal compression - - not the situation Dr. Lee was presented with. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, Plaintiffs ignore the extensive testimony of Dr. Smith about this same issue, later in Plaintiffs' counsel's cross-examination of Dr. Smith:

Q. [by Mr. Howard] So what does the standard of care call for treating Mr. Greene at this stage of the game where we have Exhibit 3, where we still see a suspected chronic fracture of the dens and an incomplete opening of the C1? What does the standard of care require regarding treatment of the neck at that stage?
A. I think most internists would be satisfied and reassured that the emergency room physician has confirmed - conferred with the radiologists and that they both felt there was no acute problem here with the neck and that the neck has been cleared.

Continue reading " Medical Negligence Causes Death Of Sacramento Man, Part 8 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.)

The Court of Appeal addressed the holdings of Cobbs and Truman, discussing the duty found in those cases to disclose information about recommended procedures [See 7 Cal.App.4th at pt 1069], The Court went on to say:

In Scalere v. Stenson (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1446 [260 Cal.Rptr. 152], the plaintiff made the same argument that plaintiff here makes, namely, that a physician has a duty of disclosure concerning procedures which he or she is not recommending. There, the defendant physician, a cardiologist, performed an angiogram on the plaintiff's right arm. After surgery, plaintiff reported pain and discomfort in her arm. The physician examined and tested her arm and concluded that it was progressing satisfactorily. Consequently, he neither told her about nor recommended any further diagnostic tests or therapy. About a year later the plaintiff underwent a saphenous vein bypass of her right brachial artery with resultant damage. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the ensuing malpractice action, the jury found that the physician was not negligent On appeal, plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in not instructing on duty to disclose. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, concluding that the duty of disclosure is predicated upon a recommended treatment or diagnostic procedure and that the failure to recommend a procedure must be addressed under ordinary medical negligence standards.

Continue reading " Medical Malpractice By Sacramento Doctors Results In Permanent Paralysis, Part 7 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 HAVE COMPLETELY FAILED TO SHOW ANY LEGAL DUTY BY DR. LEE TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SURGERY. REFERRAL TO A NEUROSURGEON. OR PHYSICAL THERAPY ON THE NECK SINCE HE DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY OF THOSE INTERVENTIONS

Citing Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1 and Truman v. Thomas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 285 165 Cal.Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d 902, Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Lee had a "legal duty" to disclose risks associated with not treating his dens fracture or with performing physical therapy. In so doing, they ignore the fact that both Cobbs and Truman repeatedly refer to "recommended therapy" in connection with a duty to disclose. In the instant case, Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Lee had a legal duty to discuss the risks of treatments he DID NOT recommend. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A nearly identical claim was rejected in Vandi v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1992), 7 Cal.App.4th 1064; 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 463. There, the Court of Appeal began their decision by stating [opinion at pg. 1066]:

Continue reading " Sacramento Sporting Goods Store Trip And Fall Incident Leads To Wrongful Death, Part 6 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.)

Claimed Absence Of Explanation By Dr. Smith

Second, it is interesting that Plaintiffs claim Dr. Smith gave no explanation for how spinal cord injury would be avoided by ordering Mr. Greene into physical therapy. The simple explanation for this claimed failure by Dr. Smith is that the cited questioning was by Plaintiffs' counsel, who elected not to ask for an explanation.

Testimony Of Dr. Brown As To Physical Therapy

Going to the testimony of treating neurosurgeon Dr. Brown, Plaintiffs claim that he testified that it is below the standard of care to order physical therapy for a patient with a neck fracture. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Unfortunately, Plaintiffs seem to ignore the fact that the standard of care to which Dr. Brown was referring was the neurosurgery standard of care, and that the question itself refers to an order for physical therapy of the neck:

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Suffers Fatal Spinal Cord Injury During Store Trip And Fall, Part 5 of 8 " »