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, or Sutter.

(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.)

THE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY MOVING DEFENDANT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO ANY DAMAGES ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF

Dr. Lee has also concluded that none of Stefan Black, M.D.'s actions or omissions during his involvement in the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff in any way caused or contributed to any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff. Consequently, there is no basis for liability against Stefan Black, M.D.

In order to prevail on a cause of action for medical malpractice. Plaintiffs must establish
(1) The duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise, (2) a breach of duty, (3) a proximate casual connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence. Hanson v. Grode, (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606.

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

In Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, the Court stated that legal causation should be based upon whether defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor" in bunging about the plaintiff's injuries Mitchell. 54 Cal.3d at 1052 - 1053.

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Alleges Malpractice By Gastroenterologist, Part 5 of 5 " »

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 personal injury case and its proceedings.)

At issue in the present case is the propriety of care and treatment rendered by Stefan Black, M.D. The particular care of hospital personnel and particularly, physicians, is beyond the common knowledge of the layman and therefore. requires expert testimony. As the Court noted in Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., (1990) 222 Cal.App 3d 379.385. Medical causation can only be determined by expert medical testimony.

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

Dr. Lee is board-certified in gastroenterology. Based upon his education, training and experience, and review of all relevant information, it is Dr. Lee professional opinion that Stefan Black, M.D.'s care and treatment of Plaintiff, Donna Hill, complied with the applicable standard of care incumbent upon a gastroenterologist. Based upon Dr. Lee’s training and experience in gastroenterology, he has knowledge of the pertinent standard of care among physicians practicing in the northern California medical community at all times relevant to this matter. Dr. Lee’s expert declaration establishes Stefan Black, M.D.'s complete defense to Plaintiff's claims of medical negligence.

Continue reading " Several Instances Of Medical Negligence Lead To Sacramento Malpractice Suit, Part 4 of 5 " »

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 personal injury case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN THERE ARE NO TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT

The procedural standard for summary judgment is described by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c. The pertinent sections provide:

(a) Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto.

(b) The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declaration, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, or in any manner which judicial notice shall or may be taken. The supporting papers shall include a separate statement letting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed.

(c) The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(d) Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by any person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated is the affidavits at declarations.California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. (See also section 437(f) for the similar standards set forth for a motion for summary adjudication.)

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

Continue reading " Doctors' Medical Treatment Of Sacramento Woman Falls Below Standard Of Care, Part 3 of 5 " »

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 personal injury case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Donna Hill, date of birth XX/XX/1934, had been a patient of Dr. Black's for a number of years prior to March, 2006. She had undergone colonoscopies in 2000, 2003, and an esophagogastroduodonoscopy in 2001. The colonoscopies were primarily for evaluation of colonic polyps after she had been diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001.

On March 7, 2006, the patient returned to Dr. Black for a routine screening colonoscopy. She had no colon symptoms at the time and a colonoscopy was schedule for March 23, 2006, at the Universal Endoscopy Center.

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

On March 23, 2006, the patient presented for her colonoscopy as scheduled. She had no complaints and there were no abnormalities noted on her physical exam, including the abdomen. She had undergone the normal bowel prep in anticipation of the procedure.
After placing the patient in the left lateral decubitus position, a digital rectal exam and visual inspection of the perineum was performed. Thereafter, the colonscope was gently inserted into the rectum. Almost immediately, Dr. Black encountered "debris" (possibly granulation tissue) in the sigmoid, that appeared partially attached to the lumen.

Continue reading " Medical Malpractice Action Filed Against Sacramento Doctors, Part 2 of 5 " »

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 personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendant. Stefan Black, M.D., will move this Court for an Order for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, the Summary Adjudication of issues, in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Donna Hill, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

This Motion will be based upon the grounds that this action has no merit and there is no triable issue of material fact as to this moving Defendant.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

The instant case is one of alleged medical malpractice. Plaintiff, Donna Hill alleges that Defendant, Stefan Black, M.D. (hereinafter, "Dr. Black"), was negligent in the care and treatment of Plaintiff.

Defendant, Stefan Black, M.D., brings this Motion on the grounds that his involvement in the care and treatment of Plaintiff. Donna Hill, was within the standard of care, and no act or omission on the part of Stefan Black M.D., caused or contributed to the alleged injuries suffered by Plaintiff therefore, there it no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on her behalf. (See Part 2 of 5.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Sues Doctors For Malpractice, Part 1 of 5 " »