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, Methodist, 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s counsel, in open court, intimated that he may reference Hall’s bankruptcy as there were three certain properties included in the initial bankruptcy application. Further information regarding his purpose for introduction of that evidence was not given, but moving party can only assume that it will be used to reference property that may have been community property of Donna Hall as well. Using that information to suggest potential assets of Donna Hall, if that is the intended purpose, would be improper, as there must be a judgment before evidence of assets can be discussed. Here, as there is clearly no judgment, such introduction would be untimely and highly improper.

EVIDENCE OR REFERENCE TO THE PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY OF DEFENDANT IAN HALL HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN THIS CASE, WILL NECESSITATE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AND IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL

Evidence Code section 352 states that [t]he Court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Defendant's Personal Property Becomes Potential Issue In Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 3 " »

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, Methodist, 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF IAN HALL’S PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE INSTANT TRIAL AND UNTIMELY EVIDENCE

To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. (Ev. Code §350.) Relevant evidence means evidence [h]aving some tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Ev. Code §210.) Once it has been established that the plaintiff's proposed evidence is not material and relevant to the issues at hand, it is mandatory that it be excluded as evidence. (People v. Thompson (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 13, 18.)

Here, there is no relevance to the fact that Ian Hall filed for bankruptcy and had his bankruptcy discharged on August 11, 2008. He filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, and after his was determined a no-asset estate, it was discharged. Plaintiffs, who were listed as creditors, took the necessary steps to file a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay, and after being heard by the federal bankruptcy judge had their recovery for this lawsuit limited to Mr. Hall’s applicable insurance policies. Other co-defendants were also liste as creditors, but they either failed to file a Motion for Relief, withdrew their Motions before they were heard. (See Part 3 of 3.)

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

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, Methodist, 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Motion in Limine of Defendant Ian Hall to Exclude Any Reference to or Mention of Ian Hall's Personal Bankruptcy By Plaintiff Kenneth Lee

Defendant Ian Hall, before introduction of evidence, hereby moves this Court for an Order precluding plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, any other party or their respective counsel, or any other witness from introducing any evidence of or reference to defendant Ian Hall’s 2008 personal bankruptcy, which was filed on April 9, 2008 and discharged on August 11, 2008, in this Sacramento medical malpractice lawsuit.

This motion is made on the grounds that such references and evidence are irrelevant, prejudicial, and will prove to be confusing and misleading to the jury. Any reference to Ian Hall's bankruptcy will lead to widespread speculation of the jury, as to nature and extent of that bankruptcy and who it covers. In order to avoid such confusion, and risk of mistrial if jurors make assumptions based on their bankruptcy speculation only, Defendant Ian Hall seeks an order from the Court to preclude any reference or evidence of his personal bankruptcy.

INTRODUCTION

On April 9, 2008, defendant Ian Hall filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs and several co-defendants were listed as creditors in the bankruptcy.

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

Continue reading " Defendant's Bankruptcy Becomes Issue In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 3 " »

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, Methodist, 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S DISPUTE WITH ANY EMPLOYEES. DOCTORS, MEMBERS, OR OFFICE STAFF OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPORTS EXCELLENCE IS INADMISSIBLE AND WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352

Evidence Code Section 352 provides:

The Court, in its discretion, may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will:

a. necessitate undue compensation of time, or,

b. create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

In the instant case, the probative value of this evidence is non existent, as there is no relevant reason to admit any evidence of plaintiffs minor disputes with any employees, doctors, members, or office staff of Center for Orthopedic and Sports Excellence to the jury.

On the other hand, the prejudice inherent in the admission of such evidence is substantial to the plaintiff, as it would confuse the issues present in this case, and/or mislead the jury with respect to the material issues in this case.

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

Continue reading " Sports Injury Recovery Center Sued For Medical Malpractice For Chiropractic Issues, Part 2 of 2 " »

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, Methodist, 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 lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Donald Hall’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's Disputes with National Center for Sports Excellence; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Donald Hall, hereby moves this Court for an order to exclude any evidence of plaintiff's disputes with National Center for Sports Excellence; and an order directing all parties, their counsel, witnesses and other persons participating in the trial to refrain from any reference, mention of, or allusion to plaintiffs disputes with any employees, doctors, members, or office staff of National Center for Sports Excellence.

This motion is made on the grounds that said evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 350, 351, and 352, as its probative value is outweighed by the probability of undue prejudice against this plaintiff. Any comment or attempted introduction of the above evidence would be improper and highly prejudicial. Even if the court sustained an objection to the evidence at trial and instructed the jury to disregard it, the evidence would be so prejudicial that plaintiff could not receive a fair trial.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Sues Chiropractor For Medical Malpractice, Part 1 of 2 " »