Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

By nature, the medical field is complex. For this reason, you have to get in touch with a medical doctor for treatment. Doctors have studied medicine for many years, so they know better on how to diagnose a condition and perform the right treatment accordingly.

As with other professions, mistakes can occur in the medical field as well. However, at times, these mistakes may have considerable impact on the life of the patient. The patient loses his health due to the injury caused by the medical staff. The reasons can be many including mistakes or lack of competency.

You have to take appropriate actions if you think that you have gotten an injury because of the medical negligence of your doctor. The first thing you must do is to visit a medical malpractice attorney in Sacramento, CA.

In order to prove that you have become the victim of medical negligence, you have to prove that you sustained an injury due to the negligence of your doctor or nurse or hospital. In order to do this, the lawyer you have hired will figure out whether you were given the treatment you deserved. If the doctor informs you before giving you a treatment that there are chances of side effects, you may not be able to file a case.

You must have valid documents in order to prove that you suffered an injury due to the treatment you received. If you have sustained physical injuries, it may be easier to prove by showing the medical records. On the other hand, for psychological problems, it will be a bit harder. A good lawyer, however, can make things relatively easier.

Another important thing is that you should identify someone you can file a claim against. Usually, this is the doctor who gave you the treatment. The person you will file a claim against will pay the compensation you will recover.

Typically, you have one year from the day you understood or should have understood that the doctor or nurse or hospital was negligent to file a case. But it is best to get the claim filed as soon as possible. But this does mean you should do things in a hurry. Just be wise and take steps carefully.

Filing a medical negligence case may cause you lots of stress, but with a good lawyer the stress can go down to a minimum. I hope this post is enough to get you ready for filing a case.

Statistics show that medical treatments do not usually go wrong. However, in rare cases, medical procedures will lead to severe injuries. The cause of injury can be medical malpractice, which may result in stress, income loss and emotional issues just to name a few. In some of these cases, the only option is to file a compensation claim.
Due to the myths associated with the filed of law, some people do not choose to file a claim.

They feel that it is very difficult to hire the right lawyer that best suits their needs. They believe that the claim filing process is complex and may cost a good deal of money. Another concern that they have is that the claim will take years to settle.

Some people are of the opinion that it is better to choose a firm located in their area of residence. They do not normally prefer a lawyer having specialization in dealing with medical malpractice cases. For example, if the claimant is based in California, he will be looking for a medical malpractice solicitor in California. This is not the case. It is much better to go for a solicitor with experience rather than go for one located in your own area.

Some claimants believe that filing a claim is much more complicated. They think that they will have to fill in hundreds of complicated forms, respond to stupidly complicated questions and have to update their knowledge on legal processes. This is not right. Your lawyer will be there to handle these things.

Some people think that filing a case will cost an arm and a leg to them. This is not true. Law firms know well that not all people have the same budget to file a claim. They have different packages for different people. So, do not worry if you are on a budget, as this will not be a problem while you are making your mind to file a claim.

Lastly, people think that settling the case will absorb years, which is not true again. The truth of the matter is that only high profile, complex cases take years to settle. Others settle within a matter of months so you do not need to be concerned about the time your case will take to resolve. In fact, if you have a solid case, you will be most likely to win in a few months.

No one can stop you from recovering the compensation you really deserve. You just need to visit a trust worthy, bona fide medical negligence solicitor in California.

If you have filed a medical negligence claim, the amount of compensation you can obtain is dependent on a host of factors. Among the primary factors include pain and suffering you go through as a result of the injury. Aside from these, other factors, such as financial losses can also affect the amount of compensation you can recover. Given below is a description of the kinds of damages you can obtain in case of a medical malpractice claim. Read on to find out more.

General damages

The purpose of General damages, for the most part, is to compensate a victim for the severe pain he or she suffers from after sustaining an injury. The amount of general damages paid to the victim is figured out based on the same type of injuries people incurred in the past. So, judge announces his verdict by considering the past cases. Of course, every case is different and you will get more compensation if you sustained severe injuries. It is not possible to quantify general damages; therefore, the victim as well as the defendant has to agree to a certain amount. The court can also order to give a certain amount to the victim.

Special damages

Special damages, on the other hand, can be figured out. In order to calculate special damages, one needs to provide evidence in the form of hospital bills and receipts and other related documents. Basically, it includes the expenses along with financial loss incurred by you, and the loss you will incur down the road. Some examples of these damages are income loss, taxi fares, and hospital expenses just to name a few. So, if you have been a victim of medical negligence, hiring a good medical negligence lawyer is arguably the best idea.

Interim damages

In some medical negligence cases, the victim can recover interim damages. As the name clearly suggests, the interim damages can be paid out prior to the case reaches settlement. This is applicable in the type of cases in which the case has been settled and person who made the claim achieves success. However, with this amount they can deal with expenses during their injury period. In serious cases, interim payments are made where you have to wait for a long time to recover compensation from the defendant.

Time limits

If you want to file a claim against your hospital or doctor, then you should have an experienced medical malpractice lawyer on your side. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that you cannot win a case overnight. Every case is different from another and takes time to get resolved. So, you should have patience. If your case is simple, it will most likely resolve in a few months, but if it is complicated, you may have to wait for several months or years to hear good news. But a competent lawyer can win a case more easily and quickly than a non-competent one. So, keep these pointers in mind and hire a competent lawyer to get things done more easily. Hope this will help you get started.

The popular term “medical malpractice” points to any injury or harm sustained by someone due to the negligence or mistake of a medical doctor. A medical malpractice attorney is an individual helping people with injuries caused by a doctor. The role of the lawyer is to help people file a compensation claim for the recovery of compensation. By hiring a lawyer, you put your trust in the lawyer and share everything related to the case with him. So, if the doctor’s malpractice causes any harm to you, you can then get in touch with a medical malpractice lawyer in California. Read on to find out more.

Anyone can contact a lawyer in order to claim damages in case of malpractice. Negligence includes prescribing wrong treatment or medicine, surgical errors, overuse of medicine, and so on and so forth. The injury sustained by the patient should be serious in nature or he or she won’t be able to get compensation. In fact, if you did not get serious injury, you cannot file a claim at all.

The actual amount of compensation you can recover depends on your case as well as the circumstances. As a general rule, the claim can get you compensation for physical injury, mental trauma occurred due to malpractice, income loss, loss of future earnings, and general expenses associated with the injury. Cost of care needed after the malpractice and compensation for the lifestyle changes can also be obtained.

There are a large number of medical negligence lawyers working in California as well. They are working day and night to help people out to acquire compensation they really deserve. So, if you think you have sustained an injury solely due to the fault of your doctor, then you should do some research in your area in order to get a lawyer who can help you file a case, negotiate with the insurance provider and the defendant’s lawyer and get you compensation you truly deserve. The lawyer will collect facts as to your case in order to build a strong case for making the other party pay your compensation. Once the lawyer proves that the defendant is at fault, you will be sure to get compensation as soon as possible. So, hiring a lawyer in such cases is of paramount importance.

A lawyers’ objective is to help their respected clients in recovering the amount of money they deserve. Of course, with money, you cannot make up for the injury you sustained and the days of life wasted but you can surely use this amount in order to pay expenses occurred during the injury and your hospital stay. So, these are a few points to bear in mind when going to hire a lawyer in California with an objective to recover compensation and teach a good lesson to the defendant. In this way, you can save many people from becoming a malpractice victim down the road, as the doctor will be more careful while giving treatment to his patients. Hope you will find this article helpful.

We know that medical doctors are very careful while treating a patient. Despite much care, accidents do happen due to a number of reasons. Sometimes, an injury occurred during a treatment that is minor and recovers in a few days or months. On the other hand, some injuries last several years or stays with the patient as long as he remains alive. Medical negligence can lead to these types of injuries during a treatment.

Medical negligence may cause severe injury to a patient; therefore, big sums of compensation are given to the victim of medical negligence. But it is only possible if the victim files a case against the defendant and gets compensation. Most people do not even file a case.

The reason is that they think that their case is not severe enough to get them compensation. The truth of the matter is that whenever a doctor gives low standard treatment to a patient, who causes an injury, the patients can file a case for the recovery of compensation.

Now, the question is, how can you file a claim for medical malpractice? Well, the answer is simple: you should hire a medical malpractice lawyer in California, especially if you are based in California. Choose a lawyer who specializes in dealing with medical negligence lawsuits.

Unfortunately, it won’t be easier for you to prove that you suffered an injury just because the doctor was negligent. To start, your lawyer will tally your case with the treatment you obtained at the doctor’s clinic. This will help your lawyer figure out if you really have a medical negligence case.

However, this is not enough in order to continue with a case. It is important to prove that you got hurt just because of the doctor’s negligence. To make this easier, you can use your medical reports and get them evaluated by a good doctor. You can get compensation only if you succeed in proving this point.

Do not worry about the legal costs. In the same way, do not think about the guilt that you are going to file a case against your family doctor. Most medical negligence lawyers take such cases on a contingency basis. So, you need not worry about their fee. Once you get compensation, their fee will be paid out automatically. You are not going to pay the fee from your own pocket.

It is a hard nut to crack to file a case but if you really think that your health has been compromised just because of your doctor’s negligence, you should not make any delay and hire a lawyer as soon as possible.

What do you think about medical negligence settlements? You might be wondering why medical malpractice incidents happen in today’s technologically advanced world. Nowadays, health care laws have been formulated in order to prevent malpractice in the medical field. Yes, despite all the preventive measures, such incidents still happen in hospitals and other institutes. There are a few requirements you need to fulfill prior to filing a case. Read on to find out more.

You need to know the truth. The documents you sign in a hospital before allowing doctors to give you a treatment does not prevent you from filing a case even if it is torn or damaged. Doctors, in general, have to follow a set standard of medical care while treating a patient. If they violate laws related to medical field, the law allows you to hire a medical malpractice lawyer in California and file a case against the responsible doctor. It is the duty of doctors to carry out things correctly, such as diagnosing correctly, giving right treatment, and following the set medical procedures. If the doctor violates any of these things, you have the right to file a case to recover compensation.

But you are supposed to do a few things. You should keep a record of everything that happens to you as getting records from the hospital will be hard in case something wrong happens. Put date and time when recording anything in the diary related to your medical treatments. Do not forget to write the names of the doctors who treat you along with their prescriptions. Your lawyer can build a strong case if you provide him with complete description of the incidents that lead to an injury to you.

Filing a case without the assistance of a malpractice lawyer is not recommended. Whether your case is strong or weak, you must hire a lawyer in order to file a lawsuit. Hiring a lawyer in California will not cost you as they work on a contingency basis for the most part. They will get paid only if they win the case and recover compensation.

The fact is that a well-documented case does not need to be taken to the court. The reason is that if you have a strong case, the defendant will most likely want to settle out of court by paying a reasonable amount of compensation. They will do that to save their reputation, as people will raise questions about the performance of the hospital in case the local newspapers publish something about the lawsuit. So, your lawyer should try to settle the case out of court as it will save you a good deal of time.

The crux of the matter is that the settlement cannot undo the injury you sustained, but it can help you get better as you will be able to get treatment from a good hospital. Moreover, you will be able to manage other expenses with the amount of compensation you recovered.




Medical negligence or medical malpractice is a crime. This happens when a doctor or physician fails to provide the right type of treatment to a patient. Medical negligence can cause severe injuries. In some cases, it leads to the death of the patients. In most cases, the patient suffers from serious physical or psychological problems. In order to deal with medical malpractice cases, different laws have been formulated. As a victim, you can seek compensation for the loss of income or injuries you sustained. The stature of limitation, however, indicates that you can file a case during a specific time period. After the expirty of that period, you lose the right for making a claim.

Specific procedures are employed in order to ensure the injury caused to the victim was the fault of the doctor. Some medical negligence lawyers in California specialize in dealing with medical negligence lawsuits. If you want your case to be handled in the best way, you must go for the best lawyer.

Medical negligence is of various types and each type has different reasons or causes. A few examples include faulty diagnosis, unnecessary surgeries, anesthesia mistakes, or mistake made by doctors while monitoring the treatment. During delivery, the negligence of a doctor can cause severe injury to the infant.

Nowadays, the medical negligence cases are on the rise day by day, especially in the USA. Though medical doctors know their duties, these types of cases are on the rise. There are many reasons behind this rise. In serious cases, doctors are pressured. As a result, they commit mistakes that lead to injuries. Being human beings, doctors can also make mistakes at times. The catch is that negligence in the field of medicine is very costly and dangerous.

In the United Kingdom, the cosmetic surgery trend is on the rise. As a result, medical negligence cases are also going up. According to some reports, a number of unqualified surgeons were found practicing illegally. They are not qualified and cause injuries to the patients. Incompetency is another cause of increased number of medical malpractice cases in California. You should be more careful while choosing a surgeon or doctor to have an operation. Results are dangerous when a doctor does not keep all aspects of a treatment in mind.

Doctors, for the most part, are extremely busy. They have to give treatment to lots of patients in a short period of time. Due to tiredness, they deliver poor performance. Another reason is that some patients tend to change doctors more. New doctors do not have knowledge of the patient’s medical record. As a result, the doctor ends up giving wrong prescription to him. In such a situation, the doctor should conduct a comprehensive interview with the patient in order to assess the disease in a better way. If you have been injured by a mistake made by a doctor, you should get up and hire a medical negligence lawyer in California as soon as you can.




According to a recent study, USA citizens are more scared of losing their lives because of their doctors. The majority of people who took part in the survey stated that info as to malpractice cases as well as medical mistakes would be the most important factor when it comes to choosing a medical doctor. They have come to know that medical mistakes can cause more and more deaths in the USA each year compared to car accidents, breast cancer and AIDS.

From this information, you can have an idea of how important it is to raise awareness among people about medical negligence. Read on to know more.

The fact is that more or less 280 people die every day due to medical errors during a treatment. This means around 100,000 patients lose their lives every year on account of mistakes made by medical treatments in an operation, or other treatments. Those who survive suffer disability for the rest of their lives. This happens, for the most part, due to medical negligence committed by doctors. A common disease known as iatrogenic is caused mainly by over-treatment. In other words, the doctor prescribes more medicine than required. In some cases, people are held in a hospital on purpose, and doctors prescribe medicine rather than healthy lifestyle options. This common problem is increasing day by day.

Over a period 10 years (from 1983 to 1993) the incidents of medical malpractice or iatrogenic diseases increased by 260%. This is a rough figure because the actual incidents can be higher because not all incidents of malpractice are recorded. According to most of people, the cause of these mistakes is the increased number of drug prescriptions; however, the number of these prescriptions is upped by less than 30% over the last 10 years. However, the number of death incidents has a percentage of 260%. Some doctors say that deaths are caused by over dosage of anesthesia, particularly among those patients are given outpatient care. If you have been a victim of medical negligence, you should hire a medical malpractice lawyer in California. This could be greatly beneficial for you down the road.

The insurance rates of medical negligence are on the rise. As a result, more and more doctors are buying insurance policies in order to be insured. The problem of medical negligence is not being controlled. In large cities, these incidents are increasing day by day. Therefore, an increasing number of people are tending to hire lawyers in California in order to file a claim. The thing is that we cannot stop people from filing cases. Instead, doctors should be held accountable for their wrong prescriptions or treatments. If a doctor prescribes you a wrong medicine or gives you wrong treatment, you can go for a medical malpractice lawyer in California to file a case. The main objective of filing a case is to recover a good deal of compensation from the insurance company of the lawyer for the injuries you sustained due to poor treatment.




If you have been hurt by a medical doctor, then the state or federal law will protect you. Whenever doctors commit medical negligence, their patients have to suffer from an injury or other medical problem. You are authorized to file a claim against the medical doctor in order to make him pay you for the injury you sustained. For example, if a medical doctor, such as a nurse, doctor or other medical personnel causes you an injury due to medical negligence, you can hire a lawyer in California for filing a claim.

The number one benefit of filing a case would be recover compensation for our medical costs including current and future, lost wages, mental pain and other relevant losses. These expenses have to be paid after a medical negligence incident. So, you must get the defendant pay you to meet these expenses.

You should take steps to protect your rights in case of medical negligence. For this purpose, the first thing you should do is to hire a lawyer in California as soon as you can. According to statute of limitations, you have a certain time limit in order to file a case in California. Before the expiry of deadline, you have to file a claim or you won’t be able to file a case for life. However, this rule does not apply if you are a minor. So, take steps immediately if you really want the defendant to pay you compensation for causing you an injury.

For evaluation, you should find a good lawyer and have him evaluate your case. In order to file a case, you must explain your injury to your lawyer. The lawyer will figure whether you really were injured due to the negligence committed by the doctor. There are different reasons for an injury. Given below are a few reasons.

For example, a mistake by a doctor during surgery, analysis, medication, labor, delivery or treatment can cause an injury to the patient. Similarly, a mistake made by a nurse during giving medicine, IV insertion or not obeying doctor’s instructions can cause an injury. If any of these reasons caused you an injury, then you must get in touch with a medical negligence lawyer in California.

It may cost you a good amount of money to take the case to the court for trial. Due to high costs, many people prefer setting the case out of court. If you have questions as to filing a case, you should contact a skilled lawyer in California. There are a myriad of qualified lawyers out there with years of experience.

To cut a long story short, if you have a few questions regarding filing a medical negligence claim, you can get in touch with a lawyer in California as soon as possible. Lawyers, nowadays, take your case on a contingency basis. This means they will charge you only if they have won the case and recovered compensation successfully. Hope you will find this article helpful. Thanks for taking your time to read this.




Medical negligence is of many different types. Below we have shared a few common types of medical negligence prevailing in our society. If you have been a victim of malpractice, you should hire a medical negligence lawyer in California. Read on to find out more.

GP Mistakes

A GP (General practitioner) is a general doctor giving medical care to many families. It is not as easy to file a case against a GP as you may think. There is no need to mention that GPs are also human, so they can make mistakes that may include misdiagnosis, prescribing wrong medicine and so on. If you have suffered due to the mistake of your GP, you may go file a case against them.

Obstetric Mistakes

Some mistakes lead to tragedies, such as mistakes made during the birth of a child. Such mistakes can include pain, delayed delivery, perineal trauma, mismanagement of a baby by a nurse, failing to recognize the serious condition of a patient and so on and so forth.
You can recover compensation but it cannot make up for the loss or distress you suffered. However, the compensation can help you pay out expenses arising after the injury.

Paediatric Mistakes

Birth injuries also fall under the heading of medical malpractice. Wrong diagnosis and poor treatment of a baby can cause serious injuries or death in the worst cases. If you’re a parent and want justice, you must hire a medical malpractice lawyer in Sacramento, CA. The aim of hiring a lawyer is to file a successful compensation claim. Therefore, you must find a lawyer as soon as possible. Parents of the baby, for the most part, file birth injury claims.

Gynaecological Mistakes

Gynaecological mistakes, for the most part, account for 50% of all medical malpractice claims. This means doctors in these fields make many mistakes. Misdiagnosis is one of the most common causes but there are other reasons as well which are related to surgery. Also, women who think that have been given bad treatment should get in touch with a lawyer as soon as they can.

Cosmetic Surgery Errors

A fast increasing and more common sort of medical negligence involves cosmetic surgery. During surgery, if an error occurs due to the negligence of the surgeon, you have a right to file a claim. It is the responsibility of the surgeon to spell out all the possible risks associated with the surgery to you he is going to perform on you. If he does not do so, you can file a case.

Orthopaedic Mistakes

Like other cases, orthopaedic mistakes are also very common. Therefore, we can see the number of such cases are on the rise. Such mistakes lead to problems, such as loss of movement, disability and so on. Aside from this, misdiagnosed fractures, bad treatment and badly done surgery means you are rightful to file a case for obtaining compensation. It is highly recommended to hire a lawyer in these types of cases.

So, above are few common types of malpractice cases. Hope you will find this article helpful.




At times, patients have to go through a surgery in order to get rid of a certain condition. There is no need to mention that surgery is a complicated procedure and involves risks to some extent. Therefore, we must choose an experienced a qualified doctor in order to have surgery.

The biggest concern a patient has when he or she has to undergo a surgery is medical malpractice. The fact is that patients, for the most part, are upset as to surgery because they think that the doctor can make a mistake causing harm to them. The good news is that this is not always the case but it does happen sometimes. However, the number of medical negligence has reduced significantly due to the increased awareness made by the media.

If you feel you are a victim of medical malpractice, the first thing you should do is to get in touch with a medical negligence attorney in California. It is much better if you could find and hire a good one as soon as possible, as hiring early can give your lawyer more time to gather evidence and build your case. Here it is important to note that a lot of medical malpractice lawsuits never reach court as they are settled through mutual negotiation outside of court.

Another thing is that you should be friendly with your lawyer and share everything as to your case with him. You should give him complete information of what happened to you. Bear in mind that you cannot file a case if you are not completely satisfied with the treatment provided by a doctor or surgeon. If this is the case with you, maybe you do not have a valid case. However, you should talk with your lawyer about this to find out whether you really have a case.

Once you find out that you have a solid case, then you should be prepare yourself to be patient. Whether you have a strong or weak case, it may take months or years to reach a settlement. Medical negligence cases are among the ones that are harder to settle. In cases where a doctor leaves a tool in your body by mistake are relatively easier to handle. Doctors rarely make such a big mistake while operating on a patient.

Doctors, physicians and nurses try to give best treatment and services to their patients. However, it is not possible to prevent accidents as human make mistakes. In the same way, accidents do not always occur due to negligence. Negligence is when a doctor does not use caution when operating on a patient and causes harm to him. If you think that you were provided with a mediocre treatment, you can hire a lawyer in California and present proof in the court in order to prove that the doctor was negligent. If you win, you will be given enough compensation to pay your bills and meet other expenses. Hope you will find this post easy to understand and helpful.




It goes without saying that doctors should give the best medical treatment to their patients. If a doctor does not treat a patient as per medical standards, then that patient can choose to sue that doctor. Read on to know more.

Negligence

Negligence is one of the main kinds of medical malpractice. You can file a case against the doctor if he or she does not treat you properly. This means the treatment should not fall below a standard. The court will make him pay compensation to you if you prove that he was negligent.

Before prescribing a medicine or running a diagnosis, the doctor should let you know about your condition. It is your right to know the details of treatment doctor will give you. And the doctor should ask your permission before operating on you or giving your certain medicine involving risk. Once you have given permission, the doctor can make a start on giving you medicine or operating on you.

The law requires any doctor to obtain the consent of their patient before giving any kind of treatment to them. In order to do this, the doctor should give you complete details of your condition as well as the type of medicine or treatment he or she is going to prescribe you.

If a doctor fails to follow the procedure, she or he may have to deal with a medical malpractice case in California Courts. However, keep in mind you can file a case only if the doctor did not let you know about the risks involved in the treatment.

Patient-doctor Contracts

Another type of medical malpractice is the breaking of contract between the patient and the doctor. A few years back, this was not included in types of medical malpractice, but it has be added to the types in some states.

You should seek help from a medical malpractice lawyer in California as soon as possible. They can deal with these types of cases and know the right way to handle hospital heads as well as insurance providers.

Keep away from signing anything. The doctor may give some ordinary documents to sign. They do so in such situations so do not sign them. Instead, take them to your lawyer.
Here it is important to keep in mind that you can lodge a medical malpractice claim within a time period of one year from the time you got injured due to bad treatment. So, you should get a lawyer and file a case at the earliest.

One last comment

Some people do not find it suitable to file a case against their family doctor. This is a good thing but at the same time that doctor is responsible to give you good treatment and if he has not, you have a right to hold him liable and pay you compensation for the trouble you went through.

So, these are a few types of medical malpractice. If you think you have been a victim of any of these types of medical negligence, you can file a case in order to teach the negligent doctor a lesson.




A woman can have drug allergies at the time or delivery or after the delivery. The symptoms of drug allergies show up gradually after a woman has given birth to a child. Not everyone react to an allergen in the same way. According to doctors, some patients display minor symptoms but others display obvious symptoms. Those with clear symptoms may have to be hospitalized for immediate treatment. In some cases, the allergens affect the patient so badly that the patient loses his or her life fighting back. The best thing a patient can do in order to prevent a drug allergy is to quit using the drug as soon as symptoms show up. That drug should never be used again or the consequences could be serious, leading to the death of the patient in worse cases.

Doctors must take care of their patients as much as they can. In fact, the life of a patient is in the hands of a doctor as their treatment can save or kill any patient. It is the responsibility of a doctor to take immediate actions if a patient shows symptoms of drug allergies. The doctor should examine the patient and react immediately if they find something suspicious. Common symptoms include hives, severe headaches, vomiting and so on. The medicine causing these symptoms should be abandoned right away. This is the responsibility of both doctors and patients. Doctors should not prescribe that medicine again and patients should follow the advice of their doctor and give up using that medicine down the road.

If a doctor prescribes the same medicine again to his patients, this means he is committing medical malpractice which is a crime. If you think your doctor has committed medical malpractice in California, you have the right to file a medical malpractice claim against them. This could be done by hiring an experienced medical malpractice attorney in California.

Drug allergies can affect a patient in two ways. In one way, the symptoms of the reaction are predictable. Let us take an example to elaborate this further. Whenever a sulfa medication is consumed, the patient suffers from nausea. The other way is unknown. This means doctors cannot predict the side effects or allergens caused by a drug. This is a serious situation because some allergies can even lead to the death of the patient.

The crux of the matter is that if doctors come to know that a patient is allergic to a specific medicine, they should try their level best in order to prevent that patient from taking that drug again. Normally, doctors can do this by studying the medical history of the patient. However, if the doctor becomes negligent and does not take necessary steps, the patient may suffer. In such case, he may decide on filing a case against his negligent doctor by hiring a lawyer in California. This way, he can save other patients from the doctor and recover compensation for the trouble he goes through due to the allergies.




The means of surgery has significantly changed over the past 50 years. There are many innovations and major discoveries which have produced many surgery miracles in human history. Even with these sophistications and major improvements, there are still instances where technology fails patients’ hope. What is more disappointing is the fact that these failures are more of a human error and not by the inadequacy of technology and science. There are many cases where the primary cause of patient’s death is sheer incompetency of a healthcare practitioner. In legal jargon, this is called medical malpractice.

According to the data gathered by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were a total of 48 million surgeries in 2009. What is surprising about this data is not about the total number who have undergone to a surgery but the number of unnecessary surgeries which have prolonged the agony of many patient victims. There are 12,000 victims of unnecessary surgery every year according to American Medical Association.

Any type of surgery poses different danger to a patient. Aside from the pain and the risk, surgery seems to be expensive most of the time. Greed from the healthcare professionals dominates the system. Most of the times they want their patients to undergo surgeries so they can charge their skyrocketing rate. What makes surgery more expensive is the equipment used in a procedure. Some of the most common unnecessary surgical procedures still being insisted to patients nowadays are the following:

Heartburn surgery

Low back surgery

Pacemaker implant

Gastric bypass surgery

Hysterectomy

therapeutic knee arthroscopies

vertebroplasties

There are many studies available in the academe that say these surgical procedures are ineffective and by nature unnecessary. In the end these unnecessary surgeries only add risk to the mortality rate of patients. Most of the time patients experience swelling called systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). This swelling can be attributed to some type of surgery. If your doctor recommended a seeming superfluous surgery, ask a second opinion from a specialist whom you can trust. You can also pursue your doctor by a medical malpractice lawsuit.

These are the factors that you have to consider once your doctor is asking for a surgery:

Age of your love ones

Surgery Type

General Health of the patient (take note of the BMI)

Medical conditions

How frequent has the hospitalization been

Surgical History

Period of hospitalization

There are many things that could happen after a surgery. If an infection persists, the mortality rate also increases. The increase of readmission rate and hospitalization length can also increase. Thus, medication and expenses also escalate.

Abuse in this field is very much subtle. People must be vigilant enough to recognize these grim scams. Our laws have provided society with the necessary tools to correct this crooked practice of some health professionals. Talk to the right counsel who can bring justice.

We usually entrust our lives to medical professional to look after our health and general well being. However there are many instances where they are the direct cause of harm to our daily living because of their incompetent and negligent practices. Some of the most common forms of healthcare negligence are incorrect diagnosis, misdiagnosis, surgical errors and other deviation from the standard care principle which has caused harm to a patient.

There are three main important ingredients for a medical malpractice case to be considered in a court. It is essential for your counsel to establish these ingredients to win the litigation. First of all, there should be established professional relationship between you and the healthcare provider. This means that you were really a patient in a hospital or a healthcare provider was assigned to treat you. Secondly, the healthcare provider broke the standard of care which you should be receiving. Lastly, that act of negligence has made significant negative effect to your general health status.

If you win a medical malpractice case as a plaintiff, you can expect two types of compensation from the damages you incurred. There are what we call general damages and special damages. General damages pertain to the compensation that you deserve because of the suffering that you have gone through due to such medical malpractice. This can be set through reference on the statement of medical experts who can state and testify on the result of a medical malpractice. On the other hand, special damage is the compensation for your financial loss, hospitalization cost (both past, current, and future expenses), and the days when you were and will not be capable of working.

What are main causes of Medical Malpractice?

There are many causes of medical malpractice. As mentioned, medical malpractice happens when a healthcare provider deviates from the important rules of medical profession. From this principle, there are many causes of medical malpractices cases that could branch out. Some of these are improper or misdiagnosis, unnecessary surgery, errors in surgery, unnecessary surgery, wrong administration of anesthesia, and other actions which include harming the patient deliberately or not deliberately.

How to look for a counsel to help you?

In this type of litigation, there is a need to qualify the right counsel who will represent you in court. This is a very challenging part of your life. You may be fighting for a love one or you might be the patient who suffers from the negligence of the healthcare provider. It is necessary to get the right person to help you.

Always base you decision on the experience and reputation of a counsel. Never entrust your case to a novice. This kind of case requires a certain level of experience for a counsel to win because of the fact this is a highly technical matter. Never think of withdrawing your fight. Find the right attorney to push you through from this difficult situation.

Medical malpractice is one of the most common problems of health care system in US. Many people die because of this problem. There are almost 200,000 patients who die because of medical malpractice. In these 200,000 people, the most vulnerable victims are the children. There are many cases where medical malpractices cause so much suffering to pediatric patients. Since children are still young, their bodies tend to give up easily. With this consideration, pediatric medical malpractice has the highest compensation from all other type of malpractice.

Commonly pediatric medical malpractice is caused by misdiagnosis of a doctor. This can be attributed to the fact that children have limited faculty to express what they really feel about their general well-being. It is important for a doctor to examine a child thoroughly because there are many diseases which are too hard detect and have common generic symptoms like the ordinary disease. It is always better to let a child undergo several medical examinations to articulately determine what he/she feels.

Some of the most commonly misdiagnosed diseases are Meningitis and Pneumonia. Meningitis happens when there is an inflammation in the membranes which protect your brain and spinal cord. This is commonly caused by microorganisms like bacteria and viruses. If this will not be diagnosed, it can be fatal. The tricky part is the fact that the symptoms of this inflammation can be confused to other simple and non-alarming diseases. The symptoms include headaches, vomiting, fever, confusion, rash, stiff neck, irritability, drowsiness, irritable to light and loud noises, and seizures.

Pneumonia is another inflammatory disease but this can be found in our lungs. It targets lung’s air sacs or also called as alveoli. Sometimes doctors confuse it as bronchitis, tuberculosis, or COPD. If these two mentioned disease can be addressed at the early stage of development, there is a fair chance for a child to survive.

There are also chances wherein a negligent operation is the main cause of child’s death. There are many times that a child dies because of the infection and inflammation in his body. Before you let your child undergo any surgery, make it sure to ask for a second opinion to confirm the necessity of a surgery. There are many cases when a surgery is not actually needed to address a medical problem.

If you think that a doctor or a hospital has caused your child any danger either because of unnecessary surgery or misdiagnosis, it is important to seek for legal help to address such irresponsibility of the hospital. Look for a counsel with enough experience and track record when it comes to pediatric medical malpractice. You should validate your counsel’s reputation so you can have a higher fighting chance in the court.

Some people are of the opinion that light blows to the head are not dangerous. TV shows and movies, for the most part, show people fighting with one another, kicking and beating. They exchange blows to the head but get up as if anything has happened. Therefore, most people think that light hits to the head do not cause severe injuries to the brain. The reality is much different from what is shown in the movies. The fact is that even small and light blows to the head can contribute to severe injuries to the brain. In case of an injury, one should seek medical attention as soon as possible. One can even hire a brain injury lawyer in California.

Head trauma is one of the main causes of serious harm to the brain. TBI can take place even when you sustain minor damage. Some patients with TBI have to take costly therapies for several years.
A common misconception is that low impact brain trauma will just leave a person unconscious without causing any damage. Then after a while they get up and are absolutely fine. The fact is that you lose consciousness only when you sustain a concussion. If you remain unconscious for a long time, this means the injury to your head is severe. Moreover, the odds of your regaining consciousness and doing routine activities again are not high. Let us take an example of professional boxers. They can tolerate heavy blows that cannot be tolerated by the average person. After they receive a hit, they cannot do their routine activities as they can do before the hit.

Instead of going to a physician for complex, costly tests, such as MRIs or CT scans, you can use a few ways to determine the extent of damage occasioned by minor head trauma. There are some visual symptoms that can help you know that there is something wrong. They include pupil with non-equal dilation, slurred speech, and difficulty in maintaining balance, sleeping pattern changes, and mood swings.

These symptoms can point to serious problems, so you should get in touch with a medical doctor as soon as possible. If someone else has caused the injury, you can hire a brain injury lawyer in California.

According to studies, brain injuries can affect the brain growth. This means a head injury can speed up the aging process of the brain. Studies also revealed that the early symptoms of the injury are enough to predict the consequences. Researchers have found that the injury may result in memory loss, slow movements, and difficulty in paying attention and so on. Not all patients suffer from these problems, but some do. So, you can see that concussions can have severe affect on the brain of a person. Immediate medical assistance is required in order to prevent further damage to the brain.

At times, post concussion symptoms appear months or years after the injury. Common symptoms may include attention deficits, irritability or impulsiveness, reduced frustration level, mood changes, temper outbursts, headaches and dizziness, and memory and learning problems. Depending upon severity, brain injuries can cause other problems, such as cognitive problems, lack of motivation, behavioral and emotional issues, difficulty solving problems, lack of judgment, to name a few.
If you had concussion in the past, you may find it difficult to remember names of places and people. In addition, you may find it difficult to choose the right words to express past events.

According to research studies, the brain with concussion seems older compared to the healthy brain. Test results show that the age of the brain of a person with concussion is biologically older than that of a healthy person, though both are of the same age. For example, both subjects were 60 years old but the age of the brain of the injured were more than that of the healthy person.

If you have a history of concussion, your brain may age earlier. In order to hamper the fast aging process of the brain, you should have exercises that can improve the performance of your brain, such as reading, exercising, and puzzles and so on. These games can keep the aging process of your mind low.

When it comes to concussion, football players are more prone to brain injuries and concussion in California. In each season, football players tend to receive 950 hits to the brain on average. Hockey players and other players who use their head to play a game are more likely to have a concussion.
The risk factors are high when it comes to concussions. Therefore, researchers are carrying out tests in order to figure out whether those with concussions or brain injuries are more likely to have Alzheimer’s disease in old age. Brain injury patients may also suffer from Dementia.

The crux of the matter is that one should do all what he can in order to avoid brain injury or concussion in California. This includes safety precautions, for example. In case you get a concussion, you should take immediate steps in order to recover as soon as possible. This means he or she should get in touch with an experienced doctor without making a delay.

Medical malpractice cases are becoming common news in the medical field. For the bulk of doctors and physicians, this is a nightmare. No doctor or medical professional wants to deal with a lawsuit in the lifetime. The role of a medical doctor is to treat patients going through different types of diseases. And patients come to a doctor in order to get rid of a disease or reduce the severity of an injury.

People, medical professionals and doctors are becoming aware of the harms of medical malpractice. Yet most of patients are oblivious to the fact that doctors commit medical negligence and cause harm to their patients. Therefore, it is important to take steps in order to make the public aware of the issues related to medical negligence cases. In this article, we have come up with a few good tips on what you should do in order to gain success in a case involving medical carelessness.

First of all, you need to keep in mind that negligence is not restricted to doctors and physicians only. Instead, it covers a broad category of professionals, such as therapists, nurses, medical doctors, lab assistants and even dentists.

Second important thing that should be kept in mind is that malpractice cases can be filed only in a certain period of time. This means if you do not file a case within that time period, you will not be able to file a case again. So, you should not make unnecessary delays and file a case as soon as possible.

Third important thing is that malpractice can prove a bit expensive. These cost may be in the shape of retainers for experts that will be required in order to prove the case. In the same way, there will be needed to take help from financial experts to deal with the financial matters. In short, as a plaintiff, you may have to deal with a lot of important matters.

Forth important point is that malpractice cases are complex; therefore, these cases can take a lot of time to reach a settlement. So, you need to have patience. Some people file a case just because the medial bills were high or they were not satisfied with the results of a treatment. This is not a valid reason for filing a case.

Last but not least, all medical malpractice case do not necessarily end up successfully in the favor of the plaintiff. In order to win the case, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant is at fault. If you have a valid case, you can hire a lawyer in California and try to settle the case out of court. But if the defendant does not agree to settle out of court, you may consider filing a case with the assistance of your lawyer in California.

So, given above are a few simple points you should bear in mind prior to filing a case in the court. Hope you will consider these simple points. Thanks for taking your time to read this post.

The popular term “medical malpractice” points to a situation where you suffer from an injury or harm through negligence, treatment error or a medical professional. It is the duty of all medical professionals, such as doctors, lab workers, anesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists and other professionals, to take due care of their patients.

If you want to get compensation by filing a case against the defendant, you have to prove that the doctor or the medical professional did not perform his or her duty properly, and that they manifested negligence. As a result of the doctor’s negligence, you got injured. If you want to prove this successfully, then you will have to hire the services of a professional medical malpractice lawyer.

It is not difficult to prove that it was the duty of the doctor to give proper treatment to the patient. The difficult part is that you will have to prove that the doctor’s negligence lead you to the injury. By law, doctors are bound to provide a standard of treatment and care with the patients. In case, you received a treatment at a private hospital or clinic, you have a right to file a case against the doctor because he or she breached the contract and caused you an injury. In some cases, it is much easier to prove that the medical professional was negligent. For example, if the doctor leaves surgical equipment in the body of the patient or when he or she amputates wrong limb by mistake.

Once you have proved that the doctor committed breach of duty, your next task is to prove that the medical malpractice caused you an injury. It is possible to prove negligence in some types of negligence, while others are difficult to prove. It is easier to prove physical injury but to prove that the patient suffered from mental or psychological injury is a lot more difficult. Your lawyer will also have to prove that you suffer from damages due to the doctor’s negligence. The damage may include psychiatric injury, physical injury, or financial trouble caused by the negligence. The court should recognize the psychiatric injury medically i.e. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Here it is important to note that the court cannot award compensation to the grieved or emotionally upset family of the patient.

As a claimant, you have to prove that the doctor committed negligence. The doctor, nurse or the hospital will be held liable for the negligence. Aside from this, you may file a case against the hospital or clinic as well. Moreover, you can file a case against the trust or the health authority also where the doctor provides his or her services.

If your lawyer succeed in proving the negligence, you can recover compensation from the other party for the injury or harm you received due to their negligence. So, you should turn to a lawyer if you have become a victim of medical negligence. hope you will find this article in helpful. Thanks for taking your time to read this.

Having a baby is a moment of great happiness. During the past 100 years, much advancement has been made in the field of medicine. Now, the chances of a successful delivery are higher than before. However, sometimes, things do not go as expected during the process of delivery. In such a situation, the baby suffers from an injury.

Delivery is not an easy process. For the successful delivery, there is a need to put the right amount of traction and compression. So, chances are that several possible injuries and complications can occur in the process of delivery. Many factors can lead to the injuries, such as lack of blood flow or oxygen.

At times, labor lasting for an excessive time period may cause harm to the health of the infant. When the baby is in the precarious position, chances of more things going wrong are greater. Most of birth injuries occur due to the employment of improper medical device or wrong assessment of the baby or the mother’s medical condition. In case this happens, it means the doctor and the other staff manifested negligence.

Some of the more common injuries that an infant may suffer from because of delivery issues includes a cracked collarbone. This bone breaks up when more pressure is put on the baby during the delivery process. An injury to the facial nerve can also happen when too much pressure is put on the face of the baby. Normally, this problem resolves in a couple of weeks. However, in serious cases, doctors carry out surgery in order to repair the nerves of the baby. Babies that come out of the womb through the use of vacuum extraction may suffer from inflammation of soft tissues and scalp bruising.

Most of these injuries resolve in a few days or weeks, while others require minimal treatment. At times, however, these injuries may result in cerebral palsy, paralysis, brain damage, mental retardation and learning disability, especially if lack of oxygen is involved. If your baby needs costly or lifelong care in order to deal with the birth injury, you may consider filing a case by hiring a medical malpractice lawyer. So, you should get the compensation you deserve in order to afford this care.

In case your child suffers from a birth injury, you should get medical treatment as soon as possible. Another important thing is to document the medical records and other important details. If you find it hard to obtain the medical records or you think that the medical facility has not documented the injury accurately, then you should turn to the services of a personal injury lawyer in Sacramento. This is because it is important for you to deal with the issues related to the birth injury case. Your lawyer will help you communicate with the medical facility about this matter.

When talking to your lawyer, it is important that you spell out the condition of the injury in full. Your lawyer will want to know about your baby’s health after the delivery. He may also ask several other important questions to you. You should let him know about the reaction of the medical facility or the hospital to the injury your baby sustained. The lawyer will then explain the possible options to you based on what you tell him. Then you can make your mind whether you should file a case against the guilty party or not.

In case of complication during the delivery, doctors can apply many different procedures in order to deal with the situation. A difficult delivery can cause stress to the parents. At the same time, it puts the life of both the baby and the mother at stake. Equipment, such as forceps and vacuums can help make the delivery process easier. However, improper use of forceps can cause injury to the head of the baby or to the womb of the mother. So, it is the responsibility of the doctors to make use of forceps in the right way in order to perform the delivery properly and avoid any injury. Unfortunately, despite much care, injuries happen due to the use of forceps.

The revolution in the field of medicine has improved the process of delivery to a great extent. As a result, risks associated with delivery are not very high. But there are still chances of mistakes and the baby can sustain an injury. When using forceps, doctors have to be very careful. Careless use of forceps can cause the tissues of the womb to tear up. Aside from this, this may cause severe lacerations in the surrounding areas of the vagina. The body of a female has better ability to deal with birth injuries. However, the body may not deal with injury caused by an external object well.

So, much care is needed when using equipment like these in the process of delivery. Each year, many cases are filed due to birth injuries caused by negligent doctors. In case of severe injuries, massive amounts of compensation are paid to the victim. At times, the court may cancel the license of the doctor if he or she has committed a serious negligence.

The wrong use of forceps can cause a whole host of complications during the delivery. As a result, the baby may have to suffer from different problems. For example, if the face of the baby is clenched too much by a tool, chances are that the primary facial nerve that controls movement in areas like the eyes and the lips can get pinched. In some cases, a mistake made by a doctor can cause facial paralysis or permanent disability. In this condition, the baby will be unable to move his lips or eyes. This will cause immense stress to the parents.

A bruise or cephalohematoma on the head may occur due to the forceps pressure when the child is coming out of womb. With the passage of time, this problem subsides in most cases. The injury may cause a fracture to the skull of the baby. In some cases, it cause other serious problems. Some babies even catch disease, such as jaundice and meningitis after the use of forceps.

If you want to know more about how you can file a case in case your baby receives an injury due to the negligence of a health care provider, you should get in touch with a medical malpractice lawyer in your area. He may guide you what steps you should take.

Every day, a very large number of personal injury cases are filed. People file such cases due to a number of reasons. Most of these cases come under the category of medical negligence. In this article, we are going to spell out the basics of medical malpractice and the importance of hiring the services of an experienced Sacramento lawyer in case you received injury due to the negligence of a doctor.

Every doctor has to follow the set of rules associated with the standard of medical care. If a doctor fails to provide appropriate treatment to the patient, they will have to face the music because of violating the laws. This is because the wrong treatment can cause a serious injury to the patient. The problems that occur due to the negligence include misdiagnosis, prescription errors, elder care negligence, birth issues, surgical errors and other medical problems. In these cases, if a doctor gives wrong treatment or suggest wrong medicine, then the law can hold them liable.

In case you get involved in a medical negligence case, your first and most important step should be to consult a qualified personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If the lawyer you are going to choose is educated, has skills, then you should most likely win the case. Hiring a lawyer is not as easy as you may think. This is because there are numerous lawyers out there. However, with a bit research and investigation, you can come up with a list of a few good Sacramento lawyers.

A good lawyer can determine the outcome of your case. Therefore, it is important for you to look for a competent lawyer. An experienced lawyer can make you feel secure. Moreover, the lawyer will inform you of your rights and options. In this way, you will be able to make the right decision. For example, the lawyer will figure out the amount of compensation you may get by winning the case. Lawyers tell these things based on their long experience and education. Based on these benefits, it is most important for you to hire a Sacramento lawyer so that you can win the case with flying colors.

Medical negligence causes a lot of problems in our society. So, you should not ignore and consult a lawyer as soon as you can in order to discourage these types of negligence by doctors. In this way, you can do a favor to the people who live in California. With the help of the lawyer, your chances of achieving success will be much higher. So, it is of highest important to get the services of a bona fide and experienced lawyer, especially if you want to win the case.

Once you have hired the right lawyer, you should give him full support. You should give comprehensive answers to the questions of your lawyer during the interview phase. The lawyer then will handle the case based on the information you provided. In most cases, the other party is not ready to pay the compensation, so it becomes imperative to hire the services of a brave lawyer.

The study of medicine is complex by nature. Therefore, we look for an experienced and bona fide doctor in order to get medical assistance. We choose a doctor having years of experience and top-notch schooling.

As in other fields, mistakes can happen in the medicine field as well. These mistakes sometimes cause a lot of trouble. Any treatment that falls below the acceptable standard comes under the umbrella of medical malpractice. This is if the doctor, nurse, or hospital negligently treated the patient and caused injuries.

However, like the field of medicine, medical malpractice cases are very difficult to deal with. It is very difficult to prove that you have been given wrong treatment in one of the hospitals in Sacramento, CA.

In case you have been given wrong treatment by a doctor, your first step should be to consult a medical malpractice lawyer. This is because you will not be able to fully understand complexities of the case. But with the help of a trained and bona fide Sacramento lawyer, you can prove your case easily and quickly in the court. So, it is important that you hire a good lawyer to handle your case.

In order to prove that you are a victim of medical malpractice, you should prove that you received an injury due to the doctor’s mistreatment. For this purpose, your lawyer will compare the results of treatment to that of the standard of care. But keep in mind that if the doctor informs you of the possible side effects of the treatment beforehand, then you cannot hold them liable. On the other hand, if they do not let you know of the side effects of the treatment before conducting the treatment, then you have a right to file a case against them.

You should have necessary documents in order to prove that you were given wrong treatment which caused you an injury. If you received physical injuries, then getting access to medical reports will be fairly easy. On the other hand, in the case of a psychological injury, it can be hard. But a good lawyer can take care of everything in a professional manner.

You need to find out the actual person who caused you the injury. Normally, this is the doctor who gave you the treatment in the hospital or clinic. Here it is important to know that the doctor will not pay you compensation out of his pocket. Instead, the compensation will be paid by the doctor’s insurance company. So, you do not need to feel sorry about the doctor you are going to sue.

There is a time limit for filing a case. Normally, it is one year from the date you received the treatment on. So, you should hire a lawyer in order to collect evidence and make other necessary arrangements. Filing a case in a timely fashion can also help you collect necessary documents easily and avoid running your statute of limitations.

Medical negligence cases can cause a lot of stress, but if you think that you have been a victim of medical negligence, then you should definitely hire a lawyer and file a case against the negligent doctor.

Medical malpractice has become a serious problem now-a-days and numerous people in the Sacramento area are complaining against it to the court of law. It is the responsibility if the doctor to give you the proper treatment for your condition and take the necessary precautions.

Here are some medical malpractice examples:

1. You complain the doctor about a problem to any of your body part. The doctor is in a hurry and recommends a general medicinal treatment of the problem and goes away. If, later on, the problem turns out to be a serious risk to your body, you have the right to sue against the doctor within the time limit that is given in the law of the country or state where you live (typically 1 year in the state of California).

2. If the doctor is unable to diagnose the problem that you are suffering and he does not refer you to the relevant specialist, he is liable to be sued.

3. The doctor ignores or misreads the medical tests and does not treat you against the disease that you actually are suffering from. This is medical malpractice and you may sue against it.

4. If you have some bodily problem and the doctor suggests a surgical treatment. Now, the doctor commits a surgical error in one way or the other and your bodily problem worsens after the surgery, you have the right to sue against him.

5. If the doctor is the specialty of the field of your requirement just according to the disease you are suffering from, and he treats you with improper dosage, you can proceed to sue against him.

6. If the doctor or the medical care staff does not take care of your problem and they provide low quality health care facilities, you may go to the court of law to file a suit against the medical malpractice of the doctor.

7. If a doctor is the reason of the premature discharge, you may again have reason to sue against that health practitioner.

8. Sometimes, a doctor believes in what he is seeing now and does not take into consideration the medical history of the patient. The result of this treatment is that you have to suffer due to this process. This may lead you to face serious results in the long run. If you detect such a problem in your case, you may proceed to complain against the misconduct of the doctor.

9. If you go to the doctor and he orders a set of tests that do not match the problem that you are facing at the moment. This may result in the form of another disease; you have right to sue against the doctor. This is sure negligence and medical malpractice and the doctor can not show excuse in this context. He has to be well-informed about everything that is related to his medical practice and must never guide you negligently.

Medical malpractice relates to the negligence of a doctor in providing the right treatment or the right surgery to the patient. The negligence of the medical practitioner may be in the form of diagnostic errors, treatment errors, or after care errors.

There are numerous cases that come to the forefront through media when people have to suffer due to the careless attitude of a doctor or the hospital related staff. Although there are many other cases in which people do not report against the doctors due to the reason that they are staunch believers in the integrity of doctors and they would not go against the latter in any conditions at all.
Sometimes, the after effects of medical malpractice are trivial, so the sufferers or their dear ones do not go to the court of law against these hospitals in Sacramento.

The reality of the matter is that these medical malpractices are a genuine reason of making the lives of people miserable. They may be trivial for the time being but if a sufferer does not report against them within the given time (about 1 year in the state of California), the law restricts them to sue against the doctors. But, if they get medical reports and talk to their lawyer on time, they may be able to get free medical treatment until they revive and get some compensation to help their families.

Medical malpractice may sometimes be very serious and result in extremely traumatic injuries. In such a case, the sufferer may have to go through a surgery or may get paralysis in some part of the body. Moreover, the sufferer may also have to lose some of his body organs due to the medical malpractice. This can change the whole course of his/her life.

Sometimes, the surgery or medical treatment of a person has been successful. But, later on, the hospital staff does not take proper care of the patient and the latter has to face the consequences in the form of wrong medication, wrong inoculation, and dosage at different time, and so on. This is the fault of the hospital or clinic staff and the doctor is not to blame. Anyhow, the patient suffers and he /she is allowed to sue for compensation.

Patients are helpless in the hands of hospital staff and the doctors. They do not know about the medication or the treatment that they are getting through the medical practitioners. So, if doctor shows negligence and careless attitude towards the treatment plan of the patient, the latter is sure to suffer in all circumstances.

The most probable thing that a patient can do in this context is to always take a second opinion of an equally well-practiced doctor whenever he wants to get treatment from doctors. This way, people will be in a better position to remain away from medical malpractice.
Thus, misdirected and carefree medical treatment can lead a patient to disaster and ruination. He has to contact a doctor or physician after getting comprehensive knowledge about the latter.

Nowadays, a lot of discussions are taking place about medical malpractice. Medical institutions are on the rise. So, more and more medical practitioners are being trained to practice medicine. They are getting training in order to treat patients properly. In spite of training, some medical doctors do not perform their duties honestly. Their aim is to make money out of this profession.
They do not care about their duties. You can file a case if a medical doctor does not give proper treatment. But before filing a case, you had better discuss the matter with a good medical malpractice lawyer. It is not a good idea not to file a case against the negligent doctor. A lawyer is the best person you can discuss your case with.

If you are a victim of medical negligence, you should know your rights as well as state laws. You should know about the statute of limitations and the amount of compensation you can recover. These things vary based on the situation. You should know whether you really have a case. Medical malpractice is when a doctor does not follow the standard of care. Common examples include prescription of wrong drugs, delayed patient response, wrong diagnosis, improper monitoring and so on. It is the responsibility of the health care professional to give best treatment to their patients.

Is it possible to file a case against doctors, nurses and other health care providers due to medical negligence? Yes, it is. The court can even issue the order to cancel the license of a doctor if serious health loss has happened due to their negligence. The law also gives doctors a chance to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. They have to face the music if they are proved guilty. In some cases, they are not even allowed to practice their profession. Before filing a case, you must discuss it with your lawyer. The lawyer will give you advice about whether you should file a case or not. You will not have the right to file a case if you are just unhappy with the treatment of the doctor. The court requires you to prove that the lawyer committed negligence while carry out the treatment.

Why is it so important to discuss matters related to your medical case with the lawyer? The thing is that you have to understand what negligence is in order to handle the case properly. As a common person, you may not have necessary knowledge to deal with the case effectively. So, it is important for you to hire a lawyer to take care of all the matters. You should go for someone who specializes in dealing with medical injury cases.

The common terminology “medical negligence” is a lack of duty on the part of a medical health care provider. As a result of the negligence, the patient undergoing the treatment can receive a severe injury. Another result can be an illness.

People go to a doctor in order to get a prescription that will treat their illness or a disease. They have complete turn in a doctor and therefore they follow their prescriptions hoping to recover soon. Normally, the treatments work well and patients recover in a short period of time.

But at times, things go wrong. In other words, the treatment does not produce desired results. The patient, as a result, suffers from an injury or an illness. In a majority of cases, doctors are not responsible for such injuries or illnesses. But in comes cases, the negligence of a doctor becomes a contributing factor to the injury of the patient. This comes under medical malpractice.

If you have gone through such a situation, you might have found it difficult to know what you should do. The easiest and most recommended way of dealing with such a situation is to consult and hire a medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible. Medical negligence lawyers are well versed in dealing with these types of cases with the help of their knowledge and long experience.

The injury may get worse as time progress, so you should think about filing a case against the negligence doctor with an objective of recovering compensation for the injury your sustained. Can a lawyer help you with this? You are sure that the treatment given to you were substandard and that the doctor did not take enough care while treating you.

The fact is that medical negligence claims can be made in a variety of cases. For example, you can file a case in case a treatment, such as cancer treatment, cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, gastroenterology, obstetrics, neurosurgery, mental health treatments, gynecology, radiography, ophthalmology, pediatrics, psychiatry or any other treatment has not been performed properly.
Medical malpractice lawyers are always ready to listen to your concerns and help you out. So, you should contact a trained and experienced medical negligence lawyer as soon as possible.

A lawyer will be able to examine your condition and case in order to find out the cause of the injury you received. Apart from this, he will guide through the procedure of making a claim and acquiring compensation you deserve from the other party, such as a doctor or a hospital where you were treated. In short, keep these tips in mind before you decide to file a case or make a claim against the doctor who mistreated you.

When you go to the hospital, you usually expect to be treated and then go home better than you went their but at times, it is not the case. Depending on the hospital that you go to, there are things that will not be done as you expected. However painful it is, we should accept the fact that not all medical malpractice occurs as a result of negligence. As a doctor, here are several things that you should do to avoid any form malpractice.

First, go to work when you are sober. Soberness does not only mean that you should go to work when you are not drunk but it also means that you go to work when you are fresh. If you for example worked for long hours the previous day, make sure that you have someone to replace you so that you may rest. Medical malpractice may occur as a result of tiredness. Ensure that you are strong enough to handle the day’s activities. Your mind has to be sober too.

Secondly, make sure that you have the correct data before you do anything. This is very important because doctors and nurses change shifts. If you for instance were in the morning shift, make sure that you take or give the correct data to the person you are exchanging with. There have been cases of doctors injecting patients with the wrong solutions and also nurses taking infants form the incubators before their time is due. If you get to understand the type of disease that one has, you will be able to help that patient to get better.

Thirdly, ensure that you are prepared for what is ahead of you. If you are a surgeon, make sure that you know the things that you will need for that operation and make sure that the nurse in charge has them. Inspect to see of they are all there to avoid inconveniences in the theater. Doctors should also make sure that when they go for their rounds, they know how they are going to conduct their rounds. For the doctors who attend to the out patients, make sure that you take care of the cases that seem to be serious first. When you do this, no medical malpractice will occur.

Lastly, be accurate. If you have been in the medical field for a long time, you get used to doing your things and so it is expected that no medical malpractice will take place if you are in charge. If you are from medical school, you still have in mind what you were taught so use the skills that you have to make patients get better. Do things as they are supposed to be done and do not try to practice something new using the patient as an experiment.

Medical malpractice can be defined as the negligence or substandard treatment on the part of the medical practitioner on the service that they give. The negligence that is caused can therefore result to injury of the person or distress. It applies in the case when the medical doctor, physician or any health provider will not provide healthcare in the required standard either by choice or mistake during the provision of the medical service. Medical malpractice constitutes things such as poorly fixed medical bed that result to the patients fall. When a health provider leaves a health instrument in the body of the patient that was undergoing surgery. It could also constitute lack of follow up by the health workers leading to a deteriorating condition.

Medical malpractice is a very serious offence in any state. This is because, when the health providers are sworn during the time they are given license to practice, they are to guard the life of their patients and provide quality care. If a doctor who does medical malpractice is found guilty, they are punished and fined. The offence could also cause them to lose their license of practicing medicine. When a patient suffers from medical malpractice, the first thing that they should do is to find a medical malpractice attorney.

A lawyer is the one person that will help you in seeking justice for the negligence that you have suffered. They will help to represent you in a court of law with the necessary information and evidence that will be gathered so that you will have a case. They will help you to claim compensation on the damages that has been done either on you or your loved ones. It is important that the negligent health service provider be dealt with so that the negligence will not be repeated to another patient.

The medical malpractice compensation is normally done on the level of damages that the patient has suffered. Information on the rights that you have as patients is something that will help you to fight for the rightful compensation. That is why it is important that you get an experienced medical malpractice attorney so that he will be able to help you with information on the right that you have been entitled to. This is because they have enough experience that they have had for the many cases that they have handled.

Before hiring the medical malpractice lawyer that will represent you in the court of law, some other thing are to be considered too. In addition to the experience that the lawyer should have so that he can effectively represent you, they should also be qualified. It is important that the credentials of the lawyer be given importance. It is one of those things that will help you to know how informed the lawyer is. The lawyer’s credentials together with the testimonials from their previous clients will help you in the gauging of the service that the lawyer provides. They should also be a person that you are comfortable working with since a lot of information will be exchanged.

Medical malpractice is a suit that a patient files against a health practitioner such as medical doctor, nurse or specialist for any harm that the practitioner might have caused to the patient. It may constitute the negligence of the health practitioner or the lack of professionalism that the health practitioner may have demonstrated while carrying out his duty. It also may be the substandard treatment that the health practitioner does. Some of the cases that have led to medical malpractice have resulted in the permanent injuries to the patient and in severe cases have led to death.

When a medical practitioner is licensed to practice medicine, they are given the license based on the skills that they have acquired and the competence that they have demonstrated. They are also made to swear to take care of the lives of the patients that will be under their care for the period that they will be practicing. Medical malpractice therefore is a very serious offence that can lead to grave financial punishment to the health practitioner. They can lose their medical license (hence banned from ever practicing medicine) while they can be heavily fined or even imprisoned.

When we visit a medical practitioner for the treatment or consultation to the various conditions that we may be suffering, a lot of confidential information is exchanged. As a patient, you are fully entitled to the confidentiality that comes with this exchange. You are also entitled as a patient, to be made aware of the full diagnosis of the condition that you have plus the prognosis. The two are to be explained in a way that you can understand. If the doctor fails to give such information and something that you had not been made aware of happens, this also qualifies to be termed as medical malpractice.

Medical malpractice also involves negligence or lack of attention during the surgery of a patient. We have heard of cases where the surgeon by mistake left some equipment that is to be used during surgery in the patient’s body. The negligence then leads to serious complications to the patient since most of the time, the discovery of the equipment is known after some time. This is negligence. What should you do then when you have experienced medical malpractice?

The basic and the most important thing that you should do are to consult the services of a medical malpractice attorney. They are the people who will help you to build the case on medical malpractice so that you will get justice not only for yourself but also prevent other patients from going through what you have. As a victim of medical malpractice, you are entitled to compensation.

Depending on the extent of the damage that has been caused, the compensation varies. Some insurance companies however, take advantage of the claims from the people who are not fully aware and informed on the rights that they have. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer is the person who is able to help you understand and claim what you are entitled to.

Medical malpractice can be said to be negligence by the doctors. For one to decide to go to medical school, he/she usually has the passion for doing medicine and also for taking care of the patients. When students graduate from medical school, they usually are very vibrant and they have the psyche to do their work but after sometime, the psyche dies out. This is usually caused by the type of staff you find in the hospital that one is posted to. In most hospitals, the doctors and nurses who have worked for about twenty years in the medical field, they seem not to care about the welfare of patients. Below are some common cases of medical malpractice that is caused by negligence.

After surgery, you may find out that the surgeon forgot one of the instruments that they were using in the body of a person. Normally, before the beginning of surgery, the nurses are the ones who count the number of instruments that they will use and they are supposed to count them after they are through with the surgery. In some cases though they are rare, the surgeons find out that they have forgotten one scalpel or even the surgery scissors. How they approach the patient in question is usually hard but they have to. This usually happens maybe if the surgery was very long and the surgeons are tired but that should not be an excuse because of the Hippocratic Oath that they normally take.

In certain hospitals, the patients die while waiting to be treated. As stated in the first paragraph, the doctors and nurses who have worked in the hospitals for a long time tend to be reluctant. When some patients go to the hospital and they are critically ill, they have to wait for those that came first to be attended to. Usually their pleas are not heard and they die before their turn to see the doctor reaches. Simple as it may seem, it is negligence that is highly punishable.

Mothers are made childless by such negligence. When a child is born and has not reached nine months, it needs to be out in the incubator until it has attained the desired weight and the doctors see that it can survive on the outside. There are some nurses who take the children out of the incubator and the kid dies. It is very rare for light to go off in the hospitals because there usually is a back up. If your child is taken out of the incubator and dies, you can go on and sue the person who was responsible because they are going against the Hippocratic Oath.

There are many types and examples of medical malpractice that is performed by the doctors. Get to know them so that you know the necessary steps to take. As for the doctors, they should make sure that they follow the oath that they normally take or they change their career if they do not want to serve the patients with commitment.

Medical care is a service that should have the highest quality. This is because doctors deal with the lives of people and therefore substandard care is intolerable. However, there are some doctors who are negligent and cause permanent damage to the lives of their patients and in some cases result to death. This is what is referred to as medical malpractice. It is one of the most painful losses that a loved one can go through knowing very well that the death or the condition of a loved one is something that could have been prevented.

Patient mishandling is something that is against the doctor’s code of conduct. It is a very serious offense that could result to the negligent doctor losing his or her license and therefore be banished from practicing. When you go through an experience of medical malpractice, it is important that you seek the services of a medical malpractice lawyer. They are the legal representation who will be able to help you get justice and also financial compensation. By hiring the service of an experienced medical malpractice attorney, you will be able to get justice for yourself and also help stop the doctor from causing unnecessary pain to future patients.

Medical malpractice cases are divided into different categories. The most common is a simple mistake that doctors do that result to a great impact on a person’s health. Doctor’s prescription of a drug to a patient that will cause a reaction or will interfere with the medication that the patient is taking is medical malpractice. As a doctor, it is important to take note of the patients system and know the body type so that the drug that you will offer will not cause a reaction to the patient.

Medical malpractice also includes the administration of wrong anesthesia dosage when performing surgery. This is something that has caused permanent sleep to some patients or the dosage was not as effective and therefore causes negative results after surgery.

Before performing an operation, the doctor is supposed to explain to the patient the details of the operation in the language that the patient can understand. This includes the risk factors and the possible reaction after the operation. This means that if something does not go according to plan and there results a situation that the patient was not made aware of, it would be termed as medical malpractice. These are some of the things that should be taken into consideration when filing for lawsuit.

It is very important that when you are searching for a medical malpractice attorney, you carry your research well. A professional medical malpractice lawyer has the necessary info and the knowledge that is required for the build up of the case. They will be able to establish the medical grounds for the negligence and therefore prove to the court that the negligence of the doctor is something that is punishable. He will therefore be able to prove to the court that the doctor is guilty and thus find you acceptable for compensation.

Every day, many cases are filed but not all of them receive compensation. The reason is that not all those who file medical negligence claims can prove carelessness on the part of the healthcare provider. In some cases, the court limits the compensation amount awarded to the related victims. Courts are meticulous when they talk about evaluating evidence. They require lawyers to present solid evidence for the cases they handle.

What about those who are deprived of their rights of safe health care? In such cases, the court can award punitive damages that are non-economic by nature aside from awarding compensatory damages. However, punitive damages are awarded in the type of lawsuits where the lawyer can provide solid evidence of misconduct by the medical doctor. In layman’s terms, the lawyer is required to prove that the doctor caused the harm to the patient on purpose.

If you are a patient and feel neglected during the medical treatment in the hospital or you were not treated properly during the emergency, then you can get in touch with a bona fide medical negligence lawyer in order to get assistance. The lawyer who specializes in dealing with medical cases can help you with the legal procedures if you choose to file a case. General lawyers, on the other hand, can also help you but they are not as competent as specialized lawyers are. So, it is better to hire a lawyer who specializes in dealing with these types of cases.

The purpose of punitive damages is to spur on reform the behavior of the opposing party and prevent them from making the same mistake down the road. No financial compensation is awarded in the lawsuit unlike those looking for compensatory damages.

In addition, the court can choose to award punitive damages in lawsuits where the compensatory damages is not enough to the mistake committed by the opposing party and to the injury sustained by the victim. The court can choose to punish the medical doctor in order to discourage them to make the same mistake in the future. As a result, they will be more careful while giving serious treatments to their patients down the road. This will also give patients peace of mind that they are going to be treated by a careful and responsible doctor.

Laws associated with punitive damages vary from one country to another. This means the amount of compensation you can get from the guilty party will be different based on the rules and regulations of that country.

If you or a loved one becomes a victim of medical malpractice, the first step to take is to consult with a reputable lawyer. Cooperation and constant communication are vital to be able to file the necessary lawsuit within the allowable statute of limitations.

Gynecology can be a difficult process for any women out there. Since gynecology has a sensitive nature, it is important for you to let a trustworthy professional carry out this procedure. In this article, we are going to talk about how to claim compensation for medical negligence associated with gynecology.

Most gynecologists have a lot of experience on hand. They think of their patients and carry out treatments carefully. The truth is that around half of the medical malpractice cases are associated with gynecology. You may find it embarrassing to claim compensation for this type of case, but it is very important to recover the compensation you deserve.

Most of the cases that are related to gynecology are filed due to the misdiagnosis of a disease by a doctor. This involves misreading test results that can lead to more complications in the future. For example, in a case, a woman developed cervical cancer and lost her fertility due to a misdiagnosed smear.

Gynecology cases involve problems related to surgery, contraceptive procedures or terminations. Almost every procedure you think that has affected your quality of life can be pursued whether you find it necessary or not.

Although filing a lawsuit based on this sensitive field of medicine can seem embarrassing, you should not feel that way. Some lawyers have female staff that have experience dealing with similar cases. So, you can explain your cases to the female legal assistants or attorneys, if you are shy. Lawyers keep all the matters related to the case confidential. So, you need not worry about leaking the details of your case. All you have to do is to hire a good attorney.

Three factors can have an impact on your decision to claim compensation. First off, you have to prove that you were given wrong treatment and that you got injuries due to that treatment. Your next step is to determine whom you want to make a claim against. This can be your healthcare provider, your doctor, for example.

A good lawyer, for the most part, can easily deal with different aspects of a medical malpractice case. For example, he or she can get medical reports and prove that you were given a treatment that was below the standard of care. Normally, you have to make a claim within 1 year of the wrong treatment you received. But it is better file a claim ASAP.

If you feel that you have been given wrong gynecological treatment, then you should get in touch with a good lawyer and discuss your case with him or her. These cases have sensitive nature and can cause you embarrassment. But you should not be afraid of speaking to a lawyer. You can get thousands of dollars in compensation if you prove that you were given wrong treatment in the hospital.

Medical checkup and healthcare is very important for all of us. We all have diseases and other medical complications at some point in our life. Every year, a plethora of people will turn to medical doctors in order to treat their diseases and some will end up with severe injuries.

This is not always the case. Medical doctors have years of experience treating different types of patients, but they can also make mistakes. This is because they are also human like you and me. For the patient, these medical mistakes can be life-changing. At times, these mistakes occur due to the carelessness or negligence of the medical doctor or medical staff.

Medical malpractice can leave a severe effect on a patient. Therefore, a tidy sum of compensation is awarded to the victim by the court. Thousands of medical negligence victims make claims for compensation every year, but some cases are weak and go undealt.

One reason of this is that some victims do not believe that they are going to win the case. The truth is that medical malpractice covers those treatments that are not performed as per the standard of care.

So how can you file a medical negligence claim? Well, your first step is to contact a medical malpractice lawyer, as lawsuits related to medical malpractice are often difficult to handle. Choose a lawyer based on his or her experience and success rate. Some lawyers feature some of their successful cases on their web sites. You should then have a consultation with the lawyer in order to find out if you have a case or not.

It is difficult to prove that you suffered due to the negligence of a doctor in the court. Therefore, you should get help from a lawyer. The lawyer will check on your medical records and reports in order to find out if you were given proper treatment.

However, this is not enough in order to file a case. You will also need to prove that the ill-treatment caused you serious injuries. This will include medical reports as well as psychiatric evaluation. Moreover, you will have to prove that the substandard treatment affected your day-to-day life very badly.

The procedure is complex but you do not need to worry as there will a lawyer on your side to help you out. Also, you do need to worry about the legal costs, as you can cover the expenses with the help of the compensation amount you will receive.

It is a daunting process to make a claim for medical negligence but if you are a victim of medical negligence, than it is important for you to file a case in order to get the compensation you truly deserve. Without the professional assistance of a lawyer, it is close to impossible to win a case and get the reasonable amount of compensation. So, if you are willing to file a case, you should then look for a competent lawyer to help yourself.

No one wants to get involved in a situation where he or she will need to hire a lawyer or file a case. Medical negligence incidents are common. This is because mistakes can be made by anyone. Mistakes that occur during a surgical treatment can have a devastating effect on your life. Read on to find out more.

What can you do if something goes wrong while you were being given a treatment? Whom should you contact in order to get advice or compensation?

If you are a victim of a medical malpractice, you should then talk to an attorney who specializes in the matter.

These lawyers have extensive knowledge of laws related to medicine, so you can contact them to get advice on injuries you sustained and steps you should take after you have suffered from an injury.

These lawyers specialize in dealing with cases related to medical malpractice. So, they are the best people to handle your case in the best way possible. And you can rely on them to get the compensation you deserve. Despite this, some people choose to hire less experienced lawyers.

You can also hire a general lawyer in order to handle your case but it is not recommended. Let us explain it another way. Suppose you have a high-end luxury car. If it goes out of order, would you take it to an experienced or unqualified repairer? Definitely not the latter. The same applies to personal injury cases as well. Filing a case against a negligent doctor is much more important than having a car repaired. So, you should choose to hire an experienced lawyer who specializes in medical malpractice cases.

By hiring a specialized lawyer, you will be most likely to secure the compensation you deserve in order to cover your expenses. A non-specialized lawyer can also assist you with these types of cases but they are more likely to miss important details. On the other hand, trained and experienced lawyers know ins and outs of these types of cases.

The choice is yours but it is highly recommended to turn to the best lawyer if possible, as it will increase your chances of winning the cases and getting the compensation you deserve.
Finding and hiring a medical negligence lawyer is not as hard as you may think. All you have to do is to search on Google for “medical malpractice lawyers” in your area. This will show you a list of lawyers who offer assistance when it comes to medical malpractice cases.

Before you choose a certain lawyer, make sure to check on their accreditations. Aside from this, you should have a look at the experience level, qualifications and success rate of the lawyer. For this purpose, you can visit the website of a lawyer.

We get in touch with a doctor when we have health problems. We always get medical assistance from a doctor we trust. At times, doctors break this trust by making grave mistakes while providing medical treatment. Sadly, these grave mistakes cause severe harm to the patient. In some cases, such mistakes can even take the life the patient. If you, your friend, or a family member has received serious injuries due to the negligence of the doctor, you have the right of filing a medical negligence case. Given below are some of the things you can expect when medical malpractice occurs.

First off, it is important for you to turn to the right lawyer if you want to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. Every country has its own set of rules when it comes to filing a medical negligence claim. So, it is best to hire someone who has a good understanding of these laws in your country. It is more important to avail the services of a professional medical malpractice lawyer if the medical negligence contributed to the death of the patient. In these types of lawsuits, a great deal of paperwork is involved. As a result, it will be difficult for you to handle these tasks. So, hiring an experienced lawyer is a stroke of genius.

As a patient, when you are at a hospital, you should take detailed notes about the incidents that happened, the type of treatment recommended by the doctor, the type of medications prescribed and so on. This information will help you win the case easily in the court.

A lot of research should be done in order to find out the causes of medical malpractice. Therefore, before you file a case, you should take your time and collect the facts that can help your lawyer to prove your case in the court. Here, you should keep in mind that you have a limited time in order to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. So, you should not waste time and start collecting relevant information as soon as possible after the incident. Once the time period expires, you will not be able to file a lawsuit at all. Therefore, it is recommended to discuss these things with your lawyer. Following the deadlines is very important in such cases.

Once you have compiled the necessary information, including medical records, documents, photos and bills from the related doctor, then your next step is contact a good lawyer and hand over the documents to him. The lawyer will then study the document to prepare for handling your case. At times, medical malpractice lawyers succeed in settling the case out of the court. The lawyer may demand compensation from the guilty doctor in cash. In other cases, the lawyer may need to take the case to the court where they can take some time to present proofs and win the case. At the end of the day, you will end up recovering a reasonable amount of compensation from the insurance company of the doctor.

Sacramento medical malpractice cases are among the type of cases that lawsuit settlement firms take into consideration for pre-settlement funding. Usually, this includes personal injury caused by the negligence of a doctor during a surgery or medical operation. This means the doctor or the medical professionals did something wrong that caused harm to the patient. In such cases, a lawyer is hired by the victim as well as the defendant. At times, the case is taken to the court. The judge or jury listen to both of the lawyers. If the defendant is proven to be negligent then the damages are evaluated and a monetary compensation is rewarded to the victim.

Many patients who file a case against a medical doctor are eligible for case funds provided by private companies. The money is spent to pay for day-to-day expenses or to pay the extra bills related to filing a case against the company or firm. At times, medical malpractice lawsuits take a long period of time to send. On the other hand, slip and fall accidents or car accidents take a short period of time to reach settlement.

Reluctance 

If the medical board or the jury finds that the doctor breached the standard of care or committed medical malpractice, then the jury can cancel the medical license of the doctor. When the case settles the amount of compensation can also be increased. Based on the complication of the case, the opposing party will exert more effort to win the case against you. Unlike these cases, slip and fall and other simple cases are easier to handle.

Another reason why these cases are hard or slow to settle is that hospital staff and doctors tend to prove their innocence. They do not consider it an act of malpractice or a blatant misdeed. But these type of mistakes are taken seriously; therefore, doctors and hospitals are reluctant to settle. They consider settlement as admitting that they are guilty.

Information 

In Sacramento medical negligence cases, a lot of document work is involved. In these cases, the lawyers at both sides take a considerable amount of time to study the medical records and monitory issues related to improperly done medical procedure. The lawyers have to study the information given in order to have a better understanding of the lawsuit. So, this is another reason why the case takes too long to settle.

Risk 

Risk is associated with all types of medical procedures. However, some medical procedures are more likely have problems. Therefore, it is not easy to take such cases to the court in order to settle them as soon as possible. Of course, you need to spend more money to reach a settlement. Due to more risk, the lawyers will try their level best to fight the case in order to win it.

Whether you should sue a medical doctor or not is based on the circumstances associated with your case. The bulk of lawsuits are filed just because a doctor failed to diagnose a certain disease or condition. These types of cases are associated with appendicitis, lung cancer, heart attack, breast cancer or colorectal cancer and so on. In this article, we are trying to explain how you can file a case against a medical doctor in case misdiagnosis.

Aside from the primary health care physician, you can file a case against any other physician, such as specialists, nurses, hospitals, hospital staff, laboratories, surgeons, surgical staff, specialists and so on. According to statistics, we have come to know that the majority of these cases are filed in order to recover compensation from the responsible for a misdiagnosis or a delayed diagnosis. Apart from this, there are many different reasons of a misdiagnosis. For example, lack of screening, incompetent doctor, improper tests and ignoring the details given by the patient are a few reasons of misdiagnosis.

Aside from misdiagnosis, a delayed diagnosis or diagnosis done wrongly can affect the patient in several ways. Due to delayed diagnosis, the disease can become worse and the patient may need aggressive treatment. This can cause the patient to bear severe pain. Also, urgent treatments can cost an arm and a leg to the patient.

If the doctor gives harmful medication to the patient, then the patient’s condition can turn critical. Similarly, if a doctor performs an unnecessary surgical treatment that leaves the patient in a worse condition is also considered medical malpractice. Lastly, misdiagnosis can increase the possibility of complications and can even cause death in some cases.

It is important to keep in mind that the statute of limitation depends upon the laws of a country where the case is filed. Moreover, in some countries, the statute of limitations is not applied until the discovery of injuries. In other states, it is applied on the day the doctors fails to perform the diagnosis properly. Other factors that determine whether it should be applied or not is the detailed allegations made by the patient.

It is understood that every country has its own laws with respect to medical malpractice. If you want to recover compensation from the insurance company of your doctor for misdiagnosis, then the court requires you to prove that the doctor or the medical practitioner failed to follow the standard of care. In this way, you will be able to recover compensation from the other party.
You have to go through a complex process in order to file a case against a medical doctor.

Therefore, hiring a qualified medical negligence lawyer is a stroke of genius. You can find a lot of medical negligence lawyers in the market. The lawyer can evaluate the details of your case, formulate an effective legal strategy and help you negotiate with the insurance company to settle on a reasonable amount of compensation. Hope this helps!

First off, let us take a look at the definition of clinical negligence. According to experts, this is a situation where a doctor gives you a low-standard treatment that could cause harm to you. This means that the doctor give you a harmful treatment on purpose. This may sound like an easy legal description but it is not. In other words, when a doctor treats you badly, this can be considered clinical negligence.

If you are sure that you have been treated unfairly by your doctor, you can consider getting legal assistance. For this purpose, you should always try to find a legal expert. In other words, you should hire an expert medical malpractice lawyer.

The first thing you need to do is to make a formal complaint to the person in charge of the health care, especially if you are in hospital. Moreover, you should make a formal complaint and ask for detailed response. If the response does not satisfy you, then your next move should be to make a complaint to the complaint manager of the hospital.

If you have been discharged from the hospital, then you should complaint directly to the complaint manager of the hospital. You can also make an appointment to meet the consultant who is in charge of giving you treatments. You can then discuss the situation with them in details.
Here it is important to note that there is sometimes a 12-week limit when it comes to making a complaint to the hospital. Normally, you will get a response from the hospital within 20 business days.

If you are not satisfied with the reply from the hospital, then your next move should be to ask for a referral for what is called Independent Professional Review in a period of 28 days. Normally, a couple independent consultants carry out this type of review. Their job will be to review the treatment your received from the doctor. Aside from this, they will obtain evidence from the witnesses and the medical professionals associated with the treatment. Moreover, they may review the medical notes as well.

You must do it within 12 months from the day you know about the potential medical negligence. It is important to note that there is no guarantee that your claim will be taken seriously.
The last thing you can do is to consult an expert medical malpractice lawyer to have your case evaluated in order to see if you can take the case to the court. As said earlier, it is better to consult a lawyer before taking other steps.

Is your baby a victim of medical malpractice? Did the doctor commit mistakes while operating on you? Did you receive poor treatment? Medical malpractice is an important issue all over the world. No one is perfect in the world. Mistakes can happen in hospitals as well. Therefore, necessary actions should be taken against the negligent doctor. Medical negligence means that the doctor provided poor treatment on purpose. Read on to find out what types of damages you can cover in a medical malpractice case.

Is it important to sue a medical doctor that committed medical malpractice? Yes, it is. Filing a case is important if you want to hold the guilty doctor responsible for what he or she has done. This will prevent other doctors from committing medical malpractice. Another benefit of suing the guilty doctor is that you can get compensation from the doctor to meet your expenses.

In a medical negligence case, compensation can be given based on different factors. First purpose is to meet medical expenses. The compensation amount can be calculated by figuring out the total expenses. Depending upon the case, you can recover compensation for the sum of money needed to meet medical expenses down the road. A large amount of compensation is awarded if long-term care is needed to cover future medical expenses.

The amount of compensation can be increase if the victim is unable to work. For example, the compensation amount is calculated based on the number of months the victim cannot work. The court can decide to add this amount to the total amount of compensation. However, keep in mind that not all cases can end up getting that much compensation. Other things that can be considered in order to figure out the total amount of compensation include loss of monthly income, physical disability, physical injuries and so on.

If the victim of medical negligence dies due to the severity of injuries, the victim’s family members can receive the compensation. Although the compensation cannot put life into the deceased, yet you should file a case against the guilty doctor to get justice. Therefore, you should not underestimate the importance of hiring a lawyer to file a case against the responsible party. The amount of compensation received can be used for the purpose of making good the loss of companionship, loss of salary, funeral costs, medical expenses and so on. Hope the article is helpful.

Nobody wants to have a medical procedure. This is because surgical operations can cause stress, pain and discomfort. Another reason is that many people are worried that something can go wrong during the treatment.

It is important to note that mistakes during a medical treatment rarely occur. However, doctors are also human and can make mistakes. There can be many different reasons behind such mistakes. A common reason is medical malpractice. Such mistakes can hurt your severely. If this happens to you, it is recommended to sue the guilty party in order to obtain compensation. The amount of compensation can support your recovery.

Some people are of the opinion that filing a medical malpractice claim is a hard nut to crack and the chances of success are slim. Fortunately, this is not always the case. All you have to do is to keep the following points in mind.

Hire A Specialist

Always opt for an expert medical malpractice lawyer. This is because a medical malpractice lawyer has the required set of skills and experience that you need in order to win the case. It is better to consult the lawyer prior to deciding to file a case. The lawyer will evaluate your case and let you know whether you can get a reasonable amount of compensation.

Consider The Experience Of The Lawyer

The experience of the lawyer matters the most. Irrespective of the type of profession, experience is of paramount importance. Medical malpractice lawyers who have a long experience can handle even complex cases. The good news is that most of medical negligence lawyers are happy to take your case on contingency basis. This means they will not charge you any fee until they win the case.

So, you should prefer a lawyer having long experience in handling the type of case you have. In this way, you will be more likely to win the case against the other party. At the end of the day, you will get a considerable amount of compensation to cover your expenses resulted from injuries caused by medical malpractice.

Act Fast And Get Familiar With The Process

Different states have different time limits for making a claim. For example, in the UK, you can make a claim against medical malpractice within a period of three years after the accident. As with all types of cases, you will have to keep the memories of the accident in mind in order to describe what happened in the court. So, you should make a claim as soon as you can.

When you have decided to file a case, you should ask your lawyer to spell out every step of this process. This will give you an idea about the time required to take your case to the court and obtain compensation.

To cut a long story short, you should do some research to choose the right firm. The given above are the attributes of the lawyer you have to consider in order to choose the right lawyer.

Medical negligence, also known as medical malpractice, is a crime, according to the law. Medical negligence can cause severe injuries to a person. In some cases, it can even cause death. Doctors are expected to be careful while treating their patients. The law can prosecute the guilty doctor and compensate the victim. Usually, the insurance company of the guilty doctor pays compensation to the victim.

Criticisms

Medical malpractice lawyers face criticism from many critics. According to critics, medical negligence lawyer benefit from mistakes committed by others, particularly so-called “ambulance chasers”. This is a special terms used to talk about unethical attorneys who spur on victims to file a lawsuit against the doctors to recover compensation. To some extent, their criticism is justified but not all lawyers can be put in the same category. There are black sheep in every profession and medical malpractice lawyers are no exception.

The Reality

The fact is that you cannot file a case against a medical professional for anything. To file a case, you should have a genuine reason as well as proof. This means a doctor has made a serious mistake while treating a patient. The law allows a person to sue a doctor if they have not followed rules and regulations during operation. This means you can sue a doctor if they did not take their responsibility seriously.

Accountability

Accountability is paramount. The guilty doctors should be held responsible if they have really committed medical malpractice. Mistakes can happen but medical negligence cannot be tolerated in any case. Innocent or minor mistakes can be tolerated as anyone can make mistakes, so does the medical professionals. The doctor should be held accountable if they have caused a severe injury to the patient because of negligence. Negligence means the doctor failed to perform their duty.

Compensation for Victims

Victims who acquire compensation because of suffering due to the negligence of the doctor are not being rewarded. Actually, they are given compensation for something that has affected their lives negatively. This includes individuals who have lost their loved ones, those who cannot work anymore, and those who have lost their eyesight or hearing. In some cases, victims can use compensation amount to get medical assistance and pay medical expenses.

It is understood that there are bad apples in every profession and medical negligence is no exception. Some medical malpractice lawyers spur on others to file a case against the doctor despite the fact that the case is not worth taking to the court. However, the bulk of medical malpractice lawyers are looking to assist those who are in need. They work to improve the lives of their clients and hold the negligent doctors responsible. It is important to keep in mind that there is prominent different between negligence and genuine mistakes. Mistakes can be tolerated but negligence can never be tolerated.

In sum, medical malpractice law has great importance when it comes to filing a case against a medical professional involved in a medical malpractice case. Choose a lawyer based on their experience, qualifications, and number of cases they handled successfully in the past.

Is your baby a victim of medical malpractice? Did the doctor commit mistakes while operating on you? Did you receive poor treatment? Medical malpractice is an important issue all over the world. No one is perfect in the world. Mistakes can happen in hospitals as well.

Therefore, necessary actions should be taken against the negligent doctor. Medical negligence means that the doctor provided poor treatment on purpose. Read on to find out what types of damages you can cover in a medical malpractice case.

Is it important to sue a medical doctor that committed medical malpractice? Yes, it is. Filing a case is important if you want to hold the guilty doctor responsible for what he or she has done. This will prevent other doctors from committing medical malpractice. Another benefit of suing the guilty doctor is that you can get compensation from the doctor to meet your expenses.

In a medical negligence case, compensation can be given based on different factors. First purpose is to meet medical expenses. The compensation amount can be calculated by figuring out the total expenses. Depending upon the case, you can recover compensation for the sum of money needed to meet medical expenses down the road. A large amount of compensation is awarded if long-term care is needed to cover future medical expenses.

The amount of compensation can be increase if the victim is unable to work. For example, the compensation amount is calculated based on the number of months the victim cannot work. The court can decide to add this amount to the total amount of compensation.

However, keep in mind that not all cases can end up getting that much compensation. Other things that can be considered in order to figure out the total amount of compensation include loss of monthly income, physical disability, physical injuries and so on.

If the victim of medical negligence dies due to the severity of injuries, the victim’s family members can receive the compensation. Although the compensation cannot put life into the deceased, yet you should file a case against the guilty doctor to get justice. Therefore, you should not underestimate the importance of hiring a lawyer to file a case against the responsible party. The amount of compensation received can be used for the purpose of making good the loss of companionship, loss of salary, funeral costs, medical expenses and so on.

To get medical assistance, we need a doctor having required qualification, experience and competency. Sadly, it is not always the case. To err is human. Doctors and other medical professionals can also make mistakes that can contribute to medical malpractice. It is not always easy to file a lawsuit in case you have become a victim of medical malpractice. There are many complications involved in this process. So, you had better hire an experienced lawyer.

Medical malpractice cases are rising as time progresses. Most countries have taken steps to eliminate medical malpractice by formulating stringent laws to punish the responsible party and compensate the victims. The bulk of medical doctors have an insurance policy to handle medical malpractice cases. Different countries have different rules and regulations when it comes to filing a case against a medical professional.

As mentioned earlier, each country has its own rules with respect to filing cases. Some countries require a lawyer to possess a lot of knowledge and complete understanding of medical malpractice laws. On the other hand, some countries have less strict requirements. Similarly, there are different rules with respect to arbitration and settlement.

Medical malpractice cases create a full circle from doctor to patient and back to the doctor. Due to the increasing number of medical malpractice cases, medical professionals nowadays are tending to buy insurance policies in order to safeguard themselves. As a result, insurance companies are tending to up their insurance premiums.

If you are a victim of medical malpractice, you might have knowledge that there are different types of damages you can get compensation for. This is actually good news for you.

However, the bad news is that the bulk of medical malpractice claims do not succeed in the court. According to a rough estimate, 73% of medical malpractice cases fail to get compensation. This means that if you have really received injuries in a medical malpractice case, you should then hire the best lawyer in order to win the lawsuit. The lawyer should have a lot of experience handling medical malpractice cases in the court.

So, you should research on the Internet in order to come up with a few good names. By keeping the information given in this article, you can hire a good lawyer easily.

Although medical doctors are highly trained, they can sometimes may mistakes while operating on a patient. The mistake may contribute to serious issues. Even during a diagnosis, the doctor can make mistakes in identifying an illness or disorder. As a result, the patient has to suffer from severe pain because of taking wrong medicine. In fact, the doctor’s mistake can cause numerous problems. In this article, we are going to talk about some of the common medical malpractices that can cause injuries.

The majority of medical malpractice cases involve wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. Wrong diagnosis can worsen the illness instead of curing it. Before diagnosing the patient, it is the responsibility of the doctor to be careful. If the doctor does not be careful and prescribes a wrong medicine, the illness or disease can get worse. Aside from this, the doctor should make sure the patient is not allergic to the medicine he is going to prescribe.

If a medical professional operates on a patient improperly on purpose, this will be medical malpractice. Doctors have to follow set standards when it comes to operating on a patient. Apart from this, the patient should be given a proper amount of anesthesia dosage before starting the operation. Over dosage of anesthesia is dangerous for a patient and can cause death in some cases. So, the doctor should take into account all of these things while treating the patients.

It is the responsibility of the doctor to let the patient know about possible side effects of a prescribed medicine or a surgical operation. The patient gives permission to the doctor to do a treatment, but it does not mean the doctor can now do anything to the patient. The doctor will be held responsible in case something goes wrong with the patient. A carelessly performed treatment can cause severe injuries to the patient. Apart from this, if the doctor performs an untested procedure on the patient, this may cause serious injuries to the patient. Childbirth injuries also come under medical malpractice.

You can take a few steps in order to prevent injuries caused by medical malpractice. For example, you should provide your doctor with your previous medical records and an accurate description of the symptoms of the disease of you are suffering from. If you cannot do that, you can then ask one of your friends or family members to talk to the doctor on behalf of you. However, keep in mind that these preventive measures do not guarantee that you will not suffer from medical practice. But it can reduce the chances of medical negligence as the doctor will have the required information beforehand in order to perform the right treatment and prescribe the right medicine.

If you or your loved one has been a victim of medical malpractice, you should hire an experienced, competent and skillful medical malpractice or medical negligence lawyer in order to sue the negligent party and recover the compensation you deserve.

Whenever a doctor mistreats a person, he or she can file a claim against the doctor in order to get compensation. However, most people are hesitant to file such a claim. Given below are some common reasons of it.

Some medical malpractice victims do not even know that they can make a medical malpractice claim. It is understood that the medical doctor will not let the patient know that he or she has been mistreated. Therefore, the bulk of patients remain oblivious to their rights.

So, if you have been mistreated by a negligent physician, you should make a claim.
Some people are not sure whether they can qualify for compensation or not. This area is complicated so you should get in touch with a medical malpractice lawyer if you have received poor care, poor treatment or bad advice from your medical professional. Once you have chosen a lawyer, they can evaluate your case and suggest accordingly.

They will find out if the doctor operated on your carelessly. This will help you figure out whether you really have a case or not. Aside from this, this will help you estimate the amount of compensation you can get.

If you have a real case, you can then file a lawsuit against the responsible doctor. Fortunately, if you win the case, you can be entitled to a tidy sum of compensation. This will help you meet your expenses during your recovery time.

Medical professionals are the people who we have trust in. These professionals include nurses and GPs as well. This means nurses can also make mistakes. So, due to the trust and good relationship with them, we find it difficult to file a case against them for the mistake they have made.

By filing a case, you are not going to ruin the career of the nurse you have a good relationship with. Some people think that filing a lawsuit can have a devastating effect on the career of the medical professional. This is not always the case. What about your career? What about the injuries you received due to medical negligence of the doctor? So, you should file a case no matter what happens.

Here, you should keep an important point in mind. In a medical malpractice claim, it is not the doctor or nurse who will pay compensation to you. Instead, the insurance company of the medical professional will pay the amount of compensation you deserve. So, the thinking that filing the case against the medical professional can ruin their career is wrong. However, in rare cases, the court can decide to cancel the license of a doctor if they had made a grave mistake while providing a serious medical treatment.

If you feel that you have a medical malpractice case, you should consider choosing a medical malpractice lawyer and file a case against the negligent doctor. The medical lawyer can provide you with the best advice. At the end of the day, you will end up receiving compensation for the injuries and loss you suffered from.

Nobody wants to have a medical procedure. This is because surgical operations can cause stress, pain and discomfort. Another reason is that many people are worried that something can go wrong during the treatment.

It is important to note that mistakes during a medical treatment rarely occur. However, doctors are also human and can make mistakes. There can be many different reasons behind such mistakes. A common reason is malpractice. Such mistakes can hurt you severely. If this happens to you, it is recommended to sue the guilty party in order to obtain compensation. The amount of compensation can support your future medical bills.

Some people are of the opinion that filing a medical malpractice claim is a hard nut to crack and the chances of success are slim. Fortunately, this is not always the case. All you have to do is to keep the following points in mind:

Hire A Specialist

Always opt for an expert malpractice lawyer. This is because he/she will have the required set of skills and experience that you need in order to win the case. It is better to consult the lawyer prior to deciding to file a case. The lawyer will evaluate your case and let you know whether you can get a reasonable amount of compensation.

Consider The Experience Of The Lawyer

The experience of the lawyer matters the most. Irrespective of the type of profession, experience is of paramount importance. The same is the case with all attorneys. The good news is that most of medical negligence lawyers are happy to take your case on contingency basis. This means they will not charge you any fee until they win the case.

So, you shout prefer a lawyer having long experience in handling the type of case you have. In this way, you will be more likely to win the case against the other party. At the end of the day, you will get a considerable amount of compensation to cover your expenses resulted from injuries caused by medical malpractice.

Act Fast And Get Familiar With The Process

Different states have different time limits for making a claim. For example, in the UK, you can make a claim against medical malpractice within a period of three years after the accident. As with all types of cases, you will have to keep the memories of the accident in mind in order to describe what happened in the court. So, you should make a claim as soon as you can.

When you have decided to file a case, you should ask your lawyer to spell out every step of this process. This will give you an idea about the time required to take your case to the court and obtain compensation.

To cut a long story short, you should do some research to choose the right firm. The given above are the attributes of the lawyer you have to consider in order to choose the right lawyer.

In the USA, the number of medical malpractice cases is on the rise. In addition, insurance premiums for doctors have also gone up because of the rise in number of medical malpractice. Let us have a look at the medical malpractice lawsuit statistics in the U.S. :

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), medical malpractice resulted in over 98,000 deaths in 1999. In 2006, a research study revealed that medical negligence caused around 1.5 million injuries. Moreover, it was discovered that outpatient settings contributed to most of injuries and deaths compared to hospital settings. In fact, the patient who had treatments in hospitals suffered from more severe injuries. Following is the description of some common kinds of medical malpractice.

Misdiagnosis

A doctor is responsible to diagnose a patient carefully. This is one of the most important stages of a treatment. If an illness is misdiagnosed, then the patient will be likely to receive wrong medications. Therefore, it is important that the doctor should analyze the test results thoroughly. This is because the performance of the treatment and prescriptions of right medicine is dependent on the diagnosis.

Medication Errors

A large number of medical malpractice cases are filed due to the wrong treatment or medications. Examples of medication errors include wrong medicines, wrong prescription, wrong dosage and wrong medicine combination. Medication errors aggravate the condition of a patient rather than alleviating. At times, this type of medical malpractice leads to the wrongful death of a patient.

Birth Injuries

Birth complications can cause injuries to both the mother and the baby. Many factors can cause birth injures, for example, insufficient pre-natal care or failure to conduct tests that can point to abnormalities. Aside from these, hastening childbirth may also cause injuries to the mother and the baby. After the delivery, the baby may suffer from injuries if doctors fail to provide proper care.

Surgical Errors

The lack of planning before an operation can also lead to different types of medical negligence. Surgical errors, for example, puncturing internal organs or failure to provide sufficient dose of anesthesia or operating the wrong part of body or leaving medical instruments during an operation can all lead to serious or fatal injuries.

Anesthesia Malpractice

Doctors should be very careful while administering the anesthesia. An anesthesiologist should make certain the patient has no pre-existing conditions that can cause complications in case anesthesia is given. Inappropriate dosage of anesthesia can contribute to severe impairments or death.

There are many kinds of medical malpractice in all fields of medicine including surgery, gynecology and dentistry. Even pharmacists who prescribe wrong medicine or perform wrong diagnoses can be sued, especially if it has lead to severe injuries to the patient. Medical malpractice also includes unreasonable delays or failure to obtain consent from the patient prior to carrying out a treatment. If you or your relative is a victim of medical malpractice, you should immediately turn to a medical malpractice lawyer in order to sue the responsible party. You should always choose a qualified and competent lawyer so you may be more likely to win the case against the responsible doctor.

For more information contact the best medical malpractice attorney Moseley Collins.

A number of factors can lead to medical malpractice. An accident, a simple human error or gross negligence can result in medical malpractice. Following are some common kinds of medical malpractice. This article also spells out what you need to prove in case you have a case. You will also know how likely you will be to receive compensation in different types of malpractice cases.

Human Error

No one is perfect in this world and the same goes for doctors and physicians as well. They can also make mistakes while carry out a medical treatment. However, at times, their mistake is so severe that it causes serious harm to a patient. in such a situation, you can sue the doctor to receive compensation for the pain you suffered from. In order to recover compensation, you need to prove in the court that the doctor did not perform the treatment carefully which caused a harm to you. You or your lawyer will have to prove that the doctor acted unreasonably during the treatment. If you succeed in proving that the doctor’s unreasonable mistake lead to the injury, you will be most likely to be compensated.

Accidents

Accident malpractice takes place when a doctor causes an unacceptable accident while performing a surgery or operation on a patient. For example, if a doctor amputates the wrong leg or prescribes medicines that will interfere with disclosed or known allergies, then it will be considered as accident malpractice.

The standard of proof in case of an accident malpractice is the recklessness of the doctor. This means the accident caused by the doctor will be contrasted with the accidents made by other doctors in similar circumstances. If the accident causes severe damage to the patient, it is most likely that the patient will be compensated.

Gross Negligence

Negligence takes place when a physician acts without care and fails to follow professional standards while treating a patient or carrying out a surgery. For example, if the physician or doctor misdiagnosis an illness or fails to read medical tests results or makes refusals that are unacceptable in the field of medicine, then this will be considered as Negligence.

Negligence itself is the standard of proof for this type of medical malpractice. Negligence takes place where a person acts in a way that no reasonable individual would in similar circumstances. In case of a professional like a physician, then the person is defined as a physician of average intelligence. If it is proved that the physician acted negligently, the injured party will be most likely to recover damages.

Obtaining Legal Assistance

If you have received an injury due to the medical malpractice, you should consider hiring a medical malpractice lawyer to represent you in the court. The lawyer will check on your medical treatment records in order to find out the type of medical malpractice. Then he/she will fight the case against the responsible party to recover damages.

A patient who decides to have a surgery faces many concerns and medical malpractice is of their top concerns. While many patients may be worried about the treatment they are going to have, others have a fear in their mind of what will happen if the physician makes a mistake. Doctors are also human like patients, so they can also make mistakes. However, the chances of mistakes are very low. Media has played a great role in raising awareness among common people about the mistakes that occur during a medical treatment.

If you have undergone a medical treatment and you think that the treatment has caused you some kind of injury, then you should turn to a medical malpractice lawyer without wasting time. This will help the lawyer do research and collect necessary documents from the doctor to fight the case successfully in the court of law. It is important to note that most medical malpractice cases do not need to be taken to the court. They can be settled out of the court with the help of a competent lawyer. It saves you a great deal of time and money.

Another thing you need to do is to be thoroughly honest with your medical malpractice attorney. You might give them the uncensored report of the treatment you had. This will help the lawyer find out what had happened. If you are not satisfied with the surgery outcomes, it does not mean you can file a case against the doctor who carried out the treatment. In such cases, your attorney has to prove that the doctor demonstrated negligence during the treatment that caused you a severe injury.

If you have filed a case against the doctor or hospital where you had the treatment, you need to have patience. Even if you have a strong lawsuit against the medical professional, it may take months or years to reach a settlement. Medical malpractice cases are relatively difficult to prove. However, if the doctor leaves a foreign object inside your body during a medical treatment, then you will find it easier to prove that the doctor is liable. However, doctors rarely make such grave mistakes while performing a medical operation on a patient.

Hospitals, doctors and nurses try to provide you with maximum care. In spite of the care, accidents can take place because doctors and nurses are also human like patients. However, an accident is not always considered as medical malpractice or negligence. Negligence can be defined as a conduct that does not follow the standards of behavior formulated by the law in order to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm. In the court, your lawyer will have to present solid proof that the hospital, doctor or the staff acted in a manner that fell below the established standard of care. Only then, the court will be able to hold the responsible party guilty and take suitable action.

Medical malpractice cases are related to one of the more common fields of law. Medical malpractice lawsuits are filed to resolve different types of medical negligence. To have such cases settled, you should turn to an expert medical malpractice lawyer. It can take some time to resolve the case and you will need to spend a small sum of money in some cases. Medical malpractice attorneys suggest you to determine if you really have a case.

In all medical malpractice cases, two main factors should be present – a doctor, nurse, dentist or a medical technician – committed a mistake in a medical treatment. That “mistake” can include failure to act, also known as “omission” or negligence. The second is that the mistake caused you a severe injury.

To file a medical malpractice lawsuit, you need to consider the statue of limitations. The actual statue depends upon the state; however, one year is a normal time period allowed to file a medical malpractice case.

It is not enough just to find out that the doctor is responsible for the injury you are suffering from. It is also important to know whether the doctor was giving you proper treatment. This is termed as the standard of care. According to most medical malpractice lawyers, you are most likely to win the case if you succeed in proving that the doctor did not give you the required standard of care.

Aside from this, you need to prove that there is connection between the injury you suffered and the medical negligence. As for expert medical malpractice lawyers, the strength of the case is proportionate to your condition. This means if your condition gets worse after a treatment, then you will most likely win the case. For example, a misdiagnosis normally does not provide grounds for medical malpractice, but if that inaccurate diagnosis aggravates your condition or causes more problems, then you may have a case.

The majority of legal cases require a reliable witness. Typically, expert witnesses are required for medical malpractice lawsuits. So, you need to have least one expert witness to prove that there is a link between the injury you suffered and the medical treatment provided by the doctor. An expert witness can help you prove that the doctor failed to meet the required standard of care.

A medical malpractice case can take a long time to reach a settlement, especially if the lawyer of the doctor puts up a fight. This is because the court may cancel the license of the doctor if he is proved guilty.

Moreover, medical practice lawyers are usually contingency based which means they don’t charge you anything unless the win. Doctors and medical professionals charge a great deal of money to appear in the court of law. Apart from the fees of these professionals, you need to bear other expenses that arise while the case is in progress. The cost may even go over the compensation you may receive if you win the case.

Despite all these difficulties, medical malpractice lawyers recommend you file a case against the responsible party. You should try to obtain compensation for the pain and suffering due to the negligence of the doctor. This will help prevent such things from happening to other patients down the road.

In the past few years, the amount of medical malpractice has increased significantly. In the same way, the number of medical malpractice cases has gone up.

Many factors can lead to medical malpractice. For example, when a doctor does not demonstrate discipline, leaves patients at risk through lack of medical care, carries out operations negligently, diagnoses inaccurately, or steals organs from a human body, a medical malpractice case can be filed against them. However, a lot of medical malpractice cases are filed just to make money. Stringent rules and regulations have been formulated in order to figure out if the actions of the doctor resulted in the injury to the patient.

Of course, it is difficult to believe that a doctor can make mistake on purpose. But doctors have a great responsibility to carry out their duties with maximum care possible, because an ordinary mistake during a medical treatment can lead a severe injury.

Moreover, everyday many new claims are made against the doctors and medical staff due to negligence. It is an open secret that many hospitals and clinics hire poorly trained, low-skilled and experienced doctors and other medical staff in order to save a great deal of money. At the end of the day, the patients have to suffer due to the unqualified medical doctors and medical staff.

Medical associations and doctors have a different viewpoint when it comes to medical mistakes. Some experts are of the opinion that the hospital management should deal with patients carefully. Most doctors suggest that patients and families also cause mistakes during medical treatment due to their unnecessary intervention. Therefore, they should also be held liable. To some extent, this opinion is also right. No patient would like to put their life at risk by interrupting the doctor while they are performing a treatment.

A systematic procedure has been devised in order to file lawsuits against a doctor who is a suspect for a medical malpractice case. The patient has to prove in the court of law that the doctor caused them injury. In order to prove that, the patient should hire a professional medical malpractice lawyer. The lawyer will do a reasonable amount of research in order to collect proof that the doctor did not provide proper treatment, which resulted in the injury of the patient. So, the competency of the lawyer plays a great role in handling the case.

A common problem is that the majority of people do not file a case against negligent and dishonest doctors on account of the effort involved. This is not right. This will make the doctors realize the importance of their profession. As a result, they will be more careful while treating patients. If you have been injured due to the negligence of a doctor, you must sue them to teach them a lesson. This will prevent them from mistreating other patients down the road.

-Sacramento Medical Malpractice Attorney

When a medical doctor fails to provide the standard of care and causes harm to a patient, it is considered medical malpractice. If you have suffered due to the negligence of the doctor, you can file a case against the doctor, the hospital where you received the treatment or other federal agencies that supervise that hospital.

A doctor can be at fault for diagnosing a patient inaccurately or skipping a usual step in a treatment. You may also file a case against the responsible party if the doctor demonstrates negligence because of inadequate training he or she received in a hospital.

Identifying a Worthy Medical Malpractice Case

Without consulting a lawyer, you may not know whether your claim is strong enough to be presented in the court of law. A medical malpractice lawyer has a great deal of experience in dealing with medical malpractice cases, so they can give you the best advice possible regarding your case. Some medical malpractice lawyers work on a contingency basis as well.

This means that the lawyer will receive payment only if you are given an award or a settlement in the court. No one can say for sure that the lawyer will win the case; therefore, such lawyers express their willingness to fight a case only if they have a solid proof that the injury was caused due to the negligence of the doctor.

Important Medical Malpractice Legislation

Many factors can affect the outcome result of a medical malpractice case, such as damage caps, time limitations and liability reform. The government dictates all of these factors.

Ever country has different limitations on the maximum amount that can be awarded for a medical malpractice claim. Some states impose no limits, while others have some limits.

Different states have different liability reform law, and this law is evolving on a consistent basis. The government can amend the terms of liability many times a year. As a result, common people find it difficult to keep up with the terms of the liability.

Some states mandate restrictions that tell you whether you should file a medical malpractice case against a particular party. The average limit for the majority of medical malpractice claims is two years. If you have suspected a medical malpractice, you should get in touch with a medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible in order to file a case. There are time limits and complex guidelines so you should take necessary steps in time.

Your First Steps

Before filing a medical malpractice case, the lawyer needs to procure a certificate of merit. This happens when another doctor or health care provider checks on the relevant medical records and documents of the victim. If that doctor finds a proof of medical malpractice, then he or she can serve as a strong witness in the court of law.

The witness can state in the court of law that the medical doctor did not perform the treatment according to the accepted medical standards, which resulted in the injury of the patient. Your attorney can file the same certificate of merit. This will be proof that the lawyer had consulted a licensed physician to obtain the evidential support.

If you are in need of a medical malpractice attorney in San Jose call Moseley Collins.

A doctor is legally responsible to provide due health care with their patients. The law permits them to accept or reject a patient but once they have accepted a patient, they will need to treat the patient professionally. If a doctor demonstrates medical malpractice while treating you, you have the right to sue them.

Negligence is one of the many causes of medical malpractice. You can file a case against the doctor if he fails to meet the standard of care, conduct or competence. You may even receive compensation from the guilty doctor if his negligence caused you an injury. No excuses will be considered valid in a medical malpractice case.

A doctor has to take permission from a client before giving them a special treatment. If the doctor, for example, operates on a patient without his prior permission, it may be seen as an assault on the patient.

A doctor should tell you everything about your medical condition. However, a doctor is not required to spell out every risk, but they must reveal the risks associated with the treatment they are going to give you.

Before starting the treatment, the law requires the doctor to take your permission. The doctor can give you treatment only if you are fully aware of the risks and expected outcomes of that treatment.
In case a doctor fails to follow these guidelines, you can file a case against them. However, you can file a medical malpractice case against a doctor only if they performed the treatment without your consent. Otherwise, the doctor will not be considered liable.

A recent addition to the type of medical malpractices is the termination of the contract between a doctor and a patient. You might contact your lawyer to find out if the doctor between you and your doctor relates to the medical service plan you have chosen.

You need to contact a medical malpractice lawyer if your health provider has treated you negligently. These lawyers are expert in dealing with medical malpractice cases and they know how to deal with insurance companies and hospital administration. But you may not be familiar with rules and regulations of the insurance companies or hospital administration. So, it is a great idea to turn to a competent lawyer.

You should not sign any document. The doctor may ask you to sign some sort of document calling it a routine document. Some doctors do this in such situations. Do not commit this mistake and take the document to your lawyer.

You can file a medical malpractice case against a lawyer within one year of the incident that took place due to medical malpractice. It is better to file the case as soon as possible or the witnesses may start forgetting the events. Consulting with a lawyer will not cost you money so find a good lawyer and discuss your case with them.

- San Fransisco Medical Malpractice Attorney

When we look for medical attention, we prefer a doctor or nurse who is qualified and competent to take care of us. Sadly, this is not always the case. To error is human and doctors and nurses are also human, so they can also make mistake that can result in medical malpractice.

It is not always easy to file lawsuits when you are suffering from problems caused by medical malpractice. Therefore, it is recommended to turn to a professional medical malpractice lawyer. These lawyers have specialization in medical malpractice law and have a lot of experience in dealing with cases that arise due to the negligence of a doctor or other medical staff in a hospital.

The number of medical malpractice incidents is on the rise. So, most countries have noticed this trend and formulated stringent laws in order to prevent such incidents and hold the guilty party liable. This help the victim receive compensation from the guilty party for the injury he or she received due to the medical malpractice.

The bulk of medical doctors have medical malpractice insurance to deal with a lawsuit in case they make a mistake during a medical treatment. The government has made many laws that should be followed in order to file a medical malpractice case against a party. The law prevents fraudulent medical malpractice reports.

Different states have different rules when it comes to filing medical malpractice cases. Some states require a lawyer to have great knowledge and complete understanding of medical malpractice laws. On the other hand, some states have less strict requirements. Similarly, there are different kinds of approaches when it comes to arbitration or settlement between two parties. Depending upon the state, the cases can be dealt with in front of an expert group of people – a panel or the case settlement can be made based on previous case verdicts.

Due to the increasing number of medical malpractice incidents, almost every doctor has medical malpractice insurance policy. As a result, insurance companies have also increased insurance premiums. In turn, doctors have increased their fees to pay insurance premiums. So, the patient has to bear these expenses in the form of high fees. This is why healthcare has become so expensive in the United States.

If you are suffering from an injury due to medical malpractice, you can recover compensation from the responsible party. You can receive compensation for all types of damages. Unfortunately, most of medical malpractice lawsuits fail in court; around 27% of claims succeed in receiving compensation. What should you do then? You might always hire the most experienced lawyer possible to assist you in winning the case. The lawyer you choose should have long experience in court. They should understand different criteria that qualify you to file a medical malpractice case against a doctor or other health care provider.

So, hiring a medical malpractice attorney is of paramount importance when it comes to dealing with a serious medical malpractice case. Otherwise, you will be most likely to lose in the court of law.

- Medical Malpractice Attorney Sacramento

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.)

They further claimed that this condition required the procedure to be performed slowly and methodically, using a sternal saw halfway through the sternum and then using manual tools such as electro-cautery, heavy scissors or surgical chisel. They also argued that the plaintiff's groin should have been pre-surgically prepared for an emergency bypass in case of emergency. They claimed that the defendant failed to do these things, which they asserted would have prevented the laceration from occurring, or at least lessened the degree of injury and prevented severe brain injury from occurring.

The plaintiff cardiac expert opined that the surgeon moved too quickly, and not carefully, awing into the aorta approximately 10 minutes into surgery, which he opined was about half the time it would take to have performed carefully.

The surgeon testified that while he had no specific recollection of any portion of the surgery, he had performed the procedure carefully and had never before in his career entered a patient's aorta.
The defense surgery expert testified that entering the aorta is a known complication of the procedure and can happen despite incompliance with the standard of care.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Doctor Negligently Performs Surgery Causing Brain Damage in Boy, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: Plaintiff minor was examined, diagnosed, and treated between October 14 and October 22, 2004, by personnel of “Clinic”, in San Jose, California. Plaintiff minor, through her guardian ad litem, claimed that she was brought into the Clinic, a federally supported health center, with clear signs and symptoms of appendicitis. Instead, the Clinic treated her for cystitis. Plaintiff claimed that, despite returning several times, a correct diagnosis was never made.

Plaintiff said that eventually her appendix ruptured, resulting in the formation of pelvic abscesses and scar tissue. Due to the advanced stage of her condition at the time of diagnosis at San Jose HOSPITAL, she was initially treated non-surgically with antibiotics. Plaintiff developed multiple complications, including persistent abscess, pelvic scarring, Gentamicin toxicity, renal failure,hypertension, and permanent hearing loss.

Defendant filed a third-party complaint against HOSPITAL for indemnity, comparative indemnity, and contribution. Defendant argued that when plaintiff was taken to HOSPTIAL, she was seen by an emergency room physician. Radiology tests were performed which showed evidence of free fluid in plaintiff's abdomen, caused by a perforated appendix. The diagnosis was confirmed by third-party defendant “D”, a pediatric surgeon. Third-party defendant “D” administered three antibiotics, including Gentamicin. During plaintiff's stay, she was seen by third-party defendant “D”, third-party defendant “H” and two nurse practitioners.

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

Continue reading "Minor suffers burst appendix as a result of physicians' failure to diagnose in San Jose Medical Malpractice Case" »

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.)

INJURIES: The plaintiff had severe brain damage.

Facts:
In 2005, the plaintiff, age 5, was scheduled to undergo the third and final heart reconstruction procedure called the “Fontan” completion operation. He was born with congenital heart defects, including dextrocardia, in which the heart is in the right chest instead of the left, being born with only one ventricle.

The single ventricle deformity is addressed via the three-part Fontan surgery. The plaintiff underwent the first operation as an infant and the second one at age three. After the third, oxygen levels are typically nearly normal and most children can lead healthy, normal lives.

In the first part of the surgery, the surgeon performs a re-sternotomy, opening the sternum via a previous, healed incision. During this procedure, the defendant surgeon used an oscillating saw and entered the plaintiff's aorta, resulting in massive blood loss for more than 12 minutes. The plaintiff sustained severe brain damage.

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

Continue reading "Boy Sustains Severe Brain Damage During Surgery, Parents Sue for Medical Malpractice, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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 contended that he met the standard of care in all aspects of his care and treatment. The injuries claimed by plaintiff were known complications of surgery. It was not uncommon for subarachnoid shunts to displace after surgery, requiring further surgery to reposition them. Defendant did not make any guarantees of success before informed consent was obtained. He also obtained informed consent, as evidenced by two separate informed consent forms signed by plaintiff, one signed weeks before the surgery occurred. Defendant further contended that plaintiff was able to function at a much higher level than she claimed, as demonstrated by sub rosa video obtained of her walking without her walker and bending over to pick up sticks in her yard while fully bearing weight on both legs. Defendant contended that most of plaintiff's physical symptoms were a result of a psychological somatoform disorder.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Defendant: Plaintiff Ruth Clementine: Pain and paralysis in the left, lower extremity, loss of sensation in the left leg and buttocks, constant pain, tingling and heaviness of the leg, and lack of bladder control. She claimed she was unable to walk with or without an assistive device, suffers from permanent physical impairments, and continues to suffer from debilitating pain in her left leg. Plaintiff Calvin Clementine: Loss of comfort and affection.

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

Continue reading "Woman Claims Medical Malpractice Lawsuit on San Francisco Doctor, Part 4 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

As per DOCTOR's prescription, plaintiff met with him for a second DRE on May 2, 2006, and plaintiff had blood drawn on May 3, 2006 for a total PSA test.

On May 9, 2006, DOCTOR telephoned plaintiff and informed him that his total PSA test result was 5.34 and it might indicate that plaintiff had prostate cancer. DOCTOR wanted plaintiff to come and have another blood draw to re-test for total PSA and additionally test for free PSA. Plaintiff had the blood drawn on May 10, 2006. His total PSA tested at 5.2 and his free PSA tested at 21 percent, the same as on April 22, 2004 just prior to DOCTOR prescribing a two-year interval between tests.
On May 9, 2006, plaintiff informed DOCTOR that he wanted to get a second opinion from the Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Center. Plaintiff asked DOCTOR for his Notes Reports and recent PSA Laboratory Reports, and DOCTOR indicated that his assistant would provide said medical records. Plaintiff talked to the assistant three times during the next two weeks requesting the records and each time the assistant said that she did not have the time to fax the records to plaintiff.

On May 23, 2006, plaintiff was informed by another DOCTOR's assistant after telephoning the assistant for a fourth time that plaintiff had to get the records from the central office of HOSPITAL. Plaintiff alleged that it was during this two-week period in May 2006 that DOCTOR forged and falsified plaintiff's medical records and the assistant knew that he was doing so.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Doctor Fails To Timely Diagnose in San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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.)

INJURIES: Alex's right foot ulcerations healed, but he had Charcot foot in the left foot. He underwent a mid-foot fusion performed by a podiatric surgeon as well as an Achilles tendon lengthening procedure.

Facts:
In September 2006, plaintiff Kirk Alex, 48, a truck driver, was referred to podiatrist Ben Platt for diabetic ulcerations of his right foot.

Alex sued Platt, contending that Platt failed to diagnose Charcot foot.

Plaintiff's counsel presented evidence through a forensic document examiner that Platt altered his records by re-writing the notes of each office visit. Platt's failure to make a timely diagnosis allegedly resulted in a poorer outcome than Alex would have obtained otherwise, as surgery could have been avoided if the foot had been placed in a non-weight baring status. It was the continued use of his left foot that caused fractures and dislocation, according to plaintiff's counsel. Counsel contended that the left foot condition had started by the time of the initial consultation with Platt on Sept. 20.

Platt responded that the left foot injury had not occurred before Sept. 20. The defense podiatry expert showed bilateral X-rays taken by Platt on Sept. 20 that the left foot injury had not yet occurred. He also put on that X-rays were Alex's films. The tissue envelope evident in the films was normal and equal in both feet, according to defense counsel.

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

Continue reading "Man Sues Hospital For Medical Malpractice After Claimed Failure To Treat" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Post-operatively, plaintiff's severe pain resolved. Dr. Michaels continued to follow her for several months. At the time of plaintiff's last visit with Dr. Michaels, plaintiff continued to have proprioception issues, bladder urge incontinence, and decreased sensation in her leg and peroneal areas. Her reflexes were normal. Her left leg strength was 4/5, and her right leg strength was normal. She had returned to work with accommodations.

Plaintiff underwent outpatient physical therapy from September 14, 2007 to October 15, 2007. At the end of this course of therapy, plaintiff could ambulate independently with a quad cane for short distances. Plaintiff also underwent a course of physical therapy from January 9, 2009 to February 17, 2009. At discharge, plaintiff was using a front-wheeled walker for ambulation. According to plaintiff, she requested that therapy be stopped because she did not feel that she was making progress and her therapist agreed.

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

Continue reading "Negative Outcome of Back Surgery Initiates San Francisco Medical Malpractice Suit, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

DOCTOR did not state in his April 30, 2004 Notes Report that he told plaintiff on April 30, 2004 that plaintiff's free PSA was 21 percent on April 22, 2004 or that he told plaintiff on April 30, 2004 that his free PSA was 26 percent on April 22, 2004, but does state in the report: “His percent free PSA in 10/2002 was 26 percent, indicating no significant risk of prostate cancer at that time.” With this statement, DOCTOR falsified his April 30, 2004 report.

Jensen ordered the free PSA test and the two total PSA tests from plaintiff's April 22, 2004 blood draw but never informed plaintiff on or after April 22, 2004 that his free PSA test result was 21 percent on April 22, 2004 or the fact that it had dropped from 26 percent on October 30, 2002.
At the April 30, 2004 DRE session, DOCTOR informed plaintiff that his total PSA had come down with the last three total PSA tests. DOCTOR prescribed a two-year testing interval for plaintiff's next DRE and PSA tests. Plaintiff initially objected and asked DOCTOR, “I'm not going to wake up two years from now with prostate cancer, am I?” DOCTOR responded, “No, you won't.” Plaintiff responded, “Are you sure?” and DOCTOR responded, “Yes, I am. You are going to be fine. Don't worry about it. Your last three PSA tests have come down.” Plaintiff responded, “Okay, I'm trusting you.” DOCTOR did not state in his April 30, 2004 Notes Report that he prescribed a two-year testing interval but stated he told plaintiff: “Recommend annual digital rectal examination and serum PSA.” With this statement, DOCTOR falsified his April 30, 2004 Notes Report.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Suit Arises When Doctor Falsifies Notes, Part 2 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.)

Ramon's parents and sister sued Dentistry for Children and Adolescents, Aarons, Anders and Maker, alleging professional negligence, wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Before trial, the sister dismissed her cause of action, and the office, Anders and Maker were dismissed. The case went to trial against Aarons.

Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the registered dental assistants failed to alert Aarons to the fact that Ramon was nonresponsive. Aarons was 10 feet away when this occurred and one of the registered dental assistants went by Aarons on his way to call 911, but didn't alert Aarons to the situation. The dentist office has 02 under pressure, oxygen masks and crash carts with epinephrine, which were all items Aarons was trained to use. If Aarons had been called, he would have employed the appropriate emergency equipment that would have saved Ramon's life, plaintiffs' counsel contended.

The plaintiff registered dental assistant expert testified that a dental assistant should have alerted Aarons that there was a nonresponsive patient by intercom or in person and brought him back to the room to administer CPR or use the ambu-bag as he was trained to do. The expert testified that either registered dental assistant had the duty to prevent, without physical restraint, the plaintiffs from leaving the practice with Ramon after 911 had been called.

The plaintiff pediatric neurology expert testified that it was more likely than not that if CPR had been administered to Ramon at the office, he would have survived.

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

Continue reading "Family Claims Medical Malpractice After Child Dies From Sudden Respiratory Arrest, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Between August 9 and August 21, 2007, uncertain whether the suspension precluded him from communicating with patients, defendant had several telephone calls with plaintiff. Defendant intended to see and treat plaintiff after his suspension was lifted. However, as it turned out, defendant never saw plaintiff in person after August 8, 2007. Ultimately, defendant resigned his position with his employer.

On August 16, 2007, plaintiff saw Dr. Natalie Salman, M.D. for her post-operative complaints of pain and numbness. Dr. Salman examined plaintiff and found her to have 5/5 strength and normal reflexes in both lower extremities. Dr. Salman found no objective neurological signs that suggested that plaintiff had an emergent neurological condition. The only significant positive findings were decreased sensation on the left side of plaintiff's back at T3-T5 and patchy loss of sensation in the left leg. Plaintiff only complained of pain at the surgical site. Dr. Salman ordered an MRI of plaintiff's spine and called Dr. Melon to discuss what was done during surgery. Dr. Melon informed her that he would follow up with the patient and the results of the MRI.

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

Continue reading "Patient Sues San Francisco Physician For Medical Malpractice, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On April 22, 2004, plaintiff Bill Fleese went to defendant San Jose hospital (“HOSPITAL”) to have blood drawn for both a total and a free Prostate-Specific Antigen (“PSA”) test. On April 30, 2004, plaintiff met with defendant Doctor for a Digital Rectal Examination (“DRE”) and a total and free PSA tests review and evaluation for the first time. Plaintiff was a patient of Mitchell Jensen, M.D., a general practitioner, and Jensen had referred plaintiff to DOCTOR, a urologist. DOCTOR stated that plaintiff had a “strong family history of prostate cancer.” He stated in his April 30, 2004 Notes Report: “Bill Fleese is a 62-year-old gentleman who comes in because of a family history of prostate cancer and a PSA and prostate check.” Jensen had previously ordered the two total PSA tests and the free PSA test conducted from the blood drawn from plaintiff on April 22, 2004. The report indicated that on April 22, 2004, plaintiff had a 2.7 ng/ml total PSA and a 21 percent free PSA.

Plaintiff telephoned DOCTOR’s office on April 28 or April 29, 2004 to confirm that DOCTOR had the total and free PSA tests results from the blood drawn on April 22, 2004, and plaintiff received confirmation from DOCTOR's assistant that DOCTOR had received the April 23, 2004 report with the total and free PSA test results.

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

Continue reading "Patient alleges failure to timely diagnose prostate cancer at San Jose Hospital, 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.)

INJURIES: Ramon died from sudden respiratory arrest.

Facts:
On Sept. 8, 2006, plaintiffs' decedent Ramon Varlere, age 7, visited dentist Jeffery Aaron’s office, Dentistry for Children and Adolescents, to have sealants placed on two adult molars by registered dental assistants Andrea Maker and Ren Anders.

Ramon, who was born on May 6, 1999, was diagnosed after his first birthday with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, a progressive disease that causes muscle weakness, lack of motor development and poor muscle tone and severely compromises respiratory function. As Ramon became older, it was clear that he was a belly breather in response to this condition. He was hospitalized six times for emergency respiratory problems by the time he was three years old.

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

Continue reading "Son Dies After He Goes Into Respiratory Arrest At Dentist Office, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Defendant: Defendant Matt Melon, M.D. first saw plaintiff Ruth Clementine, age 56, on March 1, 2007. Defendant took a history, performed a physical exam, and reviewed an MRI previously taken of the patient's cervical spine. The MRI showed a syrinx at C7-T1. Plaintiff complained of pain in her right arm and neck, and, to a lesser extent, her left arm. Defendant prescribed pain medication and physical therapy and planned to obtain a repeat MRI to see if the size of the syrinx had changed.

After conservative management of the syrinx proved unsuccessful, defendant recommended surgery. Defendant's H&P, dictated on July 6, 2007, indicated that he discussed the risks and benefits of surgery with plaintiff and that the risks included paraplegia, cerebrospinal fluid (“CSF”) leak, CSF infection, and hemorrhage. Plaintiff also signed written consents for the procedure. Plaintiff claimed that, before surgery, defendant stated he was 98 percent certain that after plaintiff healed from the surgery, she would be pain free. Defendant denied making any guarantees of success to plaintiff.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed After Surgery Goes Wrong, Part 1 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

On April 20, 2007, Georgeson was admitted to a hospital in Sacramento as she had become unresponsive due to a stroke. A CT scan of the brain performed on the same day showed no hemorrhage.

A CT Scan taken April 21 indicated a stroke involving the basal ganglia, internal capsule and right mid-brain. Georgeson was a “do not resuscitate” patient and life support was discontinued that day.

Georgeson's widower and children sued Levine, alleging that a cardioversion must not be performed unless a patient is adequately anti-coagulated pursuant to American College of Cardiology Guidelines, both before and after cardioversion, and that Levine's decision to proceed with cardioversion with the patient unprotected, given the inadequate anticoagulation, was below the standard of accepted care. The plaintiffs contended that Georgeson sustained a cardioembolic stroke three days after her cardioversion which resulted in her death.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Dies After Hospital Treatment, Family Sues, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Serri also called the expert in plastic and reconstructive surgery, his treating plastic surgeon, who testified that Serri's was an odd case, as the expert was unaware of any case involving tendon rupture after a trigger finger procedure. The expert testified that the tendons were unusually inflamed and abnormal in appearance from the point of the rupture and along the length of the finger to its tip. The expert was unsure what might have caused the ruptures, but listed trauma, rheumatoid or metabolic disease, including gout or pseudo-gout, and corticosteroids as possible causes. The expert considered whether the tendons were lacerated during surgery, but testified that it was improbable.

Stevens denied Serri's allegations. The defense orthopedic hand specialist testified that Stevens complied with the applicable standard of care in all aspects. The defense hand expert refuted the opinion that Stevens, a highly experienced surgeon, cut two flexor tendons by noting that Stevens had used a standard and recognized approach to perform a minor procedure in the palm with the hand in extension and in an aluminum hand holder.

The defense hand specialist testified that it would be exceedingly difficult to cut two flexor tendons with scissors in the extremely limited space at the edge of the A2 pulley. He disputed the mechanism of injury postulated by the plaintiff, explaining that such a laceration could not occur by accident, but would require a conscious effort on the surgeon's part. He testified that no experienced surgeon would blindly operate in a location of the hand which was not indicated and could not be visualized.

Defense counsel contended that there was no evidence that Stevens or his staff had advised Serri on April 28 that swelling and redness were normal and that he did not have to worry about it or come in to be seen. Counsel contended that swelling and redness after surgery are red flags for potential infection and that, had Serri indicated such symptoms, he would have been advised to see the doctor immediately.
Stevens testified that, had Serri followed through with the reconstructive surgery originally scheduled for June 2, 2006, he would have had a good chance of a successful recovery and functional use of his finger.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Doctor Sued After Man Loses Hand Function, Part 4 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Georgeson died from a stroke. Her husband and children sought recovery of non-economic damages of between $400,000 and $500,000. The plaintiffs sought recovery of damages for future loss of parental guidance, future loss of companionship, future loss of financial support and funeral expenses.

Facts:
In December 2002, plaintiffs' decedent Pamela Georgeson, 74, began cardiology care with Dr. Neil Levine. Georgeson underwent a coronary angiography with stent placement, coronary artery bypass graft surgery and pacemaker placement.
Georgeson had multiple medical risk factors including hypertension, hypercolesteremia, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. She also had a stroke of the posterior cerebral artery distribution in December 2000.

After attending regular visits with Levine in 2003 and 2004, Georgeson didn't attend office visits in 2005. In 2006, she indicated that she was no longer willing to take statins, aspirin or undergo treadmill examinations. She chose to take medications prescribed by her primary care physician, including L-Arginine for her high blood pressure and hypercholesteremia, and Byetta for diabetes.

In November 2006, Georgeson developed atrial fibrillation. She refused to take an anti-coagulant, Coumadin, to protect her against risk for atrial fibrillationstroke due to a history of nosebleeds.

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

Continue reading "Woman’s Family Claims Doctor’s Negligence Was Responsible For Her Death, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Although the second stage of reconstructive surgery was scheduled, Serri elected to forego its completion and had the expert amputate the right middle finger at the level of the proximal interphalangeal joint, located at the middle of his finger on Jan. 11, 2007. The expert testified that Serri's decision was motivated by a desire to return to work sooner, that Serri felt rehabilitation would take too long and was not guaranteed. Serri testified that he decided on amputation because he felt the two-stage procedure was experimental and that the expert had given him a poor prognosis even if he completed reconstructive surgery.

Serri thereafter returned to work, but developed left shoulder pain that he claimed was the consequence of overuse caused by compensating for the amputated finger, aggravating underlying degenerative shoulder disease. He underwent shoulder surgery on Sept. 8, 2008, performed by his expert in orthopedic surgery, who opined that the predominant problem accounting for the symptoms was joint arthritis. The expert also found calcium pyrophosphate disease, or pseudo-gout, which he thought could have been a contributing factor accounting for the symptoms. Serri did not return to his job and claimed that he was unable to do similar duties.

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

Continue reading "After San Francisco Operation, Man Losses Hand Function in Medical Malpractice 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Walters claimed that due to the aneurysm rupture, she underwent several surgical procedures and later developed right-sided weakness secondary to a frontal lobe stroke. She also claimed she suffered two heart attacks, and had continual headaches, cognitive difficulties, trouble sleeping, depression and anxiety.

Facts:
On Jan. 5, 2007, plaintiff Jan Walters, 47, unemployed, presented to Sacramento Hospital. Walters allegedly complained of a painful left-sided headache. A nurse conducted a medical screening and consulted with an on-duty physician, who prescribed pain medication and told Walters to go to the Sacramento emergency room. Walters did not go to the ER. On Feb 24, she suffered a cerebral aneurysm rupture, lost consciousness while driving and allegedly collided with a tree. She was then taken to ABC Medical Center where she underwent successful procedures to address the injury.

Walters sued Sacramento Hospital, alleging medical malpractice. She claimed that they had violated the standard of care and that the county had violated provisions of Federally Qualified Health Centers and the Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, well as internal policies. She claimed that she had presented with a right-sided (not left) headache that required further evaluation. She claimed that had she been given a more thorough evaluation, she might have been transported by ambulance, where diagnostic tests might have revealed the aneurysm.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Claims Additional Evaluation By Doctor Would Have Shown Her Aneurysm" »

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.)

INJURIES: Anthem alleged the need for emergency corrective surgery and emotional distress. She was seeking damages for past pain and suffering.

Facts:

On June 1, 2006, plaintiff Ruth Anthem, 24, a certified nursing assistant, was admitted to Sutter Memorial Hospital for a scheduled Caesarean section by her primary OB-GYN. The surgery went forward, and Anthem's son was born.

On June 2, Anthem's regular OB-GYN followed her and then OB-GYN Jeffery Worth assumed her care while on-call over the weekend. On June 3, Worth evaluated Anthem in the morning, noting that she was afebrile and doing well. He examined the abdominal incision from the C-section and did not note any problems. Worth made orders for removal of the skin clips to be replaced by steri-strips in anticipation of discharge home.
The nursing staff contacted Worth later that afternoon to confirm his orders and advise of a small amount of serosanguineous drainage from the incision, though the clips remained intact and wound edges well-approximated. Worth reiterated that it was okay to proceed with the clip removal and placement of steri-strips.

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

Continue reading "Woman Sues Hospital And Claims Negligent Postparturm Procedure " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Serri claimed that on April 25 he heard a pop while buttoning his shirt and that over the next two days some swelling and redness developed in his right hand. Serri claimed that he called Stevens's office on April 28 and advised one of the staff about the swelling and redness. Serri claimed that he received a return call later that day in which he was told that Stevens had indicated that redness and swelling were normal and not to worry about them, and that Serri did not need to be seen.

Serri testified that by May 15 the redness and swelling had disappeared, but returned and became progressively worse each day after using his hand on a job starting May 17. Although he testified that his finger had become extremely swollen and that he was progressively unable to bend it, Serri continued to work until May 25 and did not report these problems to his employer or any doctor. Serri testified that a couple of days before May 25 the finger was in a fully extended position and that he could not bend it at all. Serri testified that he decided to wait until May 25 to report the problem because he had an approved workers' compensation appointment scheduled on that date for his left hand. On May 25, Stevens evaluated the finger and clinically diagnosed probable rupture of both flexor tendons. Stevens also received a history from Serri indicating that three weeks before the visit Serri had been lifting heavy steel plates at work and that bruising of the finger had developed during this time. Stevens scheduled an urgent MRI for May 26 in anticipation of reconstructive surgery.

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

Continue reading "Man Claims Surgeon Responsible For Hand Loss and Subsequent Job Loss, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Defendant hospital #1 had a policy of using NRP-certified nurses to attend deliveries, although it had a contract with defendant hospital #2 to provide physicians to staff the NICU. At the time, there was a pediatrician on the unit, but she was not notified about this delivery until 6:41 p.m. The pediatrician arrived in the OR at 6:45 p.m. and assisted with the resuscitation. At 6:48 p.m., the baby was moved to the Special Care Nursery, where it was noted that the oxygen saturations were very low. At 7:07 p.m., the baby was re-intubated, and his vital signs and oxygen saturations improved. Although the cord blood gas showed a normal pH, a blood gas that was obtained just prior to the re-intubation showed a pH of 6.5 and a pCO2 of 130. The neonatologist arrived in the SCN at 7:15 p.m., and he arranged for the baby to be transferred to the NICU at defendant hospital #2 for brain cooling, with a diagnosis of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. An MRI on July 19, 2008 showed injury to the basal ganglia and hippocampi.

Plaintiff alleged that, since the FMS was normal on admission to the hospital, the baby's hypoxic injury occurred during the delivery and immediate neonatal period when the ETT was likely misplaced and caused further hypoxia and metabolic acidosis. The mother likely had oligohydramnios and chorioamnionitis, which led to decreased placental function and a depressed infant at birth. Proper resuscitation would have improved the outcome.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Claim Brought After Child Is Born With Cerebral Palsy, 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.)

INJURIES: Marison had a fractured jaw, which he claimed did not heal properly. He sought medical attention, which he claimed was denied to him and allowed his condition to worsen.

Facts:
In 2002, plaintiff George Marison was an inmate at ABC State Prison in Sacramento County. Jim Perry was a medical doctor at the prison. Marison alleged that he had a fractured jaw that had not healed properly, but was denied care and treatment.

He sued Kim Ainswork, Devon Darr, Perry and James Klerk, M.D. Summary judgment was granted to all then defendants, but the Ninth Circuit reversed only with respect to Perry.
Marison asserted that Perry was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need and failed to provide adequate medical care for his transfer. He also purported that Perry failed to execute a “medical hold” to prevent his transfer from ABC to the XYZ prison on June 19, 2002.

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

Continue reading "Inmate Claims Doctor Neglected To Properly Care For His Injuries In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Based on Serri’s claimed disability, his vocational rehabilitation and hand experts opined that he would be unable to return to his trade and his only vocational options were as an apartment manager or a service station attendant.

Facts:
On April 7, 2006, plaintiff Simon Serri, 53, a millwright, underwent surgery by orthopedic surgeon Aaron Stevens at San Francisco Hospital to correct flexor tendonitis, or trigger finger, in his right middle finger.

On May 26, an MRI confirmed that the flexor digitorum superficialis and the flexor digitorum profundus had ruptured in his right middle finger approximately 2.4 cm from the metacarpal joint.

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

Continue reading "Man Claims Surgery Results In Loss of Hand Capabilities in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: The minor plaintiff's mother entered defendant hospital #1 on July 14, 2008 for induction of labor at 40 3/7 weeks gestation, after an ultrasound by her obstetrician showed a low level of amniotic fluid. The mother was 38 years old. She had a normal amniocentesis and was seen by a perinatologist during the pregnancy as a precaution, but no problems or complications were noted.

After admission to the Labor & Delivery unit at 11:30 a.m., the fetal monitor strip showed a normal reactive tracing. Cervidil was placed at 1:35 p.m. to soften the cervix. At 3:30 a.m. on July 15, 2008, Pitocin was started. At 7:50 a.m., the obstetrician (“OB”) ruptured the membranes and found no amniotic fluid. The exam at that time showed 1 cm dilation, 50 percent effacement, and - 2 station. Pitocin was increased over the next several hours, and an exam by the OB at 2:00 p.m. showed 6-7 cm dilation, 100 percent effacement, and 0 station. The FMS was still reassuring.

At 3:57 p.m., a vaginal exam by the nurse showed complete dilation at a 1 station. However, the mother's temperature was now 101.3 degrees. The nurse called the OB at his office and he ordered antibiotics. The OB returned to the hospital at 4:15 p.m. but proceeded with a vaginal delivery of another patient. At 4:40 p.m., the nurse had the mother start pushing. The OB returned to his office to see other patients.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Infant Born With Cerebral Palsy, Part 1 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.)

INJURIES: Garson ultimately had an open laparotomy to wash out the infection. He also had to remain in the hospital an additional six weeks. He claimed that he did experience pain and suffering despite being in a comatose state and having no memory of the event.

Facts:
On Aug. 22, 2004, plaintiff Rod Garson, 18, a student, was taken to UC Davis Medical Center while in a coma, following a catastrophic brain injury resulting from a car crash. He was either in a persistent vegatative state or a minimally conscious state and hooked up to a gastrostomy feeding tube.

On Oct. 10, Garson was scheduled to be discharged home, although still comatose. As part of the discharge plans, the gastrostomy tube was replaced, and a new tube was installed. However, the new tube was improperly positioned outside of his stomach. Garson was then fed through the malpositioned tube on five separate occasions over the next 12 hours and the feedings went directly into the abdominal cavity, causing him to become septic.

Garson sued the hospital through the Regents of the University of California, alleging medical malpractice. He claimed that the defendant's caregivers were negligent in malpositioning the tube; in failing to confirm its proper position before administering feedings; and in feeding him through a wrongly placed tube.

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

Continue reading "Young Adult Sues Sacramento Hospital After Nurses Improperly Place Feeding Tube" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Harris contended that due to the delay in placing the suprapubic catheter, he suffered permanent loss of urinary function.

Facts:
In September 2008, plaintiff Pete Harris, 48, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison in California, sued the California Department of Corrections and Dr. Casey Larth, the prison health care manager, alleging that Larth had exhibited indifference to his serious medical need over a period from June 2004 to December 2007, in violation of his Eight Amendment rights. Harris also alleged retaliation.

Harris claimed that Larth had deliberately delayed in the diagnosis of a neurogenic bladder dysfunction condition, as well as replacement of an indwelling Foley catheter, emplacement of a suprapubic catheter and allowing Harris to follow up with contract urologists.

Harris further alleged that in retaliation for his civil complaint, Larth ordered prison official to search his cell and strip him of authorized medical supplies. Additionally, Harris claimed Larth denied his request to be taken to an emergency room after a suprapubic tub became dislodged from his abdomen.

Harris also sued Dr. Gary Remmy, an emergency room doctor at SVSP who treated Harris when his suprapubic catheter became dislodged, and nurse Derek Jason, who treated Harris at various times.

The plaintiff's emergency medicine expert opined that the prison medical staff should have reacted quicker to Harris's complaints of urinary tract problems and that the delay especially caused complete loss of use of his bladder.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case Claimed By Inmate Who Suffered Complete Loss of Bladder After Operation" »

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.)

INJURIES: Stevenson alleged anoxic brain injury resulting in some worsening of pre-existing memory and cognitive problems, including “flooding syndrome” or being overwhelmed and frustrated after becoming engaged in discussions or activities. She was in a rehab facility for a couple months and fell once or twice while there.

Facts:
On March 10, 2005, plaintiff Marla Stevenson, 56, a former licensed vocational nurse, was admitted to Sacramento Medical Center for repair of a broken Parkla. She was already being treated with methadone, 720 milligrams a day, for chronic pain related to spinal stenosis. After the knee surgery, she was moved to the regular floor. About 3.5 hours later, she experienced cardiopulmonary arrest of unknown length and cause. She was revived, but had an anoxic brain injury.

Stevenson sued the medical center; its owner; and her doctor, family practitioner Anthony Kerry, for medical malpractice. Kerry settled before trial for an undisclosed amount.

Stevenson charged that the medical center defendants should have had her on electronic monitoring, given the amount of pain medication she was on and given that, in the recovery room, heart arrhythmias were recorded. Also, the surgeon ordered post-recovery oxygen, and he and the ER doctor ordered a preoperative EKG, but neither order was followed.

Stevenson also claimed that the recovery room staff failed to pass information to the floor nurses.

The medical center defendants contended that monitoring is a physician's decision and could have been ordered by a physician, that the arrhythmias were benign bigeminy, that a recorded ventricular fibrillation was misread by the monitor equipment, and that each arrhythmia was reported to Stevenson's physicians.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Medical Malpractice Suit Brought After Woman Claims Failure To Monitor" »

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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

William claimed that the hospital's optometry department first diagnosed him as a “glaucoma suspect” in August 2004, but he received no treatment for onset glaucoma during the next four and a half years, despite subsequent visits and assessments that he was at risk for the disease. William subsequently became legally blind. He contended that the hospital should have treated him accordingly.

William further contended that the hospital's optometrists had not followed an internal policy that required all patients with glaucoma to have their treatment overseen and reviewed by an ophthalmologist and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist for his care.

The defense argued that William's private internist should have been aware of his eye condition and need for treatment, and should have referred him for such treatment. The defendant also denied that William's early symptoms were in fact indicative of glaucoma, and contended that he received proper VA medical care for treatment of his eyes.

Plaintiff's counsel noted that the defendant served subpoenas upon every one of William's private health care providers for purposes of filing potential third party complaints, but records disclosed no outside visits to any private optometrists or ophthalmologists, as William's eye care was provided exclusively at the Palo Alto VA.
William also claimed he suffered anxiety and depression, though he still has some quality of life.

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

Continue reading "Veteran Loses 90% of Eyesight In San Jose Hospital Study, 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.)

INJURIES: Melon had multiple lengthy admissions to the UC Davis Medical Center. She was treated for sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, malnutrition, a duodenal fistula and an enterocutaneous fistula. During one admission, she was treated with pressors to maintain her blood pressure and this treatment caused an amputation of the toes on her left foot and a partial amputation of the right foot. The enterocutaneous fistula healed and the duodenal was closed during a procedure in October 2007. Melon remained severely de-conditioned and she developed contractures of the AcHaimes tendons.

Facts:
On Aug. 23, 2005, plaintiff Karen Melon, 26, unemployed, underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by general surgeon Jeffrey R. Jemming. The following day, Melon had signs of sepsis and evidence of a bile leak. General surgeon Jerry Aaron, who was Jemming's partner, performed an exploratory laparotomy. He found and repaired a perforation on the anterior aspect of the first part of the duodenum.

Melon's condition initially improved, but then worsened on Aug. 29. There was increasing drainage from a drain Aaron had placed. On Sept. 1, Jemming performed an exploratory laparotomy with Aaron assisting. Jemming performed a Kocher maneuver and found a perforation on the posterior aspect of the second part of the duodenum. He resected a portion of the duodenum and performed a primary anastomosis.

Melon's post-operative course was complicated by sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and adult respiratory distress syndrome. She was intubated and put on a ventilator. On Sept. 18, she was transferred to the UC Davis Medical Center.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Claims Medical Malpractice After Surgical Complications" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Clemmens sustained traumatic encephalopathy and required eight months of hospitalization. He now has significant cognitive deficits and general difficulty performing the tasks of every day life. He is unable to return to work.

Facts:
On Sept. 26, 2007, plaintiff Nathan Clemmens, 53, a sales manager for Oasis, fainted while at San Francisco International Airport, hitting his head on the floor and becoming dazed. He was rushed via ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital, where a CT scan revealed a small subarachnoid hemorrhage and an EKG revealed a heart attack. A subsequent angiography showed an occluded right coronary artery.

The plaintiff was hemodynamically stable, but cardiologists at the hospital decided to perform angioplasty and place a stent. Following the administration of anticoagulant agents, Clemmens developed massive bleeding in the brain in the form of bilateral frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhages. He survived, but sustained permanent brain damage.

Via his wife, Clemmens sued the hospital's operator, The Regents of the University of California, for medical malpractice. Clemmens's counsel claimed that given knowledge of the plaintiff's head injury, the stenting procedure was contraindicated and an unacceptable risk. The lawyer claimed that the danger from the plaintiff's clogged coronary artery was not life threatening.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Performs Negligent Treatment Causing Permanent Brain Damage" »

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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: William claimed that between 2004, when he first presented with glaucoma symptoms, and 2009, when he was diagnosed with glaucoma, he suffered the loss of more than 90 percent of his visual fields, progressive optic nerve damage and continuing damage to nerve fibers, as well as continuing and progressive “cupping” of his optic nerves. He claimed that the negligent treatment proximately caused a need for invasive glaucoma surgery in both eyes, with the left one needing further surgical revisions, and that this has caused him to be rendered legally blind. He said he has almost no peripheral vision left, but he does have remaining visual acuity (i.e., he is able to see straight ahead). He can also read, watch television and see his wife, children and grandchildren.

Facts:
In 2009, plaintiff Daniel William Sr., a military veteran in his 80s, was one of eight eye patients receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration hospital in Palo Alto, when he was contacted by VA Palo Alto Health Care System informing him that he received improper care that may have caused some vision loss, which could have been prevented.
William sued the United States government, which owns and manages the hospital, for medical malpractice - negligent treatment and failure to consult.

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.)

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff's last settlement demand of $650,000 was met with defendants' final pre-trial offer of $30,000.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff's experts testified that the defendant skilled nursing facility recklessly delayed obtaining treatment for decedent's fractured hip for over 8 days and recklessly failed to prevent decedent from developing a severe pressure sore. The testimony was that both the delay and the pressure sore were substantial factors in causing decedent's death. Defendants' experts testified that the skilled nursing facility complied with the standard of care and that its conduct did not cause decedent's death.

COMMENTS
According to Plaintiff: The complaint was filed on October 6, 2006. The jury was individually polled on their finding of liability, with a result of a 12-0 unanimous verdict in favor of liability in the total amount of $1,100,000. The jury was also individually polled on their finding of punitive damages, with a result of a 12-0 unanimous verdict in favor of punitive damages in the total amount of $28,000,000. The Sacramento Bee reported this case to be the largest plaintiff's injury verdict in Sacramento history.

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

Continue reading "Nursing Home Understaffed Leads to Woman’s Death in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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 32 weeks, the perinatologist interpreted the ultrasound as showing calcifications in the liver, intrauterine growth retardation and polyhydramnios. An amniocentesis confirmed the presence of chickenpox viral DNA in the amniotic fluid, with no other abnormalities shown on the ultrasound or amniocetesis. At 36 weeks, the second obstetrician delivered the baby via Caesarean section.

The baby had significant neurological abnormalities.

The plaintiff and her fiancé sued the first obstetrician, the second obstetrician, the perinatologist and the genetics counselor for medical malpractice.

Plaintiffs' counsel contended that the second obstetrician should have vaccinated the plaintiff mother before she became pregnant; the second obstetrician should have administered VZIG after exposure to the chickenpox virus; and the defendants should have recommended amniocentesis and discovered signs of congenital varicella on ultrasound before 26 weeks gestation.

The defense contended that the vaccination had been recommended to the plaintiffs; that VZIG was not proven to protect fetuses from congenital chicken pox; and that the plaintiffs had the option of having amniocentesis, and that ultrasound abnormalities did not show up until 32 weeks gestation.

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

Continue reading "Infant Born with Significant Neurological Abnormalities in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Kirk now lives in San Jose and claimed the delayed diagnosis and treatment of his glaucoma caused legal blindness in his right eye and loss of 15 percent of vision in his left eye.

Facts:
In early 2009, L.T. Kirk Jr., 68, who served in a U.S. Air Force special unit that maintained fighter jets flown in the Korean War, was one of eight eye patients receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration hospital in Palo Alto, when he was contacted by VA Palo Alto Health Care System and informed that he received improper care that may have caused some vision loss, which could have been prevented.

Kirk filed an Administrative Tort Claim, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, against the United States government, which owns and manages the hospital, for medical malpractice - negligent treatment and failure to diagnose or consult.

Kirk subsequently became legally blind in his right eye and suffered vision loss in his left, as well. He contended that the hospital failed to treat him for his glaucoma for several years, and also contended that there was an internal breakdown at the VA Hospital arising out of the VA's failure to follow its own policy that all glaucoma patients seen in the optometry department must be referred to the ophthalmology department for care and treatment by medical doctors, and that the optometrists should have also consulted with an ophthalmologist or medical doctor for his care.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Veteran Claims Medical Malpractice After Loss Of Eye Sight" »

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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: Decedent Fernanda Trenton was 78 years old at the time of her admission to defendant Sacramento Hospital on March 1, 2005. Plaintiff's Alzheimer's disease led her to wander and have episodes of incontinence. After the death of decedent's husband, decedent's daughter, plaintiff Emily Prillmer, concluded that her mother would be safest in an Alzheimer's wing of a skilled nursing facility. Prillmer arranged for her mother's admission to Sacramento Hospital on March 1, 2005.
Prillmer claimed that, from March 1, 2005 to September 2, 2005, decedent was fully ambulatory without any assistive devices. She further claimed that, as a result of Sacramento Hospital's failure to devise and implement an effective plan of care to address Trenton's fall risk, Trenton suffered five falls at the facility. On September 2, 2005, Trenton fell to the ground and immediately exhibited signs and symptoms of a hip fracture. She never walked again.

Eight days later, Trenton was diagnosed with a hip fracture, and a bedsore was discovered. Although she underwent surgery for the fracture, Trenton died a few weeks later due to an infection from the bedsore.

Prillmer brought an action against Sacramento Hospital and its parent company. Plaintiff Prillmer alleged that defendants recklessly delayed assessing and treating Trenton's fractured hip and recklessly failed to prevent Trenton's bedsore. These failures, Prillmer contended, were the consequence of extreme under-staffing at the nursing home and they caused her mother's death.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Elder Abuse Case Results From Woman’s Wrongful Death, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: The baby was born with severe neurological abnormalities, including an absent gag reflex with repeated aspiration, microgastria and severe reflux, partial aplasia of one leg, oral aversion, episodic apnea to the point of loss of consciousness, periodic repeated vomiting spells which required permanent tracheostomy, round-the-clock oxygen therapy and feeding only by gastrostomy or jejunostomy tubes. The infant requires round-the-clock care.
Facts:

In spring 2007, the plaintiff, a 33-year-old woman who planned on having children, presented to an obstetrician. The plaintiff was found to lack immunity to chickenpox, though she was not vaccinated against it. Roughly three months later, she became pregnant. Thirteen weeks into her pregnancy, she was visited by her mother who had active shingles, the same virus as chickenpox. The plaintiff was sent immediately by her internist to a second obstetrician for treatment with anti-chickenpox immune globulin (VZIG). The second obstetrician did not administer the treatment. About three weeks later, the plaintiff broke out in classic chickenpox and recovered fully with antibiotics. She then followed up with a perinatologist to determine if the fetus had contracted congenital chickenpox.

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

Continue reading "Doctors Fail To Treat Pregnant Mother For Chicken Pox in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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 sued defendant for nursing negligence, contending that the nurse did not appropriately assess plaintiff's fall risk, given that she had a history of a prior fall, rheumatoid arthritis, lower extremity weakness, balance and mobility problems, as well as multiple other underlying health conditions, and that the nurse did not implement the proper fall precautions, which resulted in plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff contended that the standard of care required the nurse to either give plaintiff a bed pan or stand with plaintiff, next to her, while she used the bedside commode. It was below the standard of care for the nurse to have left plaintiff on the commode by herself.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff's fall risk was appropriately assessed and the nurse instituted appropriate fall-risk precautions, which included assistance with transitions and ambulation.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Defendant: Left tibia fracture; surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to Defendant: Not reported.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Defendant: Not reported.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
According to Defendant: Plaintiff's nursing expert, Elaine Karen, R.N., testified that defendant's nurses negligently performed the fall-risk assessment of plaintiff and that the standard of care required a nurse to be in the room while plaintiff used the bedside commode, given her history of mobility problems, including balance problems and lower extremity weakness.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Woman Claims Nurse’s Negligence Caused Her Fall, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

The plaintiffs' orthopedic surgery expert testified that the strong statistical probability was that some additional improper movement at the hospital (before surgery) caused the spinal cord injury, and if Katlyn had movement of her legs when she arrived at the hospital she should have continued to have that movement if the appropriate precautions were taken. The expert added that a verbal order was insufficient, and that regardless, there was no proper documentation by the nurses that there even was a voiced request for lumbar or thoracic spinal precautions when Melon removed the cervical spinal precautions in the emergency room.

Melon countered that he provided appropriate care at all times, that Katlyn's injuries at L2-3 and T-10 were caused solely by the automobile accident, and that nothing could have been done to Katlyn at the hospital that could have prevented her paraplegia. Melon further contended that he gave verbal orders to put spinal precautions in place, and that it was custom and practice for the trauma team to do so in situations like Katlyn's.
The defense's trauma surgery expert claimed that the medical record did not document any improper movements in the hospital, and that a verbal order, as testified to by Melon, would be sufficient to comply with the standard of care for a trauma surgeon.
The neuroradiology expert for the defense opined the subsequent imaging (there was no MRI done before the abdominal surgery) supported his opinion that the spinal injuries occurred in the auto accident.

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

Continue reading "After Car Accident Child Diagnosed With Paraplegia, Parents Sue San Jose Hospital, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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' counsel contended that during the 13 minutes following the intubation and during the prolonged CPR process, Vasquez experienced a severe anoxic insult to his brain and never regained consciousness.

The plaintiffs contended that the original intubation was placed esophageally, not tracheally, and that the hospital's claim that Vasquez was saturating in the 90s and then suddenly became bradycardic was untrue, and physiologically impossible. Counsel noted that there were no oxygen saturation (SpO2) values recorded in the chart. The lawyer contended that the hospital's failure to monitor Vasquez following intubation allowed his oxygen saturations to progressively drop to the point where he could no longer sustain cardiac function and went into cardiac and respiratory arrest.

The lawyer further contended that following the cardiac and respiratory arrest, the hospital failed to attempt to re-intubate Vasquez and instead tried to ventilate him via bag valve mask ventilation. Counsel asserted that, had respondents appropriately monitored Vasquez following intubation, it would have become evident that he was not properly intubated long before he went into respiratory and cardiac arrest, and that the delay in re-intubating Vasquez further contributed to his anoxic brain injury.
The hospital responded that the ER doctors' post-intubation examination confirmed tracheal placement of the endotracheal tube. Although the medical record did not contain any recordation of oxygen saturation following the intubation, the defense insisted that Vasquez's oxygen saturations were in excess of 90 and remained so following intubation.

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

Continue reading "Father Dies After Nurses Fail To Monitor in Hospital in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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.)

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to Defendant: Plaintiff claimed she had part of her tongue removed, changes in taste, feeling, and range of motion of her tongue. She also claimed that, as a result of developing cancer, rather than having a pre-malignant lesion removed earlier, she was at risk for developing more pre-cancerous lesions.

CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to Defendant: Plaintiff asked for special damages consisting of $89,000 in past medical/dental bills paid by insurance, $2,300 in insurance co-payments, and $1,500 in mileage. She asked for $100,000 to $200,000 in past general damages and $100,000 in future general damages.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
According to Defendant: At a pre-trial mediation, plaintiff demanded $200,000. She served a CCP § 998 offer for $75,000. Defendant served a CCP § 998 offer for $9,999. Dr. Meier settled pre-trial for $25,000.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
According to Defendant: Plaintiff's expert testified that defendant breached the standard of care that required biopsying a white lesion that does not wipe off or resolve after two to four weeks. As a result, the lesion in June 2008 advanced from a pre-malignant lesion to cancer. He stated further that because she developed cancer, she is now prone to developing more pre-malignant lesions in her head and neck area. Defense expert testified that the standard of care was met.

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

Continue reading "Woman Claims Dentist Failed to Diagnose Cancer in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 4 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Defendant: Plaintiff Daniel Melvin was a 74-year-old woman who lived in a two-storey condominium by herself. She had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, with hand and feet deformities, as well as osteoporosis and other underlying health issues. On February 3, 2007, plaintiff fell at home in her kitchen. On February 13, 2007, she was admitted to defendant Stanford Hospital & Clinics for an outpatient 23-hour stay related to the burst fracture. The surgery was unremarkable, and she was transferred to a room on the orthopedic floor by 6:00 p.m. The next morning, February 14, 2007, the nurse performed a complete physical assessment of plaintiff and a fall-risk assessment. At some point between 8:35 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. that morning, plaintiff advised the nurse that she had to go to the bathroom. The nurse placed a bedside commode next to plaintiff's bed and assisted plaintiff out of the bed and onto the commode. The nurse advised plaintiff to call him when she was finished so he could assist her back to bed. He then left the room.

Plaintiff claimed that, while she was on the commode, it collapsed and came apart, causing her to fall to the floor. She sustained a fracture to her left tibia. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient on February 14th and underwent open-reduction, internal fixation (“ORIF”) of the left tibia on February 16th. Plaintiff was discharged to a skilled nursing facility on February 19th.

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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Katlyn was diagnosed as a functionally complete T-10 paraplegic. The plaintiffs asked for an award of $15.8 million: $632,970 in past economic damages, $10,208,009 in future economic damages and $5 million in past and future general damages.

Facts:
On Dec. 27, 2005, minor plaintiff Katlyn Soosh, 4, was a lap and shoulder belted rear seat occupant of a 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe when it was involved in a single-vehicle accident on Interstate 5, in an unincorporated part of San Jose County. Katlyn was transported by a helicopter to Children's Hospital of Central California, and upon arrival her care was directed by pediatric trauma surgeon, Dr. Derrek Melon. Katlyn's initial examination revealed an abdominal injury from the seat belt that required surgical repair, as well as mid-back swelling and suspected spinal ligamentous injury. No written orders were made at that time regarding instituting spinal precautions. The initial X-ray of the lumbar spine was originally read by the radiologist as negative, but later changed to reflect a probable chance fracture at L2-3. Melon performed the abdominal surgery.

Katlyn, by her guardian ad litem, sued Melon, alleging medical malpractice. The hospital was also sued, but it settled out prior to trial.

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

Continue reading "Parents of Child Sue San Jose Hospital After Claimed Negligent Treatment, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Vasquez lost his life.

Facts:
On Aug. 28, 2007, plaintiffs' decedent Larry Vasquez, 62, retired, was brought via ambulance to a South San Francisco emergency room with complaints of shortness of breath that had been increasingly worsening over the previous several days. He was morbidly obese with a history of respiratory problems including obesity hypoventilation syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which had necessitated his intubation on two previous occasions in less than one year.

While in the ER, Vasquez experienced respiratory arrest and severe anoxic insult to his brain. He died several weeks later.

Vasquez's three adult children sued for medical malpractice.

On ER arrival, Vasquez's oxygen saturations were noted to be 88 percent on room air and the emergency physicians evaluated and placed him on BiPap, according to plaintiffs' counsel. When oxygen saturations did not improve on BiPap and Vasquez became progressively more obtunded, ER physicians decided to intubate. Counsel claimed that multiple attempts at intubation were made by two separate physicians. The last intubation was believed to be placed tracheally, however, yellow fluid was seen coming from the endotracheal tube 13 minutes after the intubation. Physicians reportedly claimed that Vasquez suddenly became bradycardic and ultimately asystolic.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Man Dies at Hospital In San Francisco Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Part 1 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 returned on February 25, 2009. She was seen by defendant. This day she complained that the left lateral border of the tongue was painful. A white lesion was present that could not be wiped off.

On February 25, defendant referred plaintiff to an oral surgeon for evaluation of the white lesion on the left lateral border of the tongue. The doctor's referral sheet noted that it had been there for a while and was becoming painful. Defendant understood the lesion had been there for several weeks.

Plaintiff, instead, went to her primary care physician, who referred her to a different oral surgeon. She underwent an incisional biopsy from which the cancer diagnosis was made. She was then referred to an ENT physician, who took a history from plaintiff that the lesion had developed recently. He referred plaintiff to a Head and Neck surgeon at StanFlemming University Medical Center.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case Brought Against Dentist After Cancer Spreads, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Lemons performed the cardioversion on April 17, 2007. Two days later, Garvey was seen by her primary care physician with a blood pressure of 202/64, nosebleeds and high blood sugar. The primary care physician decreased the dosage of her antihypertension medication.

On April 20, 2007, Garvey was admitted to a hospital in San Jose as she had become unresponsive due to a stroke. A CT scan of the brain performed on the same day showed no hemorrhage.

A CT Scan taken April 21 indicated a stroke involving the basal ganglia, internal capsule and right mid-brain. Garvey was a “do not resuscitate” patient and life support was discontinued that day.

Garvey's widower and children sued Lemons, alleging that a cardioversion must not be performed unless a patient is adequately anti-coagulated pursuant to American College of Cardiology Guidelines, both before and after cardioversion, and that Lemons's decision to proceed with cardioversion with the patient unprotected, given the inadequate anticoagulation, was below the standard of accepted care. The plaintiffs contended that Garvey sustained a cardioembolic stroke three days after her cardioversion which resulted in her death.

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

Continue reading "Deceased Woman’s Family Argues San Jose Hospital Provided Negligent Treatment, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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 plaintiffs contended that a general anesthesiologist should have been employed during the second procedure because the decedent had undergone an ERCP procedure five days earlier, during which she proved to be difficult to sedate and became combative during the procedure. The plaintiffs argued that if a general anesthesiologist was managing her airway, her exhaled carbon dioxide would have been monitored through capnography and the respiratory arrest that led to a cardiac arrest would have been prevented. The plaintiffs also contended that there was a failure to competently assess the decedent's airway and remove the endoscope when the decedent's pulse oximeter readings dropped and then became undetectable. The plaintiffs argued that once it was noted that the decedent was in ventricular tachycardia, six minutes elapsed before the Code team attempted cardioversion.

The plaintiffs relied on their experts in anesthesiology and cardiology, who contended that as soon as a crash cart was brought into the room, within a minute or two of calling the Code, the decedent should have been defibrillated.

The defendant argued that it was within the standard of care not to use an anesthesiologist for the second ERCP procedure and to proceed with a sedation nurse without the benefit of capnography. It added that standard sedation medications and dosages were used, and changes in the oxygen saturation readings were not reflective of an obstructed airway or respiratory arrest. The decedent's oxygen saturation values returned to the high nineties when a second pulse oximeter was employed, and it was only after the decedent independently developed an arrhythmia that ventricular tachycardia developed and she arrested.

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

Continue reading "Wrongful Death In Soon-To-Be Physician Settles for $5 Million in San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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 returned March 4, 2004 for a prophy. That day the area on the tongue was described as improved.

On June 2, 2004, plaintiff was seen again for an apthous ulcer on the tip of her tongue. The associate dentist placed Debactrol on the area to cauterize the ulcer.

Plaintiff returned December 8, 2004 for a prophy. The hygienist noted an apthous ulcer on the left side of the tongue on the lateral border. The patient was shown the area and advised to monitor it.

Plaintiff returned on October 10, 2006. There were no complaints voiced. The hygienist wrote “watch tongue, not too scalloped.” Plaintiff had developed a habit of sucking on her tongue which caused the tongue to have a scalloped appearance from the back side of the teeth.

Plaintiff returned on February 14, 2007 for a prophy and examination. No complaints were referable to plaintiff's tongue. The hygienist noted the oral hygiene was fine and the gingival tissues were light, firm, and pink.

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

Continue reading "Woman Diagnosed With Cancer After Failure to Treat Tongue in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Garvey died from a stroke. Her husband and children sought recovery of non-economic damages of between $400,000 and $500,000. The plaintiffs sought recovery of damages for future loss of parental guidance, future loss of companionship, future loss of financial support and funeral expenses.

Facts:
In December 2002, plaintiffs' decedent Pamela Garvey, 74, began cardiology care with Dr. Neil Lemons. Garvey underwent a coronary angiography with stent placement, coronary artery bypass graft surgery and pacemaker placement.

Garvey had multiple medical risk factors including hypertension, hypercolesteremia, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. She also had a stroke of the posterior cerebral artery distribution in December 2000.

After attending regular visits with Lemons in 2003 and 2004, Garvey didn't attend office visits in 2005. In 2006, she indicated that she was no longer willing to take statins, aspirin or undergo treadmill examinations. She chose to take medications prescribed by her primary care physician, including L-Arginine for her high blood pressure and hypercholesteremia, and Byetta for diabetes.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Results After Elderly Woman Dies In Hospital, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: The decedent was a few months short of completing her fellowship in hematology/oncology at UCSF. She had job prospects which would have provided her a starting salary of more than $200,000 per year. The decedent's husband is a medical doctor who has completed a residency in neurology and who specializes in pain management. His future earnings would have been comparable to the decedent's. The decedent's parents joined with her husband and daughter as wrongful death claimants, alleging that she had been contributing to their support. The daughter was 2 years old at the time of the decedent's death.

Facts:
On May 26, 2007, plaintiffs' decedent, 32, a physician, underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure to remove a bile duct stone and to insert a stent to relieve biliary obstruction. The procedure was performed by a University of California-San Francisco professor, who heads the endoscopy program, and a gastroenterology fellow.

The decedent was to be deeply sedated and monitored by a sedation nurse. Approximately 15 minutes after the endoscope was passed, the decedent's oxygen saturation values fell and then became undetectable. The sedation nurse attributed the problem to a malfunction of the monitor, rather than to a change in the decedent's condition, and about 10 minutes later, after the original monitor was replaced by a second pulse oximeter, the decedent went into ventricular tachycardia.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case Results From Failure To Monitor, Part 1 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.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Defendant: Plaintiff, age 57, claimed a failure to diagnose and/or refer her for evaluation of a left lateral tongue lesion, which was diagnosed in March 2009 as squamous cell carcinoma. Plaintiff was seen in defendant dentist office from 1981 until February 2009 for general dental care.

The first mention of any tongue-related complaints by plaintiff was March 27, 1995. That day she was noted to have a canker sore (apthous ulcer) under her tongue. She was provided a medicament by an associate of defendant.

On October 23, 2001, plaintiff was seen for a prophy (cleaning) visit. She reported that one week prior to the visit she had a cold sore on the left side of her tongue. The hygienist noted that the area looked good that day.

On April 7, 2003, plaintiff was seen for an emergency visit. She was diagnosed with an apthous ulcer at the tip of her tongue. She was provided with Debactrol. She was advised to have the area re-checked in two days.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Claims Failure to Diagnose and Treat Tongue Lesions in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 1 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

The surgeon admitted that he misread the Sept. 21 biopsy.

The surgeon contended that, had the plaintiff been diagnosed earlier, she would still have opted for a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. He further claimed that she would then have experienced the same complications, regardless of when she had the surgery.

The radiologist claimed that the May 31 mammogram reading was appropriate.
She underwent a modified radical mastectomy with flap reconstruction. Six out of 12 axillary lymph nodes sampled showed evidence of metastatic disease. She then underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The plaintiff developed problems with the flap wound, requiring several more surgeries. She eventually underwent a modified radical mastectomy on her right breast, and a further repair of a hernia at the old flap site.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Results After Doctor Misses Cancer, 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.)

At trial, defense counsel submitted evidence which showed that eletrocautery risks have been taught for decades in medical school and were well known to Parrish before the surgery, and that the warnings on the device were virtually identical to those listed by other product manufacturers.

Before trial, the plaintiffs settled with the medical center for a confidential amount; with Ann Taimes, another physician at the medical center, for $30,000; with the Sacramento Anesthesiology Medical Group, which administered the anesthetic, for $30,000; and with Med Inc., which makes endotracheal devices associated with the electrode that was used in the subject procedure, for $10,000.

Plaintiff's counsel argued for about $850,000 in expected costs, which included a special boarding school for learning disabled kids that totaled $350,000, psychological counseling and medication for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally Gregory sought $30,000 in medical expenses and $27 million in future medicals and emotional distress.

The plaintiffs asked for a seven-figure verdict, but felt that an eight-figure verdict was more appropriate.

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

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Case In Sacramento Results After Boy Injured by Medical Device, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: The plaintiff was diagnosed with an intermediate-grade, infiltrating ductal carcinoma in her left breast.

Facts:
In August 2003, the plaintiff, 47, a long-haul truck driver, underwent a screening mammogram that showed an area of suspicion in her left breast. An ultrasound was done and read as “highly suspicious” and indicative of a solid nodule in the left breast.
On Sept. 21, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy. The pathologist reported the results as representative of a papilloma, also known as a benign tumor. On May 31, she underwent another screening mammogram, which her radiologist read as normal.

On May 20, 2004, the plaintiff underwent her annual mammogram, which again revealed an area of suspicion in her left breast. She followed up with an ultrasound and biopsy, which led to a breast cancer diagnosis.

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

Continue reading "Misdiagnosis in San Jose Medical Malpractice Suit Results in Breast Cancer Spread, Part 1 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.)

Summary of Facts:
INJURIES: Aaron alleged carbon monoxide poisoning, severe lung injuries and lifelong brain damage. Gregory alleged that these injures were a direct result of the airway fire.

Facts:
On April 18, 2002, plaintiff Aaron Gregory, age 8, underwent a tonsilectomy at San Jose Medical Center. Treating physician Dan Parrish used a hand-held electrode that was powered by an electrosurgical unit and was manufactured by Medical Corporation to perform the tonsilectomy. While the electrode was in Andrew's mouth, an airway fire occurred.

Andrew's Protector and father sued Parrish for medical malpractice. He sued Medical, alleging negligent design and failure to warn in connection with its electrosurgical unit.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Boy Suffers Brain Damage After Medical Device Fires, Part 1 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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 argued that the VP shunt was not worked up at admission because of miscommunication. The lawyers also argued that the neurosurgeon performed the craniectomy instead of addressing the possible VP shunt malfunction. Despite evidence of increased intracranial pressure caused by excessive CSF, the neurosurgeon opened the “drum tight dura” and a portion of the child's brain stem herniated through the incision under considerable force.

The health care providers did not bill for the majority of services that the teen required post-surgery during his hospitalization. The health care liens were settled for $80,000.
The plaintiff experienced developmental delays, microcephaly and periodic seizures prior to the incident. At the time of the incident, he was receiving special education classes. He was functioning on a first-to-second-grade level. He was fluent in Spanish and English, very sociable and interacted appropriately with his peers, according to plaintiff's counsel. He was independent in dressing, bathing, preparing simple meals, obtaining his own drinks, and feeding himself.

The child's wage loss contentions were limited due to his level of pre-occurrence cognitive deficiencies.

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

Continue reading "Teen in Vegetative State After San Jose Doctor Operates Negligently in Medical Malpractice Case, 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.)
Summary of Facts:

Nevins filed a lawsuit against Sacramento health in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged Sacramento health and its employees were negligent and violated the standard of care. The plaintiff alleged Oliver acted within the scope of his employment when he performed the procedure.

The plaintiff sought damages for her medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, lost earnings and loss of earning capacity.

The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and asserted the plaintiff's failure to mitigate her damages as an affirmative defense. Sacramento health claimed Nevins's hypoglossal nerve was in an unexpected anatomical position never before encountered by Oliver or reported in the medical literature. It further claimed Oliver immediately disclosed to the plaintiff after the surgery that he had cut her hypoglossal nerve and apologized for the incident.

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

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Case Brought Against Sacramento Doctor For Negligence in Operation, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Catastrophic brain stem injury was reportedly caused by primary trauma associated with the herniation and massive subsequent hemorrhage. The teen is in a persistent vegetative state with a tracheotomy. He is dependent on a gastrostomy tube for nutrition and requires round-the-clock attendant care. Plaintiff experts calculated his monthly care costs to be $50,000.

Facts:
In April 2006, the plaintiff, a 13-year-old fifth-grader, presented to health care providers with complaints of persistent headaches for four days. Based upon a CT scan and the clinical presentation, the attending pediatric neurologist suspected that the headaches were due to increased intracranial pressure caused by a build up of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) probably due to a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt malfunction.

The plaintiff was born with hydrocephaly, a condition occurring secondarily to obstruction of the CSF pathways in the brain and accompanied by an accumulation of CSF within the skull. He had a VP shunt inserted, which drained CSF from the brain to the gut, decreasing and stabilizing intracranial pressure. The VP shunt was controlled by a pressure valve, which opens the shunt when excess CSF causes increased intracranial pressure. It is common for CSF to form clots, causing the shunt to malfunction.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Results After Boy Suffers Catastrophic Brain Stem Injury, Part 1 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.)
Summary of Facts:

Mary Nevins said she was trained as a nurse but later began a career as a gala auctioneer, eventually becoming one of the best auctioneers in the Northwest.
She reportedly underwent a body scan in 2006 which revealed a right carotid artery significantly blocked with plaque. Nevins said she went to a Sacramento health facility to confirm her artery was blocked and determine what treatment was required. Sacramento health physicians reportedly confirmed that her artery was blocked and recommended a carotid endarterectomy.

Sam Oliver, MD, a vascular surgeon employed by Sacramento health, performed Nevins's carotid endarterectomy June 12, 2006. Oliver reportedly used ultrasound to confirm the location of Nevins's carotid bifurcation. Nevins said Oliver ligated and cut various branches of her facial vein to secure access to the internal carotid artery. Nevins claimed that while Oliver was ligating and cutting branches of her facial vein, he mistakenly cut her hypoglossal nerve.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Sues Hospital Over Damage Done to Her Face, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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' experts contended that Plaintiff should have been referred earlier for a complete workup, and that the nurse practitioner had a duty to take the culture result very seriously in light of Plaintiff's history of symptoms. In addition, Plaintiffs contended that the nurse practitioner should have taken the time to look up Streptococcus Viridans. Had the nurse practitioner done so, she would have found that it is not found on the skin. She would also have learned that it is the most common organism causing sub-acute endocarditis, and the Plaintiff had been experiencing all the classic symptoms of that condition.

As is true with most cases involving a negligent delay in diagnosis, the Defendent contended that Plaintiff was largely responsible for the delay, particularly since she had a nursing background; and that any negligence on the part of the health care provider occurred too late in the process to make that much of a difference. What made causation in this case somewhat more challenging was that Plaintiff's more serious long-term injuries, including embolic brain injury, materialized more than two (2) weeks after she had began taking the appropriate IV antibiotics. Plaintiffs' causation experts maintained that Streptococcus Viridans is readily treatable; however, the multiple trials of inadequate antibiotics only moderated the symptoms without killing the organism. Consequently, the negligent delay in referral enabled the bacteria to build up on her aortic valve, and to form a biofilm barrier that inhibited the effectiveness of the IV antibiotics and her body's natural defenses.

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

Continue reading "Doctor Sued in Medical Malpractice Case After Failing to Properly Diagnose San Francisco Nurse, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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 then underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with Taxol, Adriamycin, and Cytoxan. She underwent bilateral mastectomies on January 4, 2009. A residual tumor measuring 5.5 cm was found in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. Axillary node sampling revealed five metastatic nodes.

In May 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed with metastatic disease to the lung, liver, and bone. This represents incurable Stage IV disease.

Plaintiffs alleged that the June 30, 2006 mammogram showed a new density in the right superior breast on the MLO study. They contended that this finding should have been appreciated, that the mammogram should have been read as a BIRADS 0, and further imaging studies should have been conducted. Plaintiffs argued that had this been accomplished, it was medically probable that the diagnosis would have been made in July 2006 rather than July 2008. Plaintiffs further alleged that, had the diagnosis been made in July 2006, with the same chemotherapy as she received in 2008, her likelihood of cure would have been upwards of 70 percent.

The defense contended that the June 30, 2006 mammogram was properly read. They further contended that plaintiff was herself at fault for not obtaining a mammogram in June 2007, as instructed. Had she been compliant, her cancer would have been diagnosed based on a June 2007 mammogram and her cancer was curable at that time.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Case Due To Missed Early Diagnosis in Breast Cancer Case, 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.)

Individually and on Naomi’s behalf, Martinez sued Salmon and Bakings Medical, saying that they should immediately have treated the child or consulted a pediatric infectious disease specialist.

The next day, Maria was transferred to UCD Medical Center, where she underwent spinal taps, MRIs that revealed severe brain damage and CT scans that showed bleeding in her brain. Naomi remained in the hospital for two months for her brain injuries, and following her discharge from UCD, she required round-the-clock care.

According to the suit, Naomi’s permanent disabilities could have been mitigated--or avoided--had the defendants treated or referred the child sooner.
SUMMARY:
RESULT: Settlement
The parties negotiated a $625,000 settlement.

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

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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 results of the blood workup would be reported to her primary care provider within three days. Three days later, Plaintiff went to her clinic, along with her whole family, to find out what those tests showed and to see whether it was okay to go on their vacation. Her symptoms were continuing, but now she complained of a swollen tender sternum. The nurse practitioner looked through the results of the tests and saw that the laboratory found two out of two bottles positive for Streptococcus Viridans. According to Plaintiff and her ten-year-old son, the nurse practitioner commented words to the effect, “Oh, by the way, they found some Strep in the tests, but that must be a skin contaminant. Go on your vacation, have a great time, and when you come back if you are still feeling ill, then you can have more blood work done.”

In the meantime, the nurse practitioner gave Plaintiff another Z-pak, just in case she still had a lingering low-grade infection, another prescription for Maxalt and a prescription for percocet for pain. The nurse practitioner testified in her deposition that she suggested that Plaintiff could stop by the hospital for a blood test on the way to her family vacation. Plaintiff denied that the nurse practitioner made such a suggestion, and there was nothing in the nurse's notes to that effect. Again, the Z-pak provided only temporary relief of Plaintiff's symptoms. Her family cut short their vacation and she returned once more to the clinic only to be prescribed another ineffectual antibiotic.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case Arises After Failure to Diagnose, Part 2 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

CASE INFORMATION
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff, currently a 42-year-old accountant at a bank, underwent a mammogram on June 30, 2006 read by defendant radiologist. The study was interpreted as a BI-RADS 1, within normal limits. She was instructed to return for an additional screening mammogram one year later, but did not.

Plaintiff next underwent a screening mammogram on April 5, 2008. That study was read as showing a density in the right upper breast on the MLO view only. The report stated that the density had increased in size from the 2007 study. The study was read as BIRADS 0, additional studies needed. Plaintiff then underwent a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound on April 20, 2008. These studies were interpreted by defendant as benign, BI-RADS III, follow up in four months requested.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Woman Improperly Diagnosed Results in Terminal Cancer, Part 1 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.)

INJURIES: On March 11, Naomi stopped eating and responding to stimuli and became very lethargic. Martinez brought her to the Bakings Medical ER, where the baby's lesions were cultured and diagnosed as herpes simplex virus 2 meningeoencephalitis.

Facts:
On March 7, 2009, plaintiff Irma Martinez brought her 11-day-old daughter, Naomi Maria, to pediatrician Valarie Salmon at Bakings Medical Center for an evaluation.

Two days earlier, lesions appeared on Naomi’s face and ear.

Martinez asked Salmon to perform tests on the lesions, but Salmon declined, saying that tests were unnecessary, and that the child had an ordinary rash or mosquito bites.

After an emergency room visit four days later, it was discovered that Naomi had an infectious disease, and as a result, severe brain damage.

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

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

TEXT:
2007 - Plaintiff, female age 45, had worked as a surgical nurse until 10 years ago when the first of her four boys was born. She intended to go back to nursing sometime after her youngest was in school. Beginning in mid-November 2007, Plaintiff went in to her local clinic complaining of an occasional fever of 102.5, general aches and fatigue. The nurse practitioner suspected influenza. Six days later, Plaintiff returned and told the nurse practitioner that her continuing symptoms were making it hard for her to care for her children. Although she did not have a fever at that time, the nurse practitioner suggested that Plaintiff might wish to get checked out at the local hospital, but that she could prescribe a Z-pak to see whether that would work. A Z-pak is a general spectrum of oral antibiotic. Plaintiff chose to try the Z-pak. The Z-pak seemed to temper Plaintiff's symptoms over the next week, but then the symptoms reappeared along with other symptoms.

Plaintiff returned to the clinic, and this time, she reported a headache, muscle aches, fatigue, night sweats, chest tightening and an unproductive cough. She said that the night sweats were so bad that she was wrapping herself in towels to keep from soaking her bed. The doctor told her that she was likely pre-menopausal, despite the fact that she was still having regular periods. He also told her that overweight people often sweat at night. As to her feeling so fatigued, the doctor noted that after all, she had four active boys. He thought her headaches might be from migraines, and so he prescribed Maxalt.

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

Continue reading "Failure to Diagnose Leaves San Francisco Mother With Extensive Injuries, 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

The defense denied liability, asserting that the stroke was related to Serreno's diabetes, rather than the injection of Phenergan into the artery. Counsel also contended that the line was not arterially placed, but properly placed in the vein.

Following the injury, Serreno was placed on disability and claimed that he will likely be unable to engage in employment that requires standing, walking or balancing. He alleged that the injury had a substantial effect on his career as a security guard and police officer, and that he is now limited to potential desk jobs. He further claimed that even a desk job would be difficult, due to the extremely limited use of his left, non-dominant arm.

Serreno claimed past lost earnings of $113,862, and future lost earnings of $1,653,031, based on a loss of earning capacity of $50,320 a year. He further sought pain and suffering damages of $250,000 (capped by MICRA). He did not seek medical costs.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Man Sues Hospital 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.)

Defense obstetrics expert James Pale opined that the nursing care and treatment were up to the standard of care at all times. He added that there was never any convincing evidence of maternal hyperstimulation or fetal distress.

The defense also argued that nurses have implied discretion over Picotin levels, and that they are allowed to change dosage levels as per their instinct and experience.

Plaintiff's life care planning expert, Shannon Karreon, estimated that the baby will live 45 years and will need 16 hours of home care every day. As part of an unspecified demand, plaintiff's counsel calculated a life care plan that would include an annuity of $2.5 million.

Defense counsel disputed the damages, and defense life care planner Tom Lowitz predicted that the baby's life expectancy was a maximum of 14 years. The defense calculated a life care plan that would include an annuity of $1.8 million.

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

Continue reading "2.5 Million Awarded in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 4" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

First, she created a large, 8-square-inch open wound on the foot of a diabetic patient, knowing that even tiny open wounds can quickly become infected. However, she failed to prescribe antibiotics to guard against such infection. Knowing the potential for infection, she took a culture of the wound, which she sent to the San Francisco Hospital lab.
Further, she tightly covered the open wound with multiple layers of gauze and elastic. Among other things, this made it impossible for the condition of the wound to be observed by the patient or anyone else. It also may have diminished plaintiff's otherwise-healthy circulation in that foot.

Worst of all, she made no provision for frequent observation of the wound to monitor its status. She could have hospitalized plaintiff or could have arranged to have his wound checked either at her office or by another provider. By failing to provide for such observation, and, indeed, forbidding the patient to remove the elastic dressings, she prevented plaintiff's infection from being discovered and remedied at a point in time when his leg could have been treated and saved. At some point between the 12th and the 16th, the foot became unsalvageable, but if it had been properly monitored, he could have been started on IV antibiotic treatment immediately upon observation of infection (if not before), and the leg could have been saved.

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

Continue reading "Diabetic Gets Leg Amputated In San Francisco Medical Malpractice Case, 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.)

Plaintiff's counsel also claimed that there was inadequate supervision of the nurse trainee on October 14 and 15.

The infant's lawyer noted that the fetal monitoring strips were missing during the pregnancy. The hospital's chief of medical records testified that they were last seen and accounted for the day after the birth.

The plaintiff's perinatology expert, Maryann Tallan asserted that the uterine stimulation, coupled with maternal hypertension and maternal fever, caused fetal distress and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. The lawyer alleged that the treaters failed to appreciate the fetal distress and failed to perform an early C-section. Plaintiff's pediatric neurology expert Barry Michael supported Tallan’s claims, adding that the baby probably would not have gotten cerebral palsy if a prompt C-section had been performed.

The defense argued that the baby was born with cerebral palsy due to complications that happened during the pregnancy's first trimester.

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

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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 the February 16 appointment, plaintiff's foot was unwrapped and was found to be infected and necrotic. Plaintiff went immediately to Clovis Community Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a Staph infection and placed on IV antibiotics. He remained at Clovis for one day before being transferred to the Fresno Heart and Surgical Hospital.

When he arrived at Fresno Heart, he came under the care of vascular surgeon Amy Parish, M.D. Dr. Parish immediately realized plaintiff was septic and that his infected left lower limb would have to be amputated. She explained to plaintiffs that plaintiff would die of sepsis within a few days if the foot/leg were not amputated, and they consented to the surgery, which took place that same night, February 17, 2008.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Arises From Failure To Treat, Part 2 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Immediately after injection, Serreno developed difficulty breathing, had a stroke and was then intubated. The central line was then placed on a pressure transducer, which indicated that it was arterially placed. The central line was then discontinued, and an MRI revealed that Serreno had a serious brain injury.

Serreno sued the County, which controlled ABC Regional and its county employees, accusing Emmerson of medical malpractice, specifically negligent injection.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Lawsuit Against Hospital for Negligent Practice, Part 2 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.)

On October 15 at 1:30 a.m., the patient began to push. At 2 a.m., the OB-GYN arrived, and at 3:14 a.m., the baby was delivered with APGAR scores of one at one minute, three at five minutes, and four at 10 minutes. The first blood gas showed significant metabolic acidosis with a pH level of 7.16 and a base excess of minus 20. Seizures were noted in the neo-natal ICU, and the baby was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

The infant, through her grandmother as guardian ad litem, sued the hospital, the OB-GYN and the nurses for medical malpractice. Her attorney asserted that the fetus was asphyxiating in utero and she should have been taken out via caesarean section hours before the natural birth.

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

Continue reading "Baby Born With Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 2 of 4" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a medical malpractice case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

TEXT:
CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff, a 52-year-old Operations Manager, presented at defendant Physician's office on February 7, 2008 with pain in his left foot, due to having taken a misstep a day or so before. Plaintiff had Type-II diabetes and had been treating with defendant since June 2006 for diabetic foot care relating to his right foot.

On February 7, defendant diagnosed a Lisfranc fracture, with possible Charcot, placed him in a walking boot and sent him home, telling him to stay off the foot as much as possible.

On February 12, plaintiff returned on an urgent basis because of greatly increased pain in the foot. Defendant removed the walking boot and found a large blister covering the entire top of his foot. She drained and debrided the entire blister, creating a 2.5″ x 3.5″ open wound on the dorsum of the foot.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Fails to Diagnose Diabetic Properly in 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 San Jose area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

INJURIES: Serreno experienced a right watershed infarct in his brain with a distribution involving the middle cerebral artery and left parietal, resulting in hemiplegia. The condition resulted in left-side bodily weakness and permanent left-side brain damage.

Facts:
On March 21, 2009, plaintiff, Bob Serreno, 33, an unemployed security guard, went to ABC Regional Medical Center in Sacramento with complaints of abdominal pain. He was admitted into the intensive care unit after being diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis. After having two different IVs inserted in his arm, a nurse paged first-year resident John Emmerson to place a central venous catheter in Serreno. Emmerson responded roughly one hour and 45 minutes later, and attempted to insert the central line. Emmerson was unable to do so, and opted to place the line in Serreno's internal jugular vein, and believed he succeeded after checking for pulsatility and the color of the blood in the line.

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

Continue reading "San Jose Medical Malpractice Case For Man With Brain Injury, 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.)

On October 15, 2000, the plaintiff, a female infant, was born to a 19-year-old woman at a Sacramento hospital. Two days earlier, the mother was admitted to induced labor. She was experiencing a complicated third trimester due to maternal hypertension. An OB-GYN doctor prescribed the patient up to 25 milliunits of Pitocin an hour, and contractions began three hours later.

On October 14, the patient's Pitocin dosage was increased to 28 miliunits a minute. At 3 p.m., uterine contractions were occurring every 90 seconds, and the patient's blood pressure was borderline hypertensive. She developed a maternal fever. At 7 p.m., a nurse trainee assumed nursing care of the patient. In the nursing flow sheet, the trainee charted uterine contractions every 90 seconds over the next few hours. She also charted a decrease in long-term and short-term variability. The trainee called the OB-GYN twice, but never reported the patient's uterine hyperstimulation or decreased long-term or short-term variability.

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.)

10. Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to understand the medical issues here. The Charcot process is time limited, and during the acute phase the foot must be protected from bone fractures and joint dislocations by casting or booting. After the process quiets down and the bones harden again, when the cast is removed a properly treated foot is preserved in its original state, without injury. This is precisely why Plaintiff's expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lee, testified that in order to avoid the catastrophic injuries which Plaintiff now suffers, a foot presenting as Plaintiffs did must be casted or booted. This explanation, provided by Plaintiffs expert, was also uncontroverted.

In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiffs foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiffs foot carries a high risk of amputation.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Demands New Trial In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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, 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.)

7. Defendant's expert radiologist, Dr. Greene, who opined that casting did not prevent injury once the breakage of bones started, was not a qualified expert in orthopedics. Additionally, she was a non-treating radiologist whose opinion was discredited at trial when she testified that she did not know, in forming her opinion, if the patients whose x-rays she reviewed had been casted. Consequently, her testimony is legally insufficient to rebut the testimony of Plaintiffs expert orthopedic surgeon.

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiffs injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided.

Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents' employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Orthopaedic Patient Seeks Damages In Medical Malpractice Case, 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, 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 presents the following specific arguments and facts in support of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:

1. On June 8, 2011, the jury found that two physicians employed by defendant Regents of the University of California were negligent in their medical treatment of Plaintiff during her May 2009 hospitalization at the University Medical Center Hospital for her Charcot Foot ("Charcot's").

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in case.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff's left foot during the acute phase of Charcot's, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

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

Continue reading "Negligent Orthopaedic Care Results In Catastrophic Injury To Sacramento Woman, 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, 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.)

The primary requirement for the granting of the motion is that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. Robinson v. North American Life & Cas. Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 111, 118, 30 Cal.Rptr. 57.

The court will grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference drawn therefrom to support the verdict. Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681,534 P.2d 377.

Plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted if, on the whole evidence, any cause of action alleged in the complaint is supported and no substantial support is given to the defense alleged by defendant. Gordon v. Strawther Enteprises. Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 504, 515,78 Cal.Rptr. 417. The court may grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the entire verdict, or a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on fewer than all issues. See Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 310,323-324,274 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hansen v. Sunnyside Product Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.

B. The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff's Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury's
Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Orthopedic Surgeon Sued For Malpractice, 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, 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 BILLIE JOHNSON hereby moves for an Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE A MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED HAD A PREVIOUS MOTION BEEN MADE AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN THEREFROM TO SUPPORT A VERDICT IN THE DEFENDANTS' FAVOR

A. Statutory and Case Authority for Granting Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for new trial, the court, on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, must render judgment in favor of an aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made. Code of Civil Procedure §629. The grounds for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are the same as for granting a motion for directed verdict. See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 343, 268 Cal.Rptr. 309; Trammell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 538, 556, 129 Cal.Rptr. 361.

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

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Action Filed Against Sacramento Doctors, Part 1 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, 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" »

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.)

When this case is presented at trial, Defendants will have prepared their defense in reliance on the representations of Dr. White, that he has expressed every opinion to which he might testify at the time of trial. As such, Defendants are acting in reliance of Dr. White's representations throughout his deposition. Defendants have relied on his testimony that on the date of, and prior to his deposition, he had not formed an opinion as to the causation of Plaintiff's injuries.

Further, he testified he could not form an opinion as he was not versed in chiropractic manipulations, thus expressing that he was not qualified to form an opinion as to causation. Lastly, Defendants relied on Dr. White testimony that not only did he not form an opinion as to causation, but that an opinion as to causation could not be established unless he internally inspected the meniscus within 48 hours. It would therefore be tremendously prejudicial, and would cause Defendants irreparable harm, if Dr. White was permitted to testify at trial to opinions not previously disclosed during their depositions. Moreover, to allow the same would run contrary to the Discovery Act in eliminating the element of surprise at the time of trial, especially in light of the fact that Defendants were not provided any notice to the contrary. Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants notice during Dr. White's deposition, or after, pursuant to Easterby.

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

Continue reading "Insurance Company Fights Sacramento Woman In Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 6 of 6" »

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.)

"The overarching principle in Kennemur, Jones, and Bonds is clear: a party's expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of his deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation that the expert will offer the new testimony, or if notice of the new testimony comes at a time when deposing the expert is unreasonably difficult." (Easterby v. Clark, (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 772, 780)

In Easterby, the plaintiff's doctor testified, at his deposition, that he would not be testifying as to causation; however, later, upon learning additional facts, changed his mind and said he would testify as to the causation of plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff's counsel wrote and delivered a letter to defense counsel to this affect. Despite this notice, defense counsel opted not to re-depose plaintiff's doctor and successfully motioned to have his testimony excluded at trial. The Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court erred by striking the plaintiff's doctor's testimony because defense counsel had notice that the plaintiff's doctor would be testifying as to causation.

In the case at bar, Hiram White, M.D., consistently testified throughout his deposition on February 19, 2010, that he had not formed an opinion as to the causation of Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

Q. Did you ever form an opinion as to whether or not what she [Plaintiff] described to you was the cause of any of her injuries that you either saw on that MRI or found at the time of surgery? A. No.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Chiropractic Patient Fights Discovery Battle In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 5 of 6" »

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.)

The policy of full disclosure of expert opinion at pre-trial deposition was confirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal in the case Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557. In the Jones matter, the plaintiff's expert was asked whether he believed the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care in areas other than the negotiation of the underlying divorce settlement. The expert stated that he was not prepared to testify to that issue at this time. When asked if he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified "no, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights." (Id. at 563.)

At trial, the expert in the Jones matter testified that the defendant's conduct fell below the standard care when he failed to properly secure the source of the plaintiff's marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiations of the underlying settlement and judgment. The court excluded this opinion holding under the circumstances, exclusion of testimony going beyond the opinions he expressed during his deposition was justified. When an expert deponent testifies as to specific opinions and affirmatively states those are the only opinions he tends to offer at trial, it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional opinions at trial.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Hires 'Standard Of Care' Expert in Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 6" »

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.)

As noted in Gallo v. Peninsula Hospital (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 899, 903, the need for pre-trial discovery as an aide to the preparation of cross-examination and rebuttal is greater with respect to the expert witness than it is in the case of an ordinary fact witness. Full disclosure is required because if not, the result:

"Would introduce 'gamesmanship' into the discovery proceedings; a result in direct conflict with purpose to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent." (Id. at 904.)

In Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, the Supreme Court recognized the full pre-trial disclosure of expert opinion as crucial to meaningful trial preparation:

"Indeed, the very purpose of the expert witness discovery statute is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial. This allows the parties to ... fully explore the relevant subject area at any such deposition ... the opportunity to depose an expert during trial, particularly if the testimony relates to a central issue, often provides a wholly inadequate opportunity to understand the expert's opinion and to prepare to meet it."

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

Continue reading "Chiropractic Experts Battle In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 6" »

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.)

EXPERT WITNESSES SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING TO ANY OPINIONS NOT EXPRESSED IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS

Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210 et. seq. provides for the designation of expert witnesses, as well as the discovery of their opinions or conclusions. Section 2034.260 (c)(4) requires that the designated expert be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition ... including any opinion and its bases, that the expert be expected to give at trial. The expert opinion of a witness who was not designated as an expert shall, upon objection of the party that fully complied with the requirement of § 2034.210 et seq., be excluded from evidence at trial (Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.300.)

The importance of pre-trial discovery of an expert's opinions and conclusions, which the expert intends to express at trial, was discussed in the matter Kennemur v. Slate of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3rd 907, where the appellate court held that the trial court had properly excluded the testimony of an expert witness who, at his deposition testified that he was not going to express an opinion at trial regarding the issue of causation. The court noted that:

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

Continue reading "Chiropractor Damages Sacramento Woman's Knee, Resulting In Malpractice, Part 2 of 6" »

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.)

Defendants, Daniel Li, D.C. and XYZ Chiropractic, Inc., hereby move this Court, in limine, for an order precluding plaintiff Anna Greene’s orthopaedic expert Hiram White, M.D. from testifying to any opinions not expressed during his deposition.

Defendants further move for the Court's instructions on the following:

1. An instruction precluding Plaintiff's Counsel and Plaintiff's witnesses from conveying the jury, directly or indirectly, the facts provided in this motion without, first, obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and

2. An instruction precluding Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Counsel and Plaintiff's witnesses from making any reference to the filing of this motion.

This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and papers already on file in this matter, and on such further oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing of this motion.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Harmed By Chiropractor Files Malpractice Suit, Part 1 of 6" »

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.)

Dr. Stein further opines that the infected fluid around Mr. Brown's thecal sac caused injury to Mr. Brown.

Defendants breached the standard of care by delaying in the diagnosis and treatment of the infection in Mr. Brown' lumbar spine.

Dr. Majore will be opining that based on Dr. Singh's operation report, it is obvious that Mr. Brown suffered from an intraspinal infection. Plaintiff has nerve damage secondary to arachnoiditis. The nerve damage is permanent.

Dr. Majore has the opinion that Mr. Brown requires vocational rehabilitation.

DEFENDANTS FELL BELOW THE STANDARD CARE FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 EMERGENCY SURGERY

Defendants breached the standard of care by failing to make a diagnose or classification of Mr. Brown's condition so that Mr. Brown could received the proper continuity of medical care appropriate to his condition.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Neurologist Sued For Medical Malpractice, 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.)

Dr. Stein also opined in his deposition that the Defendants violated its own policies and procedures as set fort in its Patients' Rights document.

Dr. Majore will opine that the defendants fell below the standard of care when they failed to take adequate steps to determine the extent of neurological involvement causing Mr. Brown's symptoms following the surgery of August 20, 2008.

Dr. Majore will be opining that the defendants fell below the standard of care when they failed to properly document the patient's file with the e-mails discussing the patients' care.

Dr. Majore will be opining that the attending physicians employed by the defendants fell below the standard of care when they failed to properly sign the medical records.

DEFENDANTS FELL BELOW THE STANDARD CARE WHEN THEY FAILED TO TIMELY DIAGNOSE AND TREAT PLAINTIFF'S INFECTED FLUID COLLECTION/20 ABSCESS AUGUST 31, 2008 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Dr. Stein's Declaration (Exhibit "A") further set's forth his opinion that the Defendants fell below the standard of care after he was discharged from the hospital on August 27, 2008 as follows:

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

Continue reading "Medical Experts Battle Over Sacramento Doctor's Malpractice, Part 2 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.)

Plaintiff Thomas Brown (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") by and through his attorneys of record, and hereby submits the following Trial Brief on the Scope of Plaintiff's Experts' Testimony on Standard of Care.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Stein testified he had opinions on whether the defendants fell below the standard of care as well as the cause of Plaintiff's damages. Dr. Majore testified that he would be giving opinions on the standard of care within the scope of his medical practice of pain management.

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

DEFENDANTS FELL BELOW THE STANDARD CARE DURING PLAINTIFF'S HOSPITAL STAY FROM AUGUST 20, 2008 THROUGH AUGUST 27, 2008

Dr. Stein prepared a Declaration which was provided at his deposition and attached as Exhibit "2.” Dr. Stein's Declaration contains a section entitled "Opinions" which lists 12 opinions. The first six opinions are quoted as follows:

"The following are examples of what exactly fell below the standard of care:

1. No postoperative visit by Dr. White to explain Mr. Brown's complications and his prognosis.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Files Medical Malpractice Suit, 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.)

Not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Tory v. Cochran (2005) 542 U.S. 965, struck down an injunction issued by a judge of this court (and upheld by the Court of Appeal), prohibiting petitioners from picketing, displaying signs, placards or other written or printed material, and from orally uttering statements about one Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., and about Cochran's law firm in "any public forum."

In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the injunction ... amounts to an overly broad prior restraint upon speech, lacking plausible justification, and that "Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." (Tory. supra)

Then, just three years ago, in ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 841, Justice Epstein, for Div. 4 of our 2nd District, affirmed a courageous (conservative Republican) judge, (Stephen Peterson, who sits in Van Nuys) who held unconstitutional, strictly on 1st Amendment grounds, Civil Code. Section 2527, a statute compelling speech, with severe consequences for its violation.

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

Continue reading "Birth Injuries Suffered By Sacramento Girl Lead To Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, 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, 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.)

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A PLAINTIFF TO INCLUDE A PRAYER FOR A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT. AS WELL AS A PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. AS CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.13(a) (AS IS C.C.P. SECTION 425.10) IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Preventing plaintiffs from stating the amount of damages they seek violates a litigant's First Amendment right to free expression, as the two cited statutes command prior restraint on freedom of expression.

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

To put this matter in perspective, we start with the dissenting opinion of our late, beloved Justice Mosk, who, more than a decade past, in Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 428, 440-441, 280 Cal.Rptr. 83, wrote:

"A statutory scheme that forbids a party to provide useful information-a form of compulsory silence-and that creates anomalous results ... urgently needs reexamination. Moreover, in a newsworthy case, a lawyer or party can always call a press conference and trumpet the claims to the heavens, or at least to the terrestrial media. Thus, not only are (Code of Civil Procedure) sections 425.10 and 425.11 bad law and bad policy, they are an ineffective means of implementing the legislature's apparent intent. Nor can they be made effective: I cannot conceive of legislation that could constitutionally prevent plaintiffs with sensational personal injury damage claims from announcing those claims in any forum whatsoever."

Time marches on.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages Sought Against Sacramento Physician for Malpractice, 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, 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 HAS PLEADED EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT

Defendants Stanley Black, M.D. and ABC Medical Group next demur to Plaintiff's third cause of action, for Willful Misconduct.

Defendants' demurrer is replete with colloquy about how plaintiff has failed to plead any facts demonstrating that defendants' conduct rose above the level of mere negligence. Defendants Black and ABC Medical Group have offered no judicial authority as to just why plaintiff's pleaded claim for willful misconduct fails to meet the requirements of that well accepted tort.

The elements of willful misconduct are as follows:

1. Actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended;2. Actual or constructive knowledge that injury is probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and3. Conscious failure to avoid the peril.(Witkin, 6 Summary of California Law, 9th edition, Torts, section 761)

This standard was tested in New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 681. New involved two motorcyclists who sued a landowner to recover for injuries sustained while they were riding their motorcycles on defendant's property.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Sues Doctor for Birth Injuries, 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, 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.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT INCONSISTENT PLEADINGS ARE PERMITTED

Defendants' Stanley Black, M.D., and ABC Medical Group's demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is based (initially) on the grounds that Plaintiffs first cause of action, for medical negligence, is duplicative of Plaintiff's second cause of action for Wrongful Birth.

It is well established that a plaintiff is entitled to plead inconsistent causes of action. Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10.

Rader Co., supra, involved an appeal from an Order of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers, without leave to amend.

In holding that inconsistent causes of action are appropriate, the Rader Co., supra, court, stated, at p.29, of 178 Cal.App.3d, as follows:

Moreover, Rader is not precluded by law from alleging in one cause of action the breach of a contract and an inconsistent theory of recovery in another cause of action. To the extent Rader's allegation in one cause of action of a fully executed contract with Stone is at odds with an allegation in a separate cause of action that PSR interfered in Rader's advantageous relationship with Stone, such inconsistency is not fatal to Rader's claims at the pleading stage, as "a plaintiff is permitted to plead inconsistent or ..., alternative counts." (Rader Co., supra at p.29, Emphasis Added, citing Skelly v. Richman (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 844)

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

Continue reading "Doctor At Sacramento Hospital Commits Malpractice, 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, 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, by counsel, serves and files this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Stanley Black, M.D. and ABC Medical Group's Demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs Complaint.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS STANLEY BLACK, M.D, AND ABC MEDICAL GROUP'S DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

In response to Plaintiff's Complaint, defendants Stanley Black, M.D., and ABC Medical Group have filed a demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of, Plaintiff's Complaint.

Defendants Black and ABC Medical Group argue that Plaintiff's First Cause of Action, for medical negligence, on the grounds that it duplicates the Second Cause of Action, for Wrongful Birth.

As will be seen from the following Points and Authorities, inconsistent pleadings have long been permitted, and therefore defendants Black and ABC Medical Group's demurrer, upon grounds of inconsistency, is without merit.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Hospital Sued for Medical Malpractice, Part 1 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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Civil Code Section 3333.1 Permits Defendants To Introduce Evidence Of Collateral Source Benefits.

Subsequent to the alleged malpractice by defendants, plaintiff received insurance benefits. Under Civil Code section 3333.1, defendants can introduce evidence of these benefits at trial. Subdivision (a) of section 3333.1 provides, in pertinent part:

"In the event the defendant so elects, in an action for personal injury against a health care provider based upon professional negligence, he may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant to United States Social Security Act, any state or federal income disability or worker's compensation act, any health, sickness or income-disability insurance, accident insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability coverage, and any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the cost of medical, hospital, dental or other health care services ... "

Section 3333.1, subdivision (a) suspends the common law "collateral source rule," under which a defendant is ordinarily precluded from introducing evidence of compensation and benefits that plaintiff receives from other sources, such as medical and disability insurance. (See, e.g., Arrambula v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1009; Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 242.)

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

Continue reading "Improper Follow-up Care By San Francisco Orthopedic Surgeon Leads To Malpractice Suit, Part 8 of 8" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Hall's surgeries and follow-up care fell below the standard of care and were the cause of her injuries and that she suffered pain as a result of two unnecessary surgeries performed by Dr. Hall on January 27 and May 28, 2008. However, plaintiff herself has stated that after the November 2005 total left knee replacement by Dr. Jones, she has made a complete recovery and healed well. Presently, she experiences very little pain other than pain she characterizes as consistent with her age.

As stated above, the defendants have designated an expert who will testify on the issue of causation. These experts will opine that plaintiff has not been injured by any action, or claimed inaction, by the defendants.

The Defendants' Alleged Medical Negligence Was Not The Proximate Cause Of The Plaintiffs Injuries.

If a result to a patient would have occurred in the ordinary course of events anyway and independently of anything done or not done by a physician, the result cannot be said to have been caused by the physician. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 479; Deckard v. Sorenson (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 305, 308; Bennett v. Los Angeles Tumor Institute (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 293, 296 and Frantz v. San Luis Medical Center, supra.

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

Continue reading "Negligence By San Francisco Surgeon Results In Malpractice Suit, Part 7 of 8" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

On November 2, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lee for a second opinion, as she was experiencing burning pain radiating down the lateral aspect of the lower leg from the knee to her ankle. Dr.Lee examined plaintiff and discovered full knee extension and flexion to 115 degrees with the patella tracking laterally. Dr. Lee told her she needed more time to heal after plaintiff stated she wanted to review the x-rays ordered by Dr. Hall on October 6th. Plaintiff requested a third opinion and Dr .Lee offered to refer her to Dr. Michael Davis, a physician not affiliated with Universal Medical Clinic.

Dr. Davis examined plaintiff on December 8, 2008. He noted a problem with lateral tracking of the patella. Plaintiff complained of pain in the anterolateral and lateral aspect of the left knee and lateral aspect of the left leg. He recommended studies including a standing long leg alignment from hip to ankle of both legs, merchant views of both knees, and possibly a CT scan of both hip and distal femur. It should be noted that an x-ray taken on January 1, 2005 shows the patella sitting fine and in good position.

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

Continue reading "Knee Replacement Nightmare For San Francisco Woman Leads To Medical Malpractice Action, Part 6 of 8" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative visit on June 7, 2008. Plaintiff complained her stitches were bugging her and that they were tearing. Dr. Hall noted the incision was clean and dry and that plaintiff could do an SLR. An immobilizer was applied. Post op on June 14, 2008, Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff reported that she was doing okay. Plaintiff could do a SLR. By June 28, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee stiffness. Dr. Hall noted plaintiff had good quadriceps and the patella was centralized. Plaintiff had 75% flexion and appeared to be healing well.

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

Continuing, on July 19, 2008 plaintiff complained of left knee pain. Plaintiff could perform a good SLR but displayed a 10-degree lag. He also noted plaintiff had good flexion and the patella was tracking centrally. By August 16, 2008, however, plaintiff complained of soreness and tightness in her left knee. Dr. Hall noted her quadriceps range of motion and stability were excellent. Plaintiff discussed returning to work and Dr. Hall released her to return to work and follow-up as needed.

Continue reading "San Francisco Woman Needs Several Surgeries to Repair Knee Damage In Malpractice Suit, Part 5 of 8" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

On March 24, 2008, plaintiff returned to Dr. Hall for a follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain when trying to walk without a splint. Dr. Hall noted an extensor lag when plaintiff attempted an SLR and also noted maltracking of the patella. Clinically, her knee was locking. Dr. Hall's impression was patellar instability with subluxation. X-rays showed slipping of the prosthetic patellar component onto the lateral side. He advised plaintiff that unless her knee showed improvement, she should undergo a patellar revision and quadriceps repair.

Plaintiff next presented for a follow-up visit on April 14, 2008, complaining that her patella had drifted laterally. Dr. Hall recommended a revision patellar arthroplasty, and discussed with plaintiff the risks and benefits of the procedure. Plaintiff elected surgery.

On May 28, 2008, Dr. Hall, with Dr. Lee assisting, performed a quadricepsplasty and quadriceps realignment of the left quadriceps. A complete lateral release was carried out from the tibia proximally on the lateral aspect, which helped to control the mild tracking and subluxing, but did not completely settle the patella in its groove.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Sued After Patient Undergoes Multiple Knee Surgeries, Part 4 of 8" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

As instructed, on January 12, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for another follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of left knee and left heel pain. Dr. Hall windowed the heel of the cast to relieve pressure and decrease plaintiff's pain. Dr. Hall discussed the possibility of a lateral release of the patella with scope. He explained the risks and benefits of the procedure to plaintiff.

Dr. Hall saw plaintiff for a pre-operative evaluation at which time she reported pain in her left knee. She was able to perform an SLR but there was maltracking of the patella. Dr. Hall and plaintiff discussed the risks and benefits of an arthroscopy and lateral release with possible medial repair. The arthroscopy with lateral release of plaintiffs left patella was performed on January 27, 2008. The scope showed maltracking and subluxing laterally. In addition, flexion was limited. The lateral release was performed and improved the position and tracking of the patella significantly with 90 to 95 degrees of flexion achieved.

On February 5, 2008, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall for a postoperative follow-up visit. Plaintiff complained of pain in her left knee but reported that it felt stronger. She was able to perform a SLR with little assistance. The knee was placed in an extension splint. X-rays taken on this date do not show any complications with the tibial and femoral components.

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

Continue reading "Medical Center In San Francisco Must Defend Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 8" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

As described above, RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were present at the hospital, in the rooms with MALYIA JEFFERS and personally and contemporaneously observed and understood the injury producing events. On the morning of November 29, 2010, they noticed their daughter had a fever and a cough. They noticed that a dark skin discoloration (purpura) began to develop that was easily visible to them. They took her to METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO for help. After they arrived the staff told them to wait. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG repeatedly asked defendants to see and treat their child.

Defendants continued to make them wait. Defendants promised her parents the doctor would see MALYIA soon but didn’t keep this promise. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG saw their daughter get weaker and sicker hour after hour as defendants chose to delay treatment. They saw the bruising on her body increase affecting her legs, arms and face. The parents became more and more distressed as defendants delayed treatment. They saw MALYIA grew sicker and weaker until she could no longer stand. She was crying for help because she was so sick. They grew desperate holding MALYIA as the waiting minutes turned into hours. The parents begged the hospital staff to treat their daughter.

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

Continue reading "Parents Of Sacramento's Malyia Jeffers File Malpractice Suit Against Methodist Hospital, Part 7 of 7" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

On November 17, 2007, the plaintiff was discharged from Universal Community Hospital and was ambulating well without any significant problems noted. On that same day, plaintiff was transferred and admitted to Community Care and Rehabilitation Center ( CCRC ). On November 20, 2007, Dr. Hong (no longer a defendant in this matter) briefly evaluated plaintiff and ordered that she continue to mobilize with her left leg until re-evaluated. Plaintiff was discharged from CCRC on November 26, 2007.

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

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall on December 1, 2007 for a two-week follow-up visit. He noted plaintiff had problems with flexion and instability. Plaintiff could not perform a seated leg raise ("SLR") and the medial side of her knee showed some "bogginess." Dr. Hall stated that the wound felt boggy and soft on palpation. Dr. Hall decided to place plaintiff in a cylinder cast in extension because of her inability to perform an SLR.

Continue reading "San Francisco Surgeon Botches Knee Surgery, Commits Malpractice, Part 2 of 8" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Shock and Emotional Distress)

RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG allege against defendants as follows:

Plaintiffs, RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG, hereby reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

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

RYAN JEFFERS is the biological father of MALYIA JEFFERS. LEAH YANG is the biological mother of MALYIA JEFFERS. As a result, both were foreseeable victims of severe emotional distress in the event of any serious injury to MALYIA and any delay or refusal to treat her. Both RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were physically present at all times mentioned herein with their daughter, MALYIA. RYAN JEFFERS and LEAH YANG were present in the waiting room, emergency room and various treatment, recovery and hospital rooms with MALYIA JEFFERS at METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO. (See Part 7 of 7.)

Continue reading "Methodist Hospital's Refusal To Treat Malyia Jeffers Was Malpractice, Part 6 of 7" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

While in the waiting room MALYIA grew sicker and weaker. The parents of MALYIA repeatedly asked and begged defendants to treat their daughter. Defendants chose not to do so and instructed them to continue waiting. Approximately five hours after arriving at the hospital MALYIA was seen for the first time by a physician after her father and mother pushed past defendants’ employees and demanded to see a doctor.

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

At all times and places mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, carelessly and negligently instructed, examined, diagnosed, prescribed for, cared for, and treated plaintiff,
MALYIA JEFFERS, including but not limited to, choosing to delay necessary medical treatment and negligently performing hospital, medical, nursing, laboratory, and radiological care and services in a delayed, careless, and negligent manner, all below the standard of care, all of which directly and legally resulted in the damages to MALYIA JEFFERS.

Continue reading "Malyia Jeffers Forced To Wait At Methodist Hospital Resulting In Amputations, Part 5 of 7" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

(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.)

Trial Brief of Defendants William Hall, M.D., and Universal Medical Clinic.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Sandy White is represented by the ABC Law Offices in San Francisco.

Defendants William Hall, M.D., and Universal Medical Clinic are represented by the XYZ Law Firm of San Francisco.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Hall is an Orthopedic Surgeon practicing at Universal Medical Clinic in San Francisco. On February 21, 2007, plaintiff underwent a right total knee replacement surgery performed by Dr. Hall at Universal Community Hospital. On February 25, 2007, Dr. Hall discharged plaintiff from Universal Community Hospital after she had been doing well and ambulating with physical therapy. There were no postoperative complications and the outcome was satisfactory as plaintiff was noted to have recovered very well from the right total knee replacement.

On November 5, 2007, plaintiff presented to Dr. Hall at Universal Medical Clinic for a preoperative visit concerning a left total knee replacement. Dr. Hall noted that the left knee possessed a valgus deformity and pain upon flexion. According to Dr. Hall, plaintiff was a candidate for the surgery due to arthritis in all three components of the knee and three years of left 13 knee pain. He discussed the risks, benefits and alternatives with plaintiff.

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

Continue reading "San Francisco Woman Files Medical Malpractice Suit Against Surgeons, Part 1 of 8" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

Plaintiffs herein are (1) MALYIA JEFFERS, a minor, by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, a California Licensed Private Fiduciary, (2) RYAN JEFFERS, the biological father of MALYIA JEFFERS, and (3) LEAH YANG, the biological mother of MALYIA JEFFERS.

Defendant held out CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO as able to properly evaluate and treat emergency medical conditions. Said defendant issued at least one press release representing that its emergency room was newly expanded, improved and able to treat patients faster. In spite of this, defendant chose to negligently staff, operate and supervise the emergency room and negligently selected, employed, supervised and monitored the emergency room staff.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Hospital Sued For Malpractice For Malyia Jeffers' Amputations, Part 4 of 7" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

Defendant, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., was and is a corporation doing business in the County of Sacramento and State of California employing and placing for compensation medical personnel in various Emergency Departments, including the Emergency Department of CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, INC., dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF CALIFONRIA. On said time and place EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO employed and placed GREGRORY R. ROSELLINI, JEFF FITE and SURJIT NIJJAR and DOES 16 through 26 in the Emergency Department of METHODIST HOSPITAL and held these employees out as competent and trained in the protocols, policies, procedures, treatment plans and guidelines of that Emergency Department. On November 29, 2010, GREGRORY R. ROSELLINI, JEFF FITE and SURJIT NIJJAR and DOES 16-26 were acting within the course and scope of their employment when they had contact with and treated or failed to treat plaintiff, MALYIA JEFFERS.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento's Methodist Hospital Sued For Unnecessary Amputations, Part 3 of 7" »

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.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that at the times and places mentioned herein, defendants were the agents, servants, and employees of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and each of them were at all times and places mentioned herein acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service and employment.

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

At said time and place, defendants, CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, were and now are corporations, partnerships, associations, or other entities organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and were at all times and places mentioned herein engaged in the ownership, operation, and maintenance of hospitals, emergency rooms, medical clinics and other medical facilities open to the general public and paying patients in and about the County of Sacramento, in the State of California or the employment and placing of medical personnel at various hospitals in Sacramento County. (See Part 3 of 7.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Files Medical Malpractice Action On Behalf Of Malyia Jeffers, Part 2 of 7" »

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.

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

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MALYIA JEFFERS by her Guardian Ad Litem, THERESE ADAMS, CLPF, RYAN JEFFERS AND LEAH YANG, allege against CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST dba METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO, CYNTHIA R. MYAS, CHRISTOPHER SCHAAL, JEFF FITE, SURJIT NIJJAR, GREGORY R. ROSELLINI, EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Medical Malpractice – Against All Defendants)

This complaint is properly filed in Sacramento County because the events and injuries described herein occurred in said county and the defendants’ principle place of business is in said county.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
defendants, DOES 1 through 100, are unknown to plaintiffs who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave to amend this complaint when the true names and
capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege on such information and belief, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, either as physicians, surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, other medical practitioners, pharmacists, hospitals or hospital attendants, ambulance companies or attendants, or manufacturers, suppliers, sellers, or distributors or otherwise, and said defendants negligently acted or failed to act in one or more of said occupations or businesses, which negligence proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged.

Continue reading "Malyia Jeffers Suffers Amputations Due To ER Malpractice, Part 1 of 7" »

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.

Malyia Jeffers, 2, is back in Sacramento this week and getting physical therapy at UC Davis Medical Center a few months after an infection led to the amputation of her hand and both her legs.

"She's very active now and playing, going to the gym and she's having fun," Malyia's father Ryan Jeffers said.

Her parents first brought her to Methodist Hospital of Sacramento in November. Ryan Jeffers says his daughter's temperature continued to rise as they waited in the ER and her cheeks began to bruise out of nowhere. After waiting for hours, Jeffers says he got a doctor to see his daughter. Little Malyia would eventually be transferred to Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. Jeffers wonders if the time they spent waiting at Methodist Hospital, cost his daughter's limbs.

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

Continue reading "Malyia Jeffers Returns To Sacramento After Medical Malpractice Ordeal And Amputations" »

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

Parents of 2-year-old Malyia Jeffers are suing Sacramento's Methodist Hospital after alleged ER negligence resulted in the amputation of their daughter's hands and feet.

"At this point she couldn't walk," the girl's father, Ryan Jeffers, told KXTV. "I was carrying her around for another hour-and-a-half. They tell us we're next, so we're figuring we're next. Still, hours went by so I really told them that ... you have to see her now. Her fever's gone up, hasn't gone down from the Motrin or Tylenol."

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

Once seen by medical staff, Malyia's condition required that she be flown to Stanford University Hospital, where she was diagnosed with septic shock. The shock resulted in the loss of her feet, her left hand and part of her right hand.

In rare, more aggressive types of strep, the streptococcus bacteria that causes the illness can move from the throat to the bloodstream and the resulting sepsis can lead to the loss of extremities, says Dr. Ari Brown, a pediatrician in Austin, Texas, and co-author of "Baby 411."

Continue reading "Toddler Malyia Jeffers Now In Bay Area Hospital After Catastrophic ER Malpractice" »

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.

Ryan Jeffers and Leah Vang saw life seeping out of their toddler's body during five hours of waiting in Methodist Hospital's emergency room and begged for help, alleges a lawsuit filed Monday.

"Medical care came too late," the suit says. The girl lost parts of her four limbs from a bacterial infection.

The Sacramento Bee reported that the lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court charges Catholic Healthcare West, Methodist Hospital in south Sacramento, and various emergency room workers with medical malpractice and negligence in delaying treatment for Malyia, who later was flown to Stanford University's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital for lifesaving care. Streptococcus A had invaded her blood and organs; as a result she suffered amputations of both feet, her left hand and part of her right hand. She is in intensive rehabilitation therapy.

"There is nothing we can do to bring back Malyia's amputated hands and feet," said the family's lawyer, Moseley Collins, III. "However, we hope that her lawsuit will convince emergency rooms in Sacramento to do a better job treating our seriously ill children and make health care in our city safer for all of us."

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Toddler, Malyia Jeffers, Suffers Amputations Due To Medical Malpractice At Methodist Hospital" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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 COURT'S POWER

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c gives this court the power to grant this motion upon showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.

The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107. It is pointless to declare in the abstract that summary judgment is a disfavored remedy. Reader's Digest Association v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252. On summary judgment, the moving party's burden is more properly one of persuasion rather than of proof, since he must persuade the court there is no material fact for a reasonable trier of fact to find, and not prove any such fact to the satisfaction of the court itself as if it were sitting as the trier of fact. Molko, supra at 372-374.

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

California's highest court clarified the law that courts must apply in ruling on motions for summary judgment, bringing this state's law closer to its federal counterpart in order to liberalize the granting of such motions. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855, 859 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court made clear that a defendant moving for summary judgment is no longer required to conclusively negate an element of the plaintiffs cause of action. Id. at p. 864. All the defendant need do is to show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action. Id. The defendant has shown that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence. Id. at p. 865.

Continue reading "San Jose Woman Must Battle Her Surgeon In Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 8 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

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

PLAINTIFF CANNOT CAUSALLY RELATE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT TO ANY
PURPORTED DAMAGES OR INJURIES

A medical malpractice plaintiff must show that defendant caused his/her injury. Causation provides the essential link between the negligent act and the damage suffered by the party seeking recovery. The Court of Appeal has held that "a plaintiff, in order to establish liability, must prove more than abstract negligence unconnected to the injury." Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers (1955) 168 Cal.App.3d 912, 916. It is plaintiff's burden to plead and prove the element of causation to support his claim for damages. In Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, the Court observed:

"The law is well settled in a personal injury action, causation must be proved within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case." (Citations omitted.) That there is a distinction between a reasonable "probability" and a "possibility" needs little discussion. There can be many possible "causes," indeed, an indefinite number of circumstances which can produce injury or disease.

Continue reading "San Jose Doctors Defend Malpractice Suit By Claiming Plaintiff Had Prior Injuries, Part 7 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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'S CONTENTIONS

The care and treatment provided by Dr. Smith at all times complied with the applicable standard of care in the community and there was nothing that Dr. Smith did or failed to do that caused, contributed to, or was a substantial factor in any injury alleged by plaintiff. The surgeries by Dr. Smith, follow up care, recommendations and treatment were appropriate and within the standard of care. Plaintiff had pre-existing complaints including complaints of the left upper extremity due to prior surgeries. Additionally, plaintiff was totally disabled prior to the ATV accident on December 22, 2008.

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

Defendant further contends that plaintiff's tests indicate that there is no objective cause for her symptoms. However, assuming that she does have complex regional pain syndrome, it was not caused, contributed to or aggravated by anything which Dr. Smith did or failed to do. This condition can occur with any type of trauma, including the trauma sustained by plaintiff on December 22, 2008, and it is a condition which occurs in the absence of negligence.

THIS MOVING DEFENDANT, OWEN SMITH, M.D, MET
THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE

Continue reading "San Jose Woman Alleges Surgeon Failed To Meet Malpractice Standard Of Care, Part 6 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Plaintiff subsequently presented to Joe Ross, M.D., at the Center for Rehabilitation Medicine apparently as a referral by attorney Reginald Hill. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Ross that following the surgery with Dr. Smith she had good sensation throughout the fingers with good motion of the fingers. When Dr. Ross saw plaintiff on July 22, 2004, he noted an assessment of complex regional pain syndrome, left wrist and hand; traumatic left median and ulnar neuropathy and fracture, left distal radius with subsequent operative reduction and pinning. It was his opinion that plaintiff sustained a second injury to the left upper extremity on January 14, 2004, by an approximate 4 hour period where the left wrist was in a forced flexed position. He noted that her injury was preventing her from returning to work as a physical therapist.

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

A nerve conduction study which had been done on July 5, 2004, by Dr. Jones showed very mild delay in distal latency seen on left side . Thereafter, on October 14, 2004, Dr. Ross noted an assessment of post traumatic neuropathic pain, hypersensitivity, left wrist, hand and fingers and he again recommended that the patient follow through with a complete electrodiagnostic study of the left upper extremity.

EMG and nerve conduction studies were done on November 16, 2004, by Dr. Miles at Northern Neuro Center. Dr. Miles noted that motor and sensory nerve conduction studies revealed normal distal latencies, amplitudes and conduction velocities for left median and ulnar nerves. There was no significant side to side difference in sensory nerve study that was noted.

Continue reading "San Jose Surgeons Sued for Malpractice After Patient's Beach Mishap, Part 5 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

On March 10, 2004, Dr. Smith noted that plaintiff had 80% of normal range of motion and was to continue with therapy and return after seven (7) weeks. Thereafter, on May 19, 2004, plaintiff complained of tingling along a branch of the radial nerve. She had full pro-supination. X-rays showed that she was healed and there was mild articular irregularity. The radiology report noted there to be diffuse osteopenia and mild deformity of the lateral aspect of the distal radius, likely related to the known fracture. Dr. Smith had an extensive discussion with plaintiff regarding her prognosis and the fact that she could follow up with him as needed. He also discussed the need for aggressive therapy. He noted "patient non-compliant with OT protocol."

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

Plaintiff returned to plastic surgeon, Dr. Lee on March 4, 2004, at which time she complained of left breast pain. At that time she stated that because her systemic symptoms had improved, she had become more active and got herself into shape. She was noted to be teaching water aerobics among other physical activities. She had lost weight and increased her activity and as a result of the weight loss she began noticing rippling and wrinkling of both breasts.

Continue reading "San Jose Doctor Sued For Malpractice After Woman's ATV Accident, Part 4 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Smith on December 29, 2008, approximately seven (7) days following the accident. X-rays showed a fractured distal radius which was displaced. Dr. Smith noted that the patient previously had lots of pain in the left arm related to silicone implants. The plan was to perform surgery to repair the fractured distal radius, left wrist. Thereafter, on December 31, 2008, Dr. Smith performed a closed reduction and percutaneous K-wire fixation of plaintiff's fractured left wrist. It was noted that plaintiff had an intra-articular radial styloid fracture and volar avulsion fracture of the distal radius with moderate displacement. Plaintiff was made aware of risks, benefits and complications and informed consent was obtained. Prophylactic IV antibiotics were given at the time of surgery. A soft bandage and forearm splint was applied. Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well.

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

On January 7, 2004, plaintiff returned to Dr. Smith at which time she was one week postop and a referral was made to The Hand Center for removal of the brace and clamshell splinting, physical therapy and pin care education. TENS treatment for pain was given and a clamshell from Spica was fabricated. Range of motion exercises were taught by the therapist. It was noted that since the breast reconstruction in September 2002, she had had pain, burning and weakness in the left arm and she had been unable to grasp with force.

Continue reading "Wrist Surgery On San Jose Woman Leads To Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 8" »

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" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff fractured her left wrist in an ATV accident on December 22, 2008. She claims that moving defendant, Dr. Smith fell below the standard of care in his care and treatment of plaintiff and that he caused or contributed to her alleged injuries.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff, Anna Brown's prior medical records reflect that she had pre-existing symptoms and complaints of the left upper extremity following a skydiving accident and breast reconstructive surgery. In fact, plaintiff was apparently totally disabled and on disability.

On or about December 22, 2008, plaintiff was involved in an ATV accident at which time she fractured the left distal radius. She was initially treated at Universal Hospital and instructed to follow up with an orthopedic specialist in the Sacramento area. Plaintiff presented to the Orthopedic Institute the following day on December 23, 2008, at which time she was evaluated by Donald Ward, M.D. During that visit, plaintiff related that on December 22, 2008, while at the beach and riding an ATV quad motorcycle, she tried to use the brake but her left hand could not grip due to prior nerve damage and breast reconstruction.

Continue reading "Botched Hand Surgery Leads To San Jose Medical Malpractice Action, Part 2 of 8" »

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, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

(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.)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendant, Owen Smith, M.D.; and Declaration of Ben Lee, M.D.

Defendant, Owen Smith, M.D, will move this Court for an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of defendant, Owen Smith, M.D. and against plaintiff, Anna Brown, in this medical malpractice action.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c and is based upon the grounds that Plaintiff's Complaint has no merit and there is no triable issue as to any material fact warranting trial with respect thereto because this moving defendant met the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries claimed by Plaintiff.

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

Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452, moving defendants request judicial notice of all pleadings and records in the Court file in this action.

Continue reading "San Jose Woman Files Malpractice Lawsuit Against Local Surgeon, Part 1 of 8" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rule of Court 312(g).

California Rule of Court 312(g) provides: each separate cause of action or affirmative defense in a pleading shall specifically identify its number; the party asserting it, if more than one party is represented in the pleading; and the party or parties to whom it is directed. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint violates this rule because the second cause of action, medical malpractice - survival action, does not indicate the identity of the party asserting it because there are two plaintiffs. Although on the caption of the second cause of action it indicates that the action is against Does 6-20, in the body of the cause of action it identifies Dr. Hill, Dr. Goldstein, Dr. Martinez, and Valley Medical Center, as well as Does 6-20, as being negligent in causing harm to decedent. The third cause of action does not identify which plaintiff is asserting the cause of action, nor does it identify which defendant it is being directed against. Therefore, the First Amended Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. Thus, the court should grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

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

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated herein, Dr. Goldstein respectfully requests that the court grant his motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice And Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed By Sacramento Man's Family, Part 9 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Monica Smith, although legally separated from decedent, was still his wife at his death, and is thus a necessary party to this litigation.

California Probate Code §78 states that the term "surviving spouse":

"does not include any of the following: (a) a person whose marriage to the decedent has been dissolved, or annulled, unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage, the person is married to the decedent at the time of death; (b) a person who obtains or consents to a final decree of judgment or of dissolution of marriage from the decedent, or a final decree or judgment of annulment of their marriage, which decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in this state, unless they (1) subsequently participate in a marriage ceremony purporting to marry each to the other, or (2) subsequently live together as husband and wife; (c) a person who, following a decree of judgment of dissolution or annulment of marriage obtained by the person, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third person; or (d) a person who was a party to a valid proceeding concluded by an order purporting to terminate all marital property rights."

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

A legal separation does not bar a wrongful death action by the surviving spouse if the divorce is not final at the time of decedent's death. Luis v. Cavin (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 107.

Continue reading "Deceased Man's Former Wife Must Fight To File Wrongful Death Action Against Sacramento Physician, Part 8 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs' second cause of action fails to state a cause of action because it is brought by one who has no standing to assert it.

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint fails to state facts showing that an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by §377.32 was executed. Plaintiffs also failed to comply with Probate Code section 58, discussed supra. As a result, plaintiffs failed to allege any facts showing that Robyn Lee, as the representative of decedent's estate, has standing to assert the second cause of action for medical malpractice - survival action. Because Robyn Lee cannot assert the second cause of action individually due to lack of standing, and because plaintiffs have failed to state sufficient facts to show that Robyn Lee is decedent's successor-in-interest or the personal representative of decedent's estate, plaintiffs' second cause of action fails to state a cause of action. Therefore, pursuant to C.C.P. §438(B)(ii), the court should grant defendant's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Court Should Grant Defendant's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings As To Plaintiffs' Third Cause Of Action.

C.C.P. §377.60 identifies who may bring a wrongful death cause of action. It provides that a cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons, or by the decedent's personal representative on their behalf: (a) the decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of decedent's children. Each such heir has a personal and separate cause of action for decedent's wrongful death.

Continue reading "Heirs Of Deceased Sacramento Man Challenged In Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Part 7 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs' second cause of action does not allege a capacity to sue, is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, and contains a defect and misjoinder of the parties.

Neither Robyn Lee, as an individual, nor as representative of decedent's estate, has the capacity to sue Dr. Goldstein for medical malpractice - survival. Robyn Lee, as an individual, has no standing to allege medical malpractice against Dr. Goldstein. There are no facts to show that a physician-patient relationship existed at any time between Dr. Goldstein and Robyn Lee, or that any duty of care was owed by Dr. Goldstein to Robyn Lee as an individual, that there was a breach of any such duty, or that the breach of any such duty was the legal cause of any harm to her. Because Robyn Lee, as an individual, cannot assert a survival claim on her own behalf, plaintiffs' second cause of action fails to allege a capacity to sue. Because Robyn Lee is not decedent's successor-in-interest or the legal personal representative of decedent's estate, the second cause of action fails to allege a capacity to sue on behalf of the estate. Defendant's motion should be granted on this basis.

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

The fact that both Robyn Lee, as an individual, and as the erroneous representative to decedent's estate, assert this cause of action, the second cause of action is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. It is unclear whether both plaintiffs assert this second cause of action, or just one of them. Defendant's Motion should be granted on this basis. (15)

Continue reading "Elderly Sacramento Man's Family Sues Hospital For Wrongful Death, Part 6 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Robyn Lee is not the successor-in-interest or legal personal representative of decedent's estate: cont.

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint does not allege that Robyn Lee complied with C.C.P. §377.32. No required declaration was attached as an exhibit. There is no allegation that decedent died with or without a will, or that Robyn Lee is the sole beneficiary under decedent's will or the sole person who succeeds to his cause of action. There is no allegation that there are no other beneficiaries to decedent's will or no other persons who succeed to decedent's cause of action. Therefore, Robyn Lee is not the legal successor-in-interest of decedent's estate who is allowed to assert the survival action. She thus does not have any standing or legal capacity to assert the survival action on behalf of decedent's estate. Moreover, the First Amended Complaint does not even allege that the survival action is being brought by Robyn Lee as decedent's successor-in-interest, but rather it alleges that it is brought by her as the representative of the estate of decedent.

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

California Probate Code §58 (a) defines personal representative as the executor, administrator, administrator with the will annexed, special administrator, successor, personal representative, public administrator acting pursuant to §7660, or a person who performs substantially the same function under the law of another jurisdiction governing the person's status.

Continue reading "Doctor Fights Deceased Sacramento Man's Family In Malpractice Suit, Part 5 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Robyn Lee is not the successor-in-interest or legal personal representative of decedent's estate: cont.

C.C.P. §377.32 requires an affidavit or declaration by decedent's successor-in-interest in order to commence or continue decedent's cause of action. It provides:

the person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding as the decedent's successor-in-interest, shall execute and file an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: (1) The decedent's name; (2) The date and place of decedent's death; (3) No proceeding is now pending in California for administrative of the decedent's estate; (4) If the decedent's estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent's cause of action to the successor-in-interest; (5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof: (A) The affiant or declarant is the decedent's successor-in-interest, and succeeds to the decedent's interest in the action or proceeding; or (B) The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent's successor-in-interest with respect to decedent's interest in the action or proceeding;

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Man's Family Sues Doctor For Malpractice, Part 4 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Facts

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is brought by Robyn Lee, individually, and as the representative of the Estate of James Smith. (See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.) According to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Robyn Lee is the daughter of James Smith and the representative of his estate. Plaintiffs also allege that on February 17, 2008, decedent, an elderly man who walked with the aid of a walker, allegedly tripped and fell striking his forehead and suffering injuries. Plaintiffs allege that decedent died on June 23, 2009. Plaintiffs allege two causes of action against Dr. Goldstein: medical malpractice - survival and wrongful death. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The Court Should Grant Defendant's Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings As To Plaintiffs' Second Cause Of Action For Medical Malpractice - Survival.

Robyn Lee is not the successor-in-interest or legal personal representative of decedent's estate.

C.C.P. §377.20 provides that a cause of action for a person is not lost by reason of the person's death, but survives. C.C.P. §377.11 states that decedent's successor-in-interest means the beneficiary of the decedent's estate, or other successor-in-interest who succeeds to a cause of action. C.C.P. §377.10 defines the term Beneficiary of Decedent's Estate. It states that beneficiary of the decedent's estate means: (a) If the decedent died leaving a will, the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action...under the decedent's will; (b) If the decedent died without a will, the sole person or all of the persons who succeed to a cause of action....

Continue reading "Man Subject To Medical Malpractice After Slip And Fall At Sacramento Store, Part 3 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS TIMELY AND PROPER

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time, even after the time for demur or answer to the complaint. Ion Equipment Company v. Nelson (1981) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 168. A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the ground that the opposing pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Colberg v. California (1971) 67 Cal.2d 408, 412. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demur, but is made after the time for the demur has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demur apply. Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2005) §7:275; Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co. of America (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198. The motion for judgment of the pleadings can assert statutory grounds, such as C.C.P. §438(B)(ii) and/or non-statutory grounds. Unless the court orders otherwise the statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings cannot be made after the entry of a pretrial conference order, or 30 days before the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later. (C.C.P. §438(e); Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2005) §7.280.

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Sues For Wrongful Death Of Man Under Doctor's Care, Part 2 of 9" »

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, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant, Robert Goldstein, D.O.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant, Robert Goldstein, D.O. (hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Goldstein”), by and through his attorneys, ABC & Associates, and as and for his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

On August 2, 2009, plaintiffs, Robyn Lee, individually and as the representative of the estate of James Smith, deceased (hereinafter referred to collectively as, "Plaintiffs"), filed their First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case. They assert two causes of action against Dr. Goldstein; the second cause of action for medical malpractice - survival action, and the third cause of action for wrongful death. Plaintiffs' first cause of action for premises liability - survival action is not directed at Dr. Goldstein.

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

Continue reading "Sacramento Chiropractor Sued for Malpractice, Part 1 of 9" »

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" »

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.)

Although, out of context, the terms full-body physical therapy and the absence of special precautions do exist in the cited passage, it is clear from the outset that Dr. Lee did not want any therapy done on the neck. As he said, above Very important now. I say again, therapy is not for neck. The contrary claim by Plaintiffs is simply an attempt to falsely re-characterize very clear testimony. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

It should also be noted that Plaintiffs' only standard of care expert, Dr. Goldstein, testified specifically as to the nature of physical therapy that he would criticize at one point in his trial testimony, and that was as follows (Reporter's transcript, page 160, line 28 to page 161, line 5):

Q. [by Mr. Howard] All right. And did you find that Dr. Lee had done any of these things?
A. No. And actually ordering physical therapy probably wasn't a good idea. Generally speaking, if someone has a possibility of a broken neck, I would not order physical therapy of the neck.

Continue reading "Doctor's Negligence Leads To Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Patient, Part 4 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.

Continue reading "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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

BOTH OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS SHOULD BE DENIED AT THE OUTSET BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ENTIRELY FAILED TO FILE THEIR SUPPORTING MEMORANDA OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMITS

As mentioned in Defendant's prior filing, California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 629, requires that the entire Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (hereinafter, JNOV ) be filed at the same time as the Notice of Intent to Move for a New Trial. Other than the brief reference to a JNOV in the Notice, as cited above, no supporting documentation was presented for such a motion. Based upon that failure alone, the Motion for JNOV should be denied.

Now, Plaintiffs have similarly failed to comply with applicable time limits in which to file supporting documents for their Motion for New Trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Man Follows Trip And Fall, Part 2 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.)

Defendant John Lee, M.D.'s Opposition to Motion for New Trial (Supplemental); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

SUPPLEMENTAL INTRODUCTION

Counsel for Plaintiffs served his Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial, which included reference to “The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,” but which included no Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and no citations whatsoever to any testimony from the trial.

Because of the rapidly approaching March date for hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for JNOV and new trial, counsel for Defendant filed an opposition to both motions, based on information available at that time and arguments by Plaintiffs suggested in the Notice of Motion. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Seeks New Trial In Wrongful Death Case, Part 1 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, U.C. 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 brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Mr. Lee alleges that he saw thick meconium, decreased fetal heart rate, and his son born lifeless. As a layperson, he could not have known at the time that the injury was caused by the medical treatment being rendered. For a layperson, seeing thick meconium, decreased fetal heart rate, and a child born "lifeless" does not amount to the layperson's contemporaneous awareness of the cause of the injury. The key element missing in this case as set forth by the Court in the Thing case is that the plaintiff "is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim." Mr. Lee was present and he witnessed some events, but he has alleged no facts by which he could have been aware at the time that any conduct on the part of the defendants was causing injury to the child.

Mr. Lee witnessed various symptoms, and he may have even witnessed the injury-producing event, but he did not know, at least based on what is alleged, that he knew at the time that what he was witnessing was conduct on the part of Dr. White that was causing injury to his son. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The issue ultimately comes down to whether the father could have known that the child was being injured by conduct on the part of Dr. White, and not merely suspected that the child was being injured. Like Mr. Lee, both fathers in the Justus case suspected that their children were being injured during the delivery, but they did not know that they were being injured.

Continue reading "Sacramento Newborn Suffers Brain Injury Due To Doctors' Malpractice, Part 7 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 brain injury case and its proceedings.)

The complaint alleges that the father witnessed "thick meconium" during the labor and that he knew the meconium was impeding his son's breathing ... (Paragraph 44.) However, the complaint is silent as to how the father knew the significance or the effect of meconium at the time. It is not alleged that the father is a health care provider or has any background by which he would know that witnessing thick meconium would cause a lack of oxygen to the child's brain. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The plaintiff alleges that he witnesses his son's heart rate decrease. (Paragraph 45.) However, as noted above, the father in the Justus case witnessed "the diminution of the fetal heart tones," but even that did not give rise to the NIED cause of action. Id. at 584.

The plaintiff also alleges that he witnessed his son to be "lifeless and in severe distress" (paragraph 45), but that is no different that the father in Justus who aw the manipulation of the fetus with forceps and by hand, and the emergency procedures performed on his wife in connection with the attempted Cesarian section. Id. at 584.

Continue reading "Sacramento Child Suffers Brain Injury Due To Physicians' Medical Negligence, Part 6 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

In Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564, the California Supreme Court made it clear that a layperson's witnessing events during delivery does not give rise to a cause of action for NIED, because a layperson is not aware of the significance of the events. Justus involved two factually similar actions for medical malpractice and wrongful death, each predicated on alleged negligence occurring during delivery. The fathers in both actions sought to recover for NIED for what they witnessed during the delivery, but the Supreme Court held that they did not have a cause of action. The Court succinctly summarized the facts of the two cases, which are remarkably similar to the facts in the instant action:

Each plaintiff-husband asserts he was present in the delivery room and in close proximity to his wife, and observed the defendants ministering to the latter. In Justus, plaintiff then alleges he saw the manipulation of the fetus with forceps and by hand, and the emergency procedures performed on his wife in connection with the attempted Cesarian section. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Parents Witness Botched Delivery Of Child In Sacramento Hospital Then Sue For Malpractice, Part 5 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

The Court in Bird cited approvingly (at 921) the case of Golstein v. Superior Court (1990) 223 Cal. App.3d 1145, in which the plaintiffs were the surviving parents of a nine-year-old boy who died as the result of the negligent administration of an overdose of radiation while undergoing treatment for curable cancer.

Although they were present and witnessed the results of the negligent over-radiation, and although they observed the deteriorating and worsening condition of their son on a daily basis as well as his pain and suffering up to the time of death, the court of appeal held that the plaintiffs could not recover on a bystander theory because the plaintiffs did not experience a contemporaneous sensory awareness of the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury. Id. at 1427. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Parents File Action Against Sacramento Hospital For Emotional Distress Due To Child's Birth Injury, Part 4 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

In Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 920, the California Supreme Court indicated that in order to maintain a cause of action for NIED on a bystander theory, one must not only witness the injury, but also have contemporaneous awareness of the cause of the injury. In Bird, the plaintiffs were the adult daughters of the decedent. Following a surgical procedure to the decedent, one of the daughters saw the decedent being rushed down the hallway, and she was "bright blue." She witnessed hospital personnel running down the hallway to render treatment to the decedent. One physician told her "I think they nicked an artery or a vein, and it looks like all the blood went into her chest." Id. at 913. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The California Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of action, stating that the plaintiffs have not shown they were aware of the transection of Nita's artery at the time it occurred. Nor have they shown they were contemporaneously aware of any error in the subsequent diagnosis and treatment of that injury in the moments they saw their mother rolled through the hall by medical personnel. Id. at 921-922. In the medical malpractice context, bystanders cannot sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on unperceived medical errors hidden within a course of treatment.

Continue reading "Catastrophic Birth Injury Caused By Medical Negligence Of Sacramento Physicians, Part 3 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED)

This is an action for injury to the minor plaintiff occurring during his delivery and birth. The defendant is not demurring to the first three causes of action for medical negligence brought by the minor plaintiff and his mother. The defendant is not demurring to the fifth cause of action for loss of consortium brought by the father.

However, the fourth cause of action for NIED on a bystander theory by the child's father, Thomas Lee, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it does not set forth facts demonstrating that the father had contemporaneous awareness of the injury at the time it occurred and knew the negligent cause of that injury at that time. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Doctors Sued For Malpractice During Sacramento Baby's Delivery, Part 2 of 7" »

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, U.C. 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 birth injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendants’ Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

Please take notice and notice is hereby given that defendant, Darren White, M.D., will and hereby does demur to the plaintiffs' complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e), on the following grounds:

The fourth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress by plaintiff Thomas Lee fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

This demurrer is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the documents, records and pleadings on file herein, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be admitted at the hearing of this demurrer. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Parents Sue Sacramento Hospital For Medical Malpractice On Child, Part 1 of 7" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

THE CARE RENDERED BY DEFENDANT IN NO WAY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES COMPLAINED OF BY PLAINTIFF

In addition to proving that the defendant fell below the standard of care, to prevail in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's malpractice caused injury to the plaintiff. Bolen v. Woo (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 944, 953. The standard for establishing causation in a medical malpractice action was set forth in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396. In Jones, the court held that causation must be proven by reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. The court noted that a mere possibility is insufficient to establish a prima facie case and distinguished a reasonable medical probability from a medical possibility:

There can be many possible causes, indeed an indefinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or death. A possible cause only becomes probable when in the absence of other reasonable causal connections, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action.” Id. at 402-403. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges that defendants committed professional malpractice in that they performed procedures "in a negligent manner and below the standard of care," and that despite plaintiff's history of diabetes and gradually worsening condition of his cut, defendants, including Richard Brown, M.D., "conservatively treated and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat [plaintiff's] medical condition," resulting in severe and painful gangrene to his right foot.

Continue reading "San Francisco Doctor's Malpractice Results In Foot Amputation, 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.

(Please 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.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence action could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

Plaintiff Must Join All Persons Necessary for Just Adjudication

A complaint shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons who, by their absence, may leave the defendant subject to risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. If such persons are not joined as parties, the pleader must state in the complaint why they are not joined. C.C.P. §389(a) & (c).

If any person is allied in interest with plaintiff, but refuses to join as a co-plaintiff, he or she may be sued as a defendant. In such cases, the complaint must state the reasons why such person was so joined. C.C.P. §382. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff alleges that he is the "surviving heirs (sic) at law" of decedent. It is unclear whether there are other persons with standing to bring suit in this wrongful death action.

Continue reading "Negligent San Jose Hospital Fights Family's Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Part 6 of 6" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

In this case, the attached declaration of Darla King, M.D. provides competent expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care. Dr. King is a very qualified, Board Certified vascular surgeon. The expert testimony of Dr. King should be taken as conclusive as to the issues in this lawsuit. Importantly, an expert's own declaration is sufficient to show the absence of triable issues for purposes of summary judgment, and the motion shall not be denied on the grounds of credibility if the party is otherwise entitled to summary judgment. Learner v. Superior Court (1970) 70 Cal.App.3d 656, 660, 130 Cal.Rptr. 51, 54. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Here, the only material issues raised are whether or not Dr. Brown fell below the standard of care and, if so, whether this resulted in injury. However, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Dr. Brown's care and treatment of plaintiff, including his recommendation of a right below-the-knee amputation, was proper and correct and, therefore, at no time did Dr. Brown fall below the standard of care in the community where he practices, nor did he cause or contribute to plaintiff's injuries. In fact, as the declaration of Dr. King illustrates, Dr. Brown's care and treatment of plaintiff was both correct and within the standard of care required of a reasonable vascular surgeon practicing in the professional community.

Continue reading "San Francisco Man Fights Hospital After Negligent Foot Amputation, 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.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, Regional Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, or O’Connor Hospital.

Plaintiff's Complaint is Uncertain Because There Are No Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices

Business & Professions Code §17200 (aka Unfair Competition Law or UCL ) prohibits unfair competition, which includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. An unfair business act occurs if it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. To plead Business & Professions Code §17200, plaintiff must state with reasonable particularity facts to support the statutory elements of the violation. Khoury v. Malv's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612.

Here, plaintiff's complaint, at page 5, sets forth a claim titled Unfair Business Practices and alleges that plaintiff's allegations as set forth before and general allegations below constitute the facts in support of this claim. For more information you are welcome to contact San Jose personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "San Jose Healthcare Facility's Negligence Results In Patient's Wrongful Death, Part 5 of 6" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE LIABILITY IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION

In a medical malpractice action, the requisite standard of care is determined by the applicable standard of care then existing in the particular professional community. Barton v. Owens (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 139 Cal.Rptr. 494. In Linderos v. Flood (1976) 170 Cal.3d 399, 551 P.2d 389, 131 Cal.Rptr. 69, the Supreme Court determined that the standard of care against which the acts of physicians are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts and can only be proven by their testimony. The rationale for requiring expert testimony in medical malpractice actions was succinctly stated by the court in Barton:

In most instances there is a need for expert testimony on the subject of just what constitutes medical negligence, because the average judge or juror does not possess the necessary level of knowledge about medical malpractice to decide on its own whether the doctor was negligent.
Barton at 494, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 499. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Patient Files Lawsuit Against San Francisco Doctors For Medical Negligence, 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.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical negligence case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN NO TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACTS EXIST

It is well-established that a motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the moving party demonstrates 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. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c). In making this determination, the court may rely on affidavits, declarations ... and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b). For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The summary judgment statute was revised as of January 1, 1993, and now specifies that a party bringing a motion for summary judgment need only establish a defense or only negate a necessary element of the challenged cause of action to justify entry of summary judgment. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(n); cf. Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1050.

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Patient Suffers Negligent Below-The-Knee Amputation, Part 5 of 8" »

(Please 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.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

There are additional problems with a reduction for saved necessities in lost years damages. First, the failure to award plaintiff his full compensation for his lost years damages flies right in the face of the rationale laid out in Hurlbut, which is to provide the injured person with the use of a specific pool of funds during his lifetime. Second, as Professor Fleming's article also identifies, there is a clear distinction that is made in the recoverable damages in a personal injury action and in a wrongful death action. The distinction between recoveries in personal death actions and wrongful death actions cannot be clearer than the situation here - and as noted above in Overly. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, plaintiffs are bringing a personal injury action against defendants. On the basis of this being a personal injury action, defendants can request periodic payments pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 667.7. What is more, as was shown earlier, section 667.7 only has application and relevance in personal injury actions.

Therefore, it is completely illogical to apply concepts and rules that only have application in the context of wrongful death cases, in order to place a limitation upon "lost years" damages, when the law makes a clear distinction between personal injury and wrongful death actions and where periodic payments can only be utilized in such personal injury actions.