Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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.)

IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION A PARTY PRESENTING UNCONTRADICTED EXPERT TESTIMONY MUST PREVAIL

California Courts have held that where a defendant's expert testimony is uncontradicted, there is no triable issue of fact for the jury to consider and the defendant must prevail as a matter of law. Willard v. Haggemeister (1981) 121 Cal. App. 3d 406. The Court in Willard at page 412 described the preemptive weight of expert testimony in a malpractice action:

"Expert evidence in a malpractice suit is conclusive as to the proof of the prevailing standard of skill and learning in the locality and of the propriety of particular conduct by the practitioner in particular instances because such standard and skill is not a matter of general knowledge and can only be supplied by expert testimony."
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the case of Tresemer v. Barke (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 656 at page 668 the Court of Appeal amplified this point and held:

“It is settled that an opponent's failure to file counter-affidavits admits the truth of the movant's affidavit ... The purpose of the summary procedure is to penetrate through evasive language and adept pleading and ascertain the existence or absence of triable issues .... "

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital And Physicians Sued For Malpractice, Part 5 of 5 " »

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.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE ACTION IS WITHOUT MERIT AND PRESENTS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF ANY MATERIAL FACT

Allowing the Court to look beyond the Complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs have any evidence to support their claim, the California Code of Civil Procedure §437c(a) provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit ... the motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

It is well-established that a motion for summary judgment will be granted if the moving papers establish there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hanooka v. Pivko (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1558. A defendant seeking summary judgment has met the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. California Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2). Once the defendant's burden is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action. Rowe v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1711, 1724.

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Files Wrongful Death Suit Based On Medical Malpratice, Part 4 of 5 " »

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.)

James Smith remained in the Medical Center from February 19 through February 24, 2008. At that time Dr. Martinez ordered that he be discharged to a nursing home (Valley Healthcare Center - not a party) for rehabilitation. At the Valley Healthcare Center, James Smith was evaluated by neurologist (Dr. Greene - not a party). He noted in his consultation report that James Smith was complaining of dull aching pain, deep in the frontal sinus area but no other neurological symptoms. Dr. Greene specifically noted that he was mentally alert and oriented with no definite focal motor weakness. He ordered an MRI of the brain. James Smith was discharged from the Valley Healthcare Center on April 1, 2008.

Mr. Smith was eventually admitted to the Medical Center in May 2009. On or about May 19, 2009 he underwent surgery on his cervical spine. The surgery had to be terminated due to pulmonary/cardiac issues. He was returned to surgery on or about May 26, 2009 and underwent cervical spine surgery. Mr. Smith was discharged from the Medical Center to a skilled nursing facility on or about June 4, 2009. He remained at that skilled nursing, with a few temporary transfers to hospitals for inpatient care, until his death on June 23, 2009.

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

Continue reading " Doctor's Malpractice Results In Death Of Elderly Sacramento Man, Part 3 of 5 " »

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

INTRODUCTION

This is a wrongful death action filed by the adult children of James Smith. This Motion for Summary Judgment is brought on behalf of defendant Peter Hill, M.D. Dr. Hill is an emergency physician who was involved in the care and treatment of James Smith when he presented to the emergency department of the Valley Medical Center on February 19, 2008.

Factually, on or about February 17, 2008, James Smith (age 85) suffered a fall at the premises of the co-defendant National Sporting Goods. On February 19, 2008, he was transported by ambulance to the emergency department of the Valley Medical Center with complaints of neck pain and severe headache. By history, he reported striking the front portion of his head during the fall of February 17.

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

Moving defendant Peter Hill, M.D. was the emergency physician on duty in the emergency department of the Valley Medical Center on February 19, 2008. He evaluated James Smith and ordered diagnostic studies, including a CT scan of the head, a CT scan of the cervical spine (neck), and flat plate x-rays of the neck (all interpreted by co-defendant radiologist Dr. Goldstein).

Continue reading " Sacramento Man's Wrongful Death Due To Malpractice, Part 2 of 5 " »

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.)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Peter Hill, M.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Clive Brown, M.D.

Defendant Peter Hill, M.D., will move this Court for an Order granting summary judgment against plaintiffs Robyn Lee, Individually and as the representative of the estate of James Smith, deceased, Andrea Lane, and Samantha Black (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and dismissing all causes of action of the First Amended Complaint on file herein insofar as they relate to defendant Peter Hill, M.D.

This Motion will be brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §437c, on the grounds that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint has no merit and fails to present any triable issue of material fact insofar as defendant Peter Hill, M.D. is concerned because the care and treatment he provided to the plaintiffs' decedent was at all times appropriate and within the standard of care. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

This Motion will be based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Clive Brown, M.D. served and filed herewith, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts served and filed concurrently herewith, and the pleadings, records, and files in this action. (See Part 2 of 5.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Slip And Fall Leads To Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 1 of 5 " »