Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death action and its proceedings.)

Steven White, M.D.

Defendants anticipate that plaintiffs will attempt to introduce similar testimony from Dr. Steven White, who is an internist/infectious diseases physician, not an emergency physician. At deposition, Dr. White opined that Dr. Gold did not evaluate the patient quickly enough upon his arrival at Universal and that this delay was below the standard of care. However, Dr. White admitted that he has never worked as an emergency medicine physician at any facility during his career. (Deposition of Dr. White) Thus, Dr. White's opinion testimony relative to the standard of care for an emergency room physician should be excluded at trial pursuant to Section 1799.110.

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

EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 ALLOWS THE COURT TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS FROM INTRODUCING THIS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

Evidence Code Section 352 provides that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will ... create substantial danger of undue prejudice ... or of misleading the jury. Here, it cannot be disputed that any reference to the phantom prior incidents will unduly prejudice the defendants.

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital's ER Doctors Commit Medical Malpractice, 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 wrongful death action and its proceedings.)

It is clear that all of Dr. Li's criticism against the hospital flow from his criticism of Dr. Gold's initial evaluation of the patient. But for Dr. Gold's failure to promptly contact an on-call general surgeon, there would have been no delay in properly treating the patient. According to Dr. Li, had Dr. Gold made that call, a general surgeon presumably would have been able to timely evaluate the patient and perform the debridement surgery. The performance of the debridement surgery at Universal would have negated the necessity of a transfer and ambulance transport to San Diego, of which Dr. Li was also critical. (Deposition of Dr. Li) Unfortunately, none of this testimony will be admissible at trial, per Section 1799.110.

In Miranda, appellant/plaintiff retained an orthopedic surgeon who had been on-call in hospital emergency departments to testify relative to emergency room physicians standard of care issues. At deposition, the physician admitted that he was not an emergency room physician. Miranda, supra, at 907. Rather, he was an orthopedic specialist who was on-call to the emergency room to consult on and treat orthopedic injuries. Id. The trial court granted a defense in limine motion to preclude the orthopedist from testifying at trial on emergency physician standard of care issues, per Section 1799.110. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's decision, indicating that it "lacked the discretion" to allow the doctor to testify on those issues at trial. Id.

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

Continue reading " Malpractice By Sacramento ER Physicians Results In Wronful Death, 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 wrongful death action and its proceedings.)

Experts who do not have substantial professional experience in the emergency department within the last five years cannot testify as to the standard of emergency care, regardless of his or her expertise. Sigala v. Goldfarb (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1450, 1455-56 [266 Cal.Rtpr. 96].
Section 1799.110 applies to any suit involving a claim of negligent emergency room treatment by a hospital emergency room physician whether or not a physician is named as a defendant. Jutzi v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 637,646-47 [242 Cal.Rptr. 74].
Whether a proposed expert witness satisfies the requirements of Section1799.1 10 is an appropriate subject of a motion in limine. Miranda, supra, at 899, fn. 4.

Donald Li, M.D.

Defendants anticipate that plaintiffs will seek to admit the testimony of Dr. Donald Li, their retained general surgery expert, for the purposes of establishing that the treatment and care provided by Universal's emergency room physician, Dr. Andrew Gold, was below the standard of care. At deposition, Dr. Li testified that Dr. Gold's alleged failure to immediately contact an on-call general surgeon upon the patient's presentation to the emergency department was below the standard of care. (Deposition of Donald Li, M.D.)

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

Continue reading " Delay In Treatment by Sacramento Hospital Leads To Wrongful Death, 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 wrongful death action and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

MEDICAL OPINION TESTIMONY OFFERED FROM ANYONE OTHER THAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPERIENCE IS INADMISSIBLE

In any action for damages involving a claim for negligence against a physician and surgeon providing emergency medical coverage for a general acute care hospital emergency department, the court shall admit expert medical testimony only from physicians and surgeons who have had substantial professional experience within the last five years while assigned to provide emergency medical coverage in a general acute hospital emergency department. Health & Safety Code Section 1799.110(c).

The term "emergency medical coverage" means treatment given by those physicians who serve as dedicated medical staff of a hospital's emergency room, or by physicians who have been specially employed or otherwise engaged by a hospital to furnish medical treatment in an emergency room as emergency room physicians. Miranda v. National Emergency Services, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 894, 903-04 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 593].

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

Continue reading " Man Dies In Sacramento Hospital Due To Medical 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 wrongful death action and its proceedings.)

Defendant University Hospital hereby moves this court in limine for an order that plaintiffs be precluded from introducing any medical opinion testimony or evidence relative to the treatment and care provided by emergency department physicians to decedent David Hall, Jr., at the Universal facility during his admission to that facility on August 11 and 12, 2008.

This motion is made on the grounds that such testimony is inadmissible per Health & Safety Code Section 1799.1 10. Moreover, these inadmissible opinion statements are highly prejudicial and should be excluded under.

This motion is based on the complete flies and records in this action, the memorandum of points and authorities accompanying this motion, the attached declarations, the exhibits attached hereto, and any oral and other documentary evidence allowed at the time of the hearing of this motion. (See Part 2 of 5.)

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Files Wrongful Death Suit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 5 " »