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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANTS' INFORMATION IS SPECULATIVE AT BEST. THERE IS NO CERTAINTY OR REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE BENEFITS WILL INDEED BE AVAILABLE TO THE MINOR PLAINTIFF IN THE FUTURE

The defendant's assertion regarding the future services or benefits to which the minor child may be entitled to now or years into the future is speculative at best.Whether the benefits or services identified by defendant's expert witness will truly be available to and provided to plaintiff in the future is contingent upon many variables: (1) whether the public services identified have been, and will continue to be, funded by the Legislature, (2) whether the funding is adequate to meet the expressed goals and needs of the legislation, such as the numbers of personnel and expertise of personnel, as well as any necessary equipment and facilities, (3) the numbers of eligible recipients, and (4) whether such services may be available in other locales thereby inhibiting plaintiff or her family from living elsewhere.

It is impossible to predict, whether to a certainty or to a reasonable probability, whether the services and benefits identified by the defendants will be available to plaintiff now, a year from now, five years from now, or at any time in the future. Unlike rights which are secured by contract, the benefits or services identified by the defendant are not vested in plaintiff and may, as the public has seen, be lawfully terminated by the legislature.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Birth Injury Victims Fight Insurance Company In 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.)

Civil Code Section 3333.1 does not abrogate the collateral source rule as to any benefits which a medical malpractice plaintiff has received. Rather, the Legislature was precise in delineating which collateral sources were to be included in this exception to the collateral source rule; not all payments made by the state or federal governments were included. See Brown v. Stewart (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 331.

The plain language of Civil Code Section 3333.1 provides that evidence may only be received of benefits which claimant has received. See Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137; Brown v. Stewart (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 331; Robinson v. Pediatric Affiliates Medical Group (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 907. Civil Code Section 3333.1 reasonably does not allow for the introduction of evidence concerning potential benefits to which plaintiff may be entitled, or which plaintiff may be eligible.

The uncertainty of an individual actually receiving future promised benefits was recognized by the Legislature as too speculative to include within Civil Code Section 3333.1.

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

Continue reading " Medical Malpractice Suit Filed Against Sacramento Physicians For Birth Injuries, 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.)

CIVIL CODE SECTION 3333.1 DOES NOT PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DEFENDANTS' PROFFERED EVIDENCE

Presumably, the defendant will assert that Civil Code Section 3333.1 permits the introduction of the information regarding future receipt of services from government agencies. Defendant's assertion is incorrect.

Civil Code Section 3333.1 provides in pertinent part:

"In ... an action for [medical] negligence, [the defendant] may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant to the 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."

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

Continue reading " Catastrophic Birth Injuries Lead To Malpractice Suit Against Sacramento Hospital, 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

SUMMARY OF ISSUE PRESENTED

In this matter, it is likely that the defendant will attempt to offset his obligation for the minor plaintiff's damages, specifically the need for future medical and other services, by introducing evidence which provides that some future services or benefits may be available to plaintiff from governmental agencies and programs.

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of such evidence on several grounds:

(1) collateral source precludes such evidence;
(2) Civil Code Section 3333.1., which abrogates only part of the collateral source rule in medical negligence actions, does not permit the introduction of such evidence, and
(3) there is no certainty that the minor plaintiff will actually be able to receive, now or in the near or distant future, any such benefits in these troubling economic times with ever-increasing public budget cuts.

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

THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE PRECLUDES THE INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT'S SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE MINOR CHILD MAY, IN THE FUTURE, BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SOME BENEFITS OR SERVICES FROM THE GOVERNMENT

Continue reading " Hospital Sued By Sacramento Woman For Birth Injuries And Malpractice, Part 2 of 5 " »