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' ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE DID NOT READ DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION LACKS MERIT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE IS MOOT

Dr. Hill did not have the opportunity to read defendant, Dr. Li's deposition, because it was taken three days prior to Dr. Hill's deposition and was not available for him to review. Plaintiff asserts that the fact that Dr. Hill did not review defendant's deposition is of no consequence because defendant claims that 5 plaintiff's allegations, in terms of how the adjustment occurred and the fact that she did not give consent for the adjustment, never occurred. If defendants believe that it is an important point that Dr. Hill did not read defendant's deposition then they are welcome to cross-examine him on it at the time of trial. But this does not serve as a basis to exclude him as an expert.

DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TESTIFY AT TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE SUBSEQUENT TREATERS ALSO LACKS MERIT

Following her treatment with defendants on May 25, 2007, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery by a Dr. Gray for a meniscal tear.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Chiropractic Malpractice Results In Patient's Meniscal Tear, 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, 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.)

For example, in this regard, Dr. Hill testified as follows:

He does not believe Dr. Li was performing an adjustment on plaintiff's knee. It is his understanding that plaintiff's knee hurt and that Dr. Li decided to do something about it and during her evaluation she mentioned that she does not feel comfortable with Dr. Li touching the knee and that he did a manipulation anyway that made her knee worse.

He does not know if plaintiff received a knee adjustment from defendant facility or defendant prior to the date in question because that information is not written in the chart, and it does not say who treated her on any one date.

He could not tell what chiropractic adjustment was done to Ms. Welden on May 25, 2007, because he could not read the notes very well; he could not understand the chart.

He does not know the specific forces used during defendant's adjustment of plaintiff because he doesn't know what adjustment defendant used. He can only base his opinion on what the patient says was done. He does not know if Dr. Li did an evaluation of plaintiff's knee prior to the adjustment because the identity of the person who did the evaluation is not noted.

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

Continue reading " Experts Battle In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, 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.

(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. LI IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCREPANCY ABOUT WHETHER HE PERFORMED A RIGHT KNEE ADJUSTMENT OR A LEFT HIP ADJUSTMENT

The triable issues in this case include: what did Dr. Li do to plaintiff during the subject visit, and whether those actions were negligent. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Li performed a simple left hip manipulation, which coincidentally involved stabilizing plaintiff's right lower extremity, by placing his hand on or near plaintiff's right knee in order to gain traction when applying force to plaintiff's left hip. This is what appears to have occurred. The discrepancy in what really occurred arises from plaintiff's lay person perception of the subject event- that Dr. Li appeared to be doing a right knee adjustment, and the fact that Dr. Li's chart notes for the subject visit are absent.

No where in the patient's chart did Dr. Li record what he exactly did that day, and the places where notes are made is very illegible. As a result of this, on the one hand, plaintiff describes what she perceived as a manipulation of her right knee. On the other hand, defendant seems to contend that he was performing a left hip adjustment, which plaintiff contends involved applying force to her right knee. (See Part 6 of 7.)

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.)

DR. HILL SPECIFICALLY STATED HIS OPINIONS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEPOSITION

In addition to basing his opinions upon reliable medical evidence as set forth above, Dr. Hill clearly stated what opinions he is going to express at the time of trial:

1) He is going to be testifying regarding both general standard of care or lack thereof for chiropractors.

2) He is going to be offering opinions regarding how chiropractic adjustment can cause injury.

3) He is going to be offering opinions as to what the standard of care requires for obtaining a history.

4) He is going to be offering an opinion as what the standard of care requires when conducting a physical examination.

5) He is going to be offering an opinion as to when the standard of care calls for ordering an x-ray and/or an MRI..

6) He is going to be offering an opinion specifically as to the standard of care as it applies to the manner in which defendant Daniel Li, D.C., performed the adjustment on plaintiff.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Hires Expert in Chiropractic Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 4 of 7 " »