Kaiser Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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, 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.)

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 27 Cal.3d 916, also has no application here. There, the family member, the husband of the patient, sued based on the emotional distress he suffered when his wife, following the dictate of the health care provider, informed him that she had a sexually transmitted disease. The transmission of this information caused a substantial disruption of the marriage and substantial emotional distress on the part of the husband. As it turned out, the wife did not have a sexually transmitted disease. In Molien, the doctor breached a duty because the doctor directed his patient, the wife, to advise the husband of the diagnosis. Here ,Gillian Smith, the patient, not the family member, is suing to recover damages she Kelly allegedly suffered because she exposed her family to an allegedly contagious disease. As alleged, no defendant directed Gillian Smith to advise a family member regarding any diagnosis. Molien does not apply.

Directly on point is Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124. In that case, parents tried to sue under a direct victim theory to recover NIED because they had unwittingly given their two-month-old son an overdose of medication, causing their son substantial injuries. The parents took a prescription for their son to a Longs Drug Stores pharmacy to be filled. The pharmacy wrote directions for five times the dosage ordered by the doctor.

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

Continue reading " Parents Suffer Severe Emotional Distress Due To Malpractice At Sacramento Hopsital, Part 4 of 6 " »

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, 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.)

GILLIAN SMITH DOES NOT HAVE A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

In the opposition, Gillian Smith asserts that she has a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") because "Defendants failed to diagnose, treat and warn Plaintiffs of the impending danger to which she unknowingly exposed family members and the public." Plaintiff relies on Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064; Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916; and Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. These cases do not support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Gillian Smith.

a. The Allegations Do No Support a Claim for NIED Based on a Direct Victim Theory.

By citing to Burgess and Molien, Gillian Smith is apparently contending that she can recover for NIED as a direct victim based on her allegedly exposing family members and the general public to the allegedly contagious disease. There is no merit to the claim.

Burgess v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1064, has no application to this action. Burgess is limited to the question addressed by the Supreme Court: Can a mother recover damages for negligent inflicted emotional distress against a physician who entered into a physician-patient relationship with her for care during labor and delivery if her child is injured during the course of the delivery? (2 Cal.4th at p. 1069.)

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

Continue reading " Doctors Negligently Treat Sacramento Girl Who Suffers Nasty Infection, Part 3 of 6 " »

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, 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.)

These allegations have nothing to do with the claim by plaintiff Gillian Smith for negligence. Gillian Smith is seeking to recover damages for the loss of her daughter's consortium. Recovery of such damages is precluded by Baxter v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 461. If plaintiff Gillian Smith is trying to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness of the injuries allegedly suffered by her daughter, she has not alleged any facts showing that she had a contemporaneous awareness of any injury at the time it was occurring as required under Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668 and Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 920-921.

It is not clear from the opposition to the motion to strike what position Gillian Smith is taking. The opposition states that the first and second causes of action are properly pled and that, therefore, the motion to strike should be denied. However, the motion to strike is not directed at either the first or second causes of action, it is limited to certain allegations set forth in paragraph 12 regarding Gillian Smith allegedly exposing her family, including her daughter, plaintiff Natalie Smith, to the allegedly contagious infectious disease. Gillian Smith cannot recover for loss of her daughter's consortium or for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander witness. The motion to strike should be granted.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Child Severely Infected Due To Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 6 " »

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, 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.)

Reply of Defendant Universal Medical Center (Also Sued as Universal Health System) to Plaintiffs Gillian and Natalie Smiths’ Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendant Universal Medical Center (also sued as Universal Health System) files this reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to strike.

INTRODUCTION

This action is premised on care rendered to plaintiff Gillian Smith. Gillian Smith contends that Universal and the other defendants provided negligent care to her regarding a bump on her left hand. Gillian Smith alleges that she was negligently notified that she did not test positive for a highly contagious strain of staphylococcus ("MRSA"), causing her to fail to take precautionary measures and to "unknowingly expose her family, including her daughter, the minor plaintiff, Natalie Smith, to the MRSA, resulting in the daughter's hospitalization. The first cause of action is asserted by Gillian Smith relating to the care she received at Universal. Universal moves, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, to strike from paragraph 12 of the first cause of action, page 3:27 to page 4:2, of the complaint:

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Files Medical Malpractice Suit Against Hospital, 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S DISPUTE WITH ANY EMPLOYEES, DOCTORS, MEMBERS, PHYSICAL THERAPISTS OR OFFICE STAFF OF ABC COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL GROUP 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 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 plaintiff's minor disputes over scheduling of times for and of treatments with any employees, doctors, members, physical therapists or office staff of ABC Comprehensive Medical Group 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 " Sacramento Chiropractor Sued For Malpractice After Causing Severe Injuries, 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. 2 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's Disputes with ABC Comprehensive Medical Group; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Donald Hall, hereby moves this Court for an order to exclude any evidence of plaintiff's disputes with ABC Comprehensive Medical Group; 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 plaintiff's disputes with any employees, doctors, members, physical therapists or office staff of ABC Comprehensive Medical Group.

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 to plaintiff.

Further, 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 " Chiropractic Patient Sues Sacramento Sports Clinic For Malpractice, Part 1 of 2 " »