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.)

The Evidence Presented Does Not Support The Verdict As To Plaintiff's Claim for Medical Professional Negligence Against Defendant Based on the Jury's Finding that Doctors White and Brown Were Negligent.

As set forth in the minutes of the Court, Plaintiff Johnson presented substantial evidence supporting her claims for medical professional negligence against the Regents of the University of California ( Regents ) based upon the professional negligence of the Regents' employees. In fact, the jury found that defendant's employees, Ellen White, M.D., and Phillip Brown, M.D., were negligent in their diagnosis or treatment of Plaintiff. Yet, the jury did not rule that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Johnson's negligence claims against the Regents was supported by the uncontradicted testimony of Morgan Lee, M.D., the only qualified orthopaedic expert who testified at trial. Defendant did not present any expert testimony regarding the specific claims of medical negligence relating to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, as no other orthopaedic expert testified on behalf of defendant.

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

Continue reading " Negligent Doctors Cause Sacramento Woman To Lose Foot, 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for New Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Plaintiff, Billie Johnson, will, pursuant to her previously filed Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, and does hereby, move the Court for an order to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury and judgment entered pursuant thereto in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Johnson, and to grant Plaintiff a new trial on each of her claims against Defendant for professional negligence pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §657 and §657.6 in particular.
This motion will be based on this Notice; the evidence presented at trial; all pleadings, papers and records in this action; the minutes of the Court; and this memorandum of points and authorities; and such additional argument as the Court may permit Plaintiffs to present.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Prefatory Statement

A new trial is proper upon a showing that due to procedural or legal error, an issue of fact requires re-examination after trial by jury, court or referee. Civ. Proc. Code §656. The error must result in a miscarriage of justice. Cal. Const. Art. VI, §13. Upon proper showing, the jury's verdict and subsequent judgment may be vacated ... and a new and further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on application of the party aggrieved ... Civ. Proc. Code §657.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Files Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Against Hospital, Part 1 of 5 " »

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.)

To recover for NIED as a bystander witness, a plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim. (Thing v. LaChusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 667-668.) In Bird v. Saenz, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 920-921, the Supreme Court reiterated the Thing requirement that the plaintiff be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, and contemporaneously be aware that it was causing injury to the victim. In Bird, the plaintiffs were in the waiting room while their mother was negligently operated on, with the result the Bird plaintiffs "had no sensory perception whatsoever of the [injury-producing event] at the time it occurred." (28 Cal.4th at p. 917.) The Bird court observed that the contemporaneous awareness element requires a contemporaneous awareness that a close relative is being injured. (28 Cal.4th at p. 916.) The Supreme Court explained, "a rule permitting bystanders to sue for NIED on account of unperceived medical errors hidden in a course of treatment cannot be reconciled with Thing's requirement that the plaintiff be aware of the connection between the injury-producing event and the injury." (28 Cal.4th at p. 921.)

In this case, Gillian Smith is apparently attempting to recover damages for injuries to her family members, including her daughter. However, Universal had no connection with her family members or her daughter.

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

Continue reading " Mother Sues Sacramento Doctor And Hospital For Malpractice, Part 6 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.)

b. The Allegations Do No Support a Claim for NIED Based on a Bystander Witness Theory.

The third case relied on by Gillian Smith is Ochoa v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 159. Ochoa is a bystander witness case. Plaintiffs were the surviving parents of Rudy Ochoa, who as an inmate in the Santa Clara County juvenile hall. His parents visited him and found him extremely ill. The mother spoke with authorities, expressing concern that her son was not receiving necessary treatment. His mother was at his bedside and made repeated requests that her son receive medical treatment, including requesting that she be allowed to take him to a private physician. She remained at her son's bedside. The son died.

The Supreme Court held that the mother could assert a cause of action for NIED as a bystander witness because she had personally witnessed the failure of the medical personnel at the juvenile hall to provide medical care to her son. The court further held that the father could not assert the claim because he had not witnessed the lack of care but had only been told of the situation by his wife. (See Part 6 of 6.)

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