Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant, National Hospital's Demurrer to First Cause of Action of First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

INTRODUCTION

On defendant's demurrer of the first cause of action in the complaint for elder abuse, the Court ruled that plaintiff pled recklessness with sufficient particularity to support a claim for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare & Institutions Code §15657 ("Elder Abuse Act"). The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend the Elder Abuse cause of action and punitive damage allegations to plead facts to meet the standards of employer ratification and the other standards of Civil Code §3294(b).

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to meet the standards of Civil Code §3294(b) and sufficient facts of defendant's conscious disregard of Mr. White's health, safety and rights. Defendant's demurrer to the first cause of action and motion to strike punitive damages, therefore, must be denied. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

PLAINTIFF HAS PLED RATIFICATION WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY

As set forth at Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657(c), in order to recover the enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act against a corporate employer, plaintiff must plead and prove:

Continue reading " Reckless Conduct Results In Elder Abuse At Sacramento Hospital, Part 1 of 10 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiffs suspected their injury was caused by wrongdoing. Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot take advantage of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §474 and relate back the Amendment of Complaint, adding Dr. Brown as a DOE defendant, back to the date of the filing of their original Complaint. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The medical records establish that plaintiffs had knowledge of Dr. Brown as well as his extensive participation in the delivery of their baby on February 21, 2001. Further, both Ms. Smith and Mr. Smith, Sr., testified that they were aware that Dr. Brown was the primary treating obstetrician who delivered their son on February 21, 2001. During her deposition, Ms. Smith testified as follows:

Q. Now, do you recall meeting a doctor by the name of Dr. Brown?
A. Yes.
Q. When is the first time you met him?
A. While I was in the delivery room.
Q. Now, when you first saw Dr. Brown, you understood that he was part of the XYZ group?
A. Yes.
Q. You understood that he was the doctor in charge at that point?
A. Yes; he told me he was.

Continue reading " Sacramento Doctors Sued By Family For Son's Birth Injuries, Part 7 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

The California Supreme Court declared that:

Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her...[T]he limitations period begins once the plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry ... So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; she cannot wait for the facts to find her. (emphasis added) Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., supra, 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110, 245 Cal.Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 923 (1988).

"It is the occurrence of some such cognizable event rather than knowledge of its legal significance that starts the running of statute of limitations." Graham v. Hansen, (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 180 Cal.Rptr. 604. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §474 AND, THEREFORE, THIS ACTION IS BARRED BY CCP 340.5.

Continue reading " Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed By Sacramento Family, Part 6 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 340.5, PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340.5 provides in pertinent part:
In an action for injury...against a health care provider based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340 provides in pertinent part:
Within one year: (3) An action for ... battery.

In Gutierrez v. Mofid, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 898, 218 Cal.Rptr. 313, 705 P.2d 886, the plaintiff alleged that she gave consent only to an exploratory operation to remove a tumor on her appendix.

Continue reading " Boy From Sacramento Suffers Catastrophic Birth Injuries, Part 5 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER WHERE THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT

The law governing summary judgment is set out in California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. This Court must determine whether plaintiffs have presented any facts which give rise to a triable issue. California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c provides in pertinent part:
(a) Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.

(c) The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

See also Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623. See also Hills v. Aronsohn (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 753, 759, 199 Cal.Rptr. 816, 819.

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Suffers After Child Deals With Birth Injuries, Part 4 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Abbey Smith initially presented to Universal Hospital on February 19, 2001, at or about 6:30 p.m., and was shortly thereafter admitted for induction. The records clearly indicate that Dr.Lee was the physician on duty at the time of admission. While on duty, Dr.Lee was responsible for treating the patients from the XYZ Obstetrics and Gynecology group that were admitted to Universal Hospital. The hospital records further note that Dr. Brown relieved Dr.Lee at approximately noon on February 20, 2001. The hospital records, as well as the deposition testimony of Ms. Smith and Mr. Smith, clearly establish that Dr. Brown was Ms. Smith's obstetrician throughout the remainder of her labor. Such records and testimony further establish that Dr. Brown delivered Mark Smith, Jr., the following day, February 21, 2001.

During the course of her labor, Ms. Smith received several amnioinfusions, the first of which was initiated sometime around 1:15 p.m. on February 20, 2001. An epidural was administered around 3:20 p.m.; a second amnioinfusion was started around 4:30 p.m. and completed around 5:00 p.m. At approximately 6:00 p.m., it was documented that Ms. Smith was complaining of pain secondary to the epidural, vomiting of yellow sputum-like fluid and that the fetal heart rate was reactive with mild variable decelerations. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Mother And Father File Suit Against Hospital For Birth Injuries, Part 3 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

INTRODUCTION cont.

On January 19, 2001, plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the following defendants: Xavier Greene, M.D., XYZ Perinatal Group, and Universal Hospital. The Complaint contains the following causes of action:

(1) The First Cause of Action, on behalf of Mark Smith, Jr., alleges negligence as against various health care provider defendants. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(2) The Second Cause of Action, on behalf of Abbey Smith, alleges negligence as against various health care provider defendants.

(3) The Third Cause of Action, on behalf of Abbey Smith, alleges a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, as against various health care provider defendants.

Continue reading " Sacramento Physicians Cause Birth Injuries At Local Hospital, Part 2 of 7 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

It is also 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, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant, David Brown M.D., will move this Court for summary judgment in his favor, and against plaintiffs, Abbey Smith and Mark Smith, Sr., in the above-captioned action, in Sacramento County Superior Court. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Defendant David Brown, M.D.’s, Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

This motion for summary judgment is brought on the following grounds:

(1) This action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 340.5 and 474;

(2) There is no triable issue of material fact as to the summary judgment sought, and therefore the moving party is entitled to such summary judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c.

Continue reading " Parents Sue Sacramento Physicians For Son's Birth Injuries, Part 1 of 7 " »