Personal Injury 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 wrongful death lawsuit and its proceedings.)
The Declaration of Defendant’s Medical Expert Is Insufficient On Its Face to Preclude Existence of a Genuine Issue of Fact for Trial Because He Omits Any Account or Explanation for Defendant’s Failure to Treat the Decedent During the Critical 2-Day Period from December 30 to January 2, 2009.
Defendant’s medical expert’s, James G. Chin, M.D., declaration on its face is insufficient to preclude existence of a triable issue of fact at trial. In his declaration, he does not mention the symptoms and signs of sepsis which the Decedent exhibited on December 31, 2008. (Chin Decl. 28). Dr. Chin only mentioned the Decedent’s urine output on December 31, 2008. Decl. 28). Dr. Chin acknowledges that the Decedent’s temperature jumped to 103.2 and his white blood cell count was 18.5. Significantly, he does not acknowledge existence of other symptoms or signs of sepsis the Decedent exhibited on January 1, 2009, and he does not identify any treatment Defendant provided him on December 31 and January 1 for his symptoms and signs of sepsis.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Neither Dr. Chin nor Dr. Brown offers their professional opinion that a 2-day delay to begin to identify a source of infection, to order a patient with telltale signs of sepsis to be pan cultured, antibiotics ordered and started, and the patient prepared for surgical debridement meets the standard of care. Moreover, the Decedent indeed required urgent and immediate action to control his sepsis because he was a critically ill, immuno-compromised patient. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial and CMC’s’ motion for summary judgment must be denied.
CONCLUSION
For each of the above and foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be overruled and denied. An appropriate form of order is lodged with this submission overruling and denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.