Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Medical Malpractice Case Against Hospital for Child Brain Damage Results in $625,000 Settlement, Part 2 of 2

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:33:48 -0800

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.)

Individually and on Naomi’s behalf, Martinez sued Salmon and Bakings Medical, saying that they should immediately have treated the child or consulted a pediatric infectious disease specialist.

The next day, Maria was transferred to UCD Medical Center, where she underwent spinal taps, MRIs that revealed severe brain damage and CT scans that showed bleeding in her brain. Naomi remained in the hospital for two months for her brain injuries, and following her discharge from UCD, she required round-the-clock care.

According to the suit, Naomi’s permanent disabilities could have been mitigated--or avoided--had the defendants treated or referred the child sooner.
SUMMARY:
RESULT: Settlement
The parties negotiated a $625,000 settlement.

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

Infant Suffers Permanent Brain Injury Due to Hospitals Negligence, Part 1 of 2

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:32:03 -0800

(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.)

INJURIES: On March 11, Naomi stopped eating and responding to stimuli and became very lethargic. Martinez brought her to the Bakings Medical ER, where the baby's lesions were cultured and diagnosed as herpes simplex virus 2 meningeoencephalitis.

Facts:
On March 7, 2009, plaintiff Irma Martinez brought her 11-day-old daughter, Naomi Maria, to pediatrician Valarie Salmon at Bakings Medical Center for an evaluation.

Two days earlier, lesions appeared on Naomi’s face and ear.

Martinez asked Salmon to perform tests on the lesions, but Salmon declined, saying that tests were unnecessary, and that the child had an ordinary rash or mosquito bites.

After an emergency room visit four days later, it was discovered that Naomi had an infectious disease, and as a result, severe brain damage.

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

2.5 Million Awarded in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 4

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:30:06 -0800

(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.)

Defense obstetrics expert James Pale opined that the nursing care and treatment were up to the standard of care at all times. He added that there was never any convincing evidence of maternal hyperstimulation or fetal distress.

The defense also argued that nurses have implied discretion over Picotin levels, and that they are allowed to change dosage levels as per their instinct and experience.

Plaintiff's life care planning expert, Shannon Karreon, estimated that the baby will live 45 years and will need 16 hours of home care every day. As part of an unspecified demand, plaintiff's counsel calculated a life care plan that would include an annuity of $2.5 million.

Defense counsel disputed the damages, and defense life care planner Tom Lowitz predicted that the baby's life expectancy was a maximum of 14 years. The defense calculated a life care plan that would include an annuity of $1.8 million.

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

Medical Malpractice Case Settled in Birth Injury Resulting in Cerebral Palsy, Part 3 of 4

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:28:01 -0800

(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 counsel also claimed that there was inadequate supervision of the nurse trainee on October 14 and 15.

The infant's lawyer noted that the fetal monitoring strips were missing during the pregnancy. The hospital's chief of medical records testified that they were last seen and accounted for the day after the birth.

The plaintiff's perinatology expert, Maryann Tallan asserted that the uterine stimulation, coupled with maternal hypertension and maternal fever, caused fetal distress and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. The lawyer alleged that the treaters failed to appreciate the fetal distress and failed to perform an early C-section. Plaintiff's pediatric neurology expert Barry Michael supported Tallan’s claims, adding that the baby probably would not have gotten cerebral palsy if a prompt C-section had been performed.

The defense argued that the baby was born with cerebral palsy due to complications that happened during the pregnancy's first trimester.

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

Baby Born With Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 2 of 4

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:23:32 -0800

(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.)

On October 15 at 1:30 a.m., the patient began to push. At 2 a.m., the OB-GYN arrived, and at 3:14 a.m., the baby was delivered with APGAR scores of one at one minute, three at five minutes, and four at 10 minutes. The first blood gas showed significant metabolic acidosis with a pH level of 7.16 and a base excess of minus 20. Seizures were noted in the neo-natal ICU, and the baby was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

The infant, through her grandmother as guardian ad litem, sued the hospital, the OB-GYN and the nurses for medical malpractice. Her attorney asserted that the fetus was asphyxiating in utero and she should have been taken out via caesarean section hours before the natural birth.

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

Negligent Hospital Care Causes Birth Injury in Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 4

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:18:09 -0800

(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.)

On October 15, 2000, the plaintiff, a female infant, was born to a 19-year-old woman at a Sacramento hospital. Two days earlier, the mother was admitted to induced labor. She was experiencing a complicated third trimester due to maternal hypertension. An OB-GYN doctor prescribed the patient up to 25 milliunits of Pitocin an hour, and contractions began three hours later.

On October 14, the patient's Pitocin dosage was increased to 28 miliunits a minute. At 3 p.m., uterine contractions were occurring every 90 seconds, and the patient's blood pressure was borderline hypertensive. She developed a maternal fever. At 7 p.m., a nurse trainee assumed nursing care of the patient. In the nursing flow sheet, the trainee charted uterine contractions every 90 seconds over the next few hours. She also charted a decrease in long-term and short-term variability. The trainee called the OB-GYN twice, but never reported the patient's uterine hyperstimulation or decreased long-term or short-term variability.

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

Sacramento Woman Demands New Trial In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 5 of 5

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:27:15 -0800

(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.)

10. Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to understand the medical issues here. The Charcot process is time limited, and during the acute phase the foot must be protected from bone fractures and joint dislocations by casting or booting. After the process quiets down and the bones harden again, when the cast is removed a properly treated foot is preserved in its original state, without injury. This is precisely why Plaintiff's expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lee, testified that in order to avoid the catastrophic injuries which Plaintiff now suffers, a foot presenting as Plaintiffs did must be casted or booted. This explanation, provided by Plaintiffs expert, was also uncontroverted.

In sum, the facts presented at trial, which were not rebutted by any substantial evidence, showed that Plaintiff entered the hospital with an intact foot in which all the bones and joints, except for the navicular, were free of fractures and dislocations. The admitting x-ray established this. After a week of hospitalization under the exclusive care of Defendants, Plaintiffs foot was destroyed with many fractures and joint dislocations. Trial testimony confirmed that any attempt to surgically repair Plaintiffs foot carries a high risk of amputation.

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

Sacramento Orthopaedic Patient Seeks Damages In Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 5

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 05:26:03 -0800

(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.)

7. Defendant's expert radiologist, Dr. Greene, who opined that casting did not prevent injury once the breakage of bones started, was not a qualified expert in orthopedics. Additionally, she was a non-treating radiologist whose opinion was discredited at trial when she testified that she did not know, in forming her opinion, if the patients whose x-rays she reviewed had been casted. Consequently, her testimony is legally insufficient to rebut the testimony of Plaintiffs expert orthopedic surgeon.

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiffs injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided.

Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents' employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.

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

Negligent Orthopaedic Care Results In Catastrophic Injury To Sacramento Woman, Part 3 of 5

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 05:19:24 -0800

(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 presents the following specific arguments and facts in support of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:

1. On June 8, 2011, the jury found that two physicians employed by defendant Regents of the University of California were negligent in their medical treatment of Plaintiff during her May 2009 hospitalization at the University Medical Center Hospital for her Charcot Foot ("Charcot's").

2. In evaluating testimony, the standard of medical care can be proven only through expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,410. The expert orthopedic surgeon called by Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Lee, was the only expert witness qualified by his practice to present testimony regarding the treatment of Charcot Foot, except Dr. Lopez who agreed that the only way to prevent ongoing collapse of the bones in the foot was by placing the foot in case.

3. Dr. Lee testified that the negligence of the University doctors in failing to timely cast, boot and otherwise protect Plaintiff's left foot during the acute phase of Charcot's, directly caused the injuries she suffered while an inpatient at the University Medical Center Hospital in May 2009. This testimony was uncontroverted.

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

Sacramento Orthopedic Surgeon Sued For Malpractice, Part 2 of 5

Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:11:28 -0800

(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 primary requirement for the granting of the motion is that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. Robinson v. North American Life & Cas. Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 111, 118, 30 Cal.Rptr. 57.

The court will grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference drawn therefrom to support the verdict. Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681,534 P.2d 377.

Plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted if, on the whole evidence, any cause of action alleged in the complaint is supported and no substantial support is given to the defense alleged by defendant. Gordon v. Strawther Enteprises. Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 504, 515,78 Cal.Rptr. 417. The court may grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the entire verdict, or a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on fewer than all issues. See Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 310,323-324,274 Cal.Rptr. 766; Hansen v. Sunnyside Product Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.

B. 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

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

Medical Malpractice Action Filed Against Sacramento Doctors, Part 1 of 5

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:10:10 -0800

(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 BILLIE JOHNSON hereby moves for an Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE A MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED HAD A PREVIOUS MOTION BEEN MADE AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN THEREFROM TO SUPPORT A VERDICT IN THE DEFENDANTS' FAVOR

A. Statutory and Case Authority for Granting Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for new trial, the court, on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, must render judgment in favor of an aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made. Code of Civil Procedure §629. The grounds for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are the same as for granting a motion for directed verdict. See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 343, 268 Cal.Rptr. 309; Trammell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 538, 556, 129 Cal.Rptr. 361.

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

Sacramento Defendant's Personal Property Becomes Potential Issue In Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 3 of 3

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 05:07:41 -0800

(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 counsel, in open court, intimated that he may reference Hall’s bankruptcy as there were three certain properties included in the initial bankruptcy application. Further information regarding his purpose for introduction of that evidence was not given, but moving party can only assume that it will be used to reference property that may have been community property of Donna Hall as well. Using that information to suggest potential assets of Donna Hall, if that is the intended purpose, would be improper, as there must be a judgment before evidence of assets can be discussed. Here, as there is clearly no judgment, such introduction would be untimely and highly improper.

EVIDENCE OR REFERENCE TO THE PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY OF DEFENDANT IAN HALL HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN THIS CASE, WILL NECESSITATE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AND IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL

Evidence Code section 352 states that [t]he Court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury.

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

Sacramento Plaintiff Becomes (Unwitting) Creditor In Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 2 of 3

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:06:18 -0800

(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.)

REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF IAN HALL’S PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE INSTANT TRIAL AND UNTIMELY EVIDENCE

To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. (Ev. Code §350.) Relevant evidence means evidence [h]aving some tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Ev. Code §210.) Once it has been established that the plaintiff's proposed evidence is not material and relevant to the issues at hand, it is mandatory that it be excluded as evidence. (People v. Thompson (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 13, 18.)

Here, there is no relevance to the fact that Ian Hall filed for bankruptcy and had his bankruptcy discharged on August 11, 2008. He filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, and after his was determined a no-asset estate, it was discharged. Plaintiffs, who were listed as creditors, took the necessary steps to file a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay, and after being heard by the federal bankruptcy judge had their recovery for this lawsuit limited to Mr. Hall’s applicable insurance policies. Other co-defendants were also liste as creditors, but they either failed to file a Motion for Relief, withdrew their Motions before they were heard. (See Part 3 of 3.)

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

Defendant's Bankruptcy Becomes Issue In Sacramento Medical Malpractice Case, Part 1 of 3

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:02:21 -0800

(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.)

Motion in Limine of Defendant Ian Hall to Exclude Any Reference to or Mention of Ian Hall's Personal Bankruptcy By Plaintiff Kenneth Lee

Defendant Ian Hall, before introduction of evidence, hereby moves this Court for an Order precluding plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, any other party or their respective counsel, or any other witness from introducing any evidence of or reference to defendant Ian Hall’s 2008 personal bankruptcy, which was filed on April 9, 2008 and discharged on August 11, 2008, in this Sacramento medical malpractice lawsuit.

This motion is made on the grounds that such references and evidence are irrelevant, prejudicial, and will prove to be confusing and misleading to the jury. Any reference to Ian Hall's bankruptcy will lead to widespread speculation of the jury, as to nature and extent of that bankruptcy and who it covers. In order to avoid such confusion, and risk of mistrial if jurors make assumptions based on their bankruptcy speculation only, Defendant Ian Hall seeks an order from the Court to preclude any reference or evidence of his personal bankruptcy.

INTRODUCTION

On April 9, 2008, defendant Ian Hall filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs and several co-defendants were listed as creditors in the bankruptcy.

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

Sports Injury Recovery Center Sued For Medical Malpractice For Chiropractic Issues, Part 2 of 2

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:33:27 -0800

(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, OR OFFICE STAFF OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPORTS EXCELLENCE 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 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 plaintiffs minor disputes with any employees, doctors, members, or office staff of Center for Orthopedic and Sports Excellence 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.