San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

THE CARE RENDERED BY DEFENDANT IN NO WAY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES COMPLAINED OF BY PLAINTIFF

In addition to proving that the defendant fell below the standard of care, to prevail in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's malpractice caused injury to the plaintiff. Bolen v. Woo (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 944, 953. The standard for establishing causation in a medical malpractice action was set forth in Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396. In Jones, the court held that causation must be proven by reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. The court noted that a mere possibility is insufficient to establish a prima facie case and distinguished a reasonable medical probability from a medical possibility:

There can be many possible causes, indeed an indefinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or death. A possible cause only becomes probable when in the absence of other reasonable causal connections, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action.” Id. at 402-403. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges that defendants committed professional malpractice in that they performed procedures "in a negligent manner and below the standard of care," and that despite plaintiff's history of diabetes and gradually worsening condition of his cut, defendants, including Richard Brown, M.D., "conservatively treated and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat [plaintiff's] medical condition," resulting in severe and painful gangrene to his right foot.

Continue reading "San Francisco Doctor's Malpractice Results In Foot Amputation, Part 8 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

In this case, the attached declaration of Darla King, M.D. provides competent expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care. Dr. King is a very qualified, Board Certified vascular surgeon. The expert testimony of Dr. King should be taken as conclusive as to the issues in this lawsuit. Importantly, an expert's own declaration is sufficient to show the absence of triable issues for purposes of summary judgment, and the motion shall not be denied on the grounds of credibility if the party is otherwise entitled to summary judgment. Learner v. Superior Court (1970) 70 Cal.App.3d 656, 660, 130 Cal.Rptr. 51, 54. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Here, the only material issues raised are whether or not Dr. Brown fell below the standard of care and, if so, whether this resulted in injury. However, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Dr. Brown's care and treatment of plaintiff, including his recommendation of a right below-the-knee amputation, was proper and correct and, therefore, at no time did Dr. Brown fall below the standard of care in the community where he practices, nor did he cause or contribute to plaintiff's injuries. In fact, as the declaration of Dr. King illustrates, Dr. Brown's care and treatment of plaintiff was both correct and within the standard of care required of a reasonable vascular surgeon practicing in the professional community.

Continue reading "San Francisco Man Fights Hospital After Negligent Foot Amputation, Part 7 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE LIABILITY IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION

In a medical malpractice action, the requisite standard of care is determined by the applicable standard of care then existing in the particular professional community. Barton v. Owens (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484, 139 Cal.Rptr. 494. In Linderos v. Flood (1976) 170 Cal.3d 399, 551 P.2d 389, 131 Cal.Rptr. 69, the Supreme Court determined that the standard of care against which the acts of physicians are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts and can only be proven by their testimony. The rationale for requiring expert testimony in medical malpractice actions was succinctly stated by the court in Barton:

In most instances there is a need for expert testimony on the subject of just what constitutes medical negligence, because the average judge or juror does not possess the necessary level of knowledge about medical malpractice to decide on its own whether the doctor was negligent.
Barton at 494, 139 Cal.Rptr. at 499. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Patient Files Lawsuit Against San Francisco Doctors For Medical Negligence, Part 6 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN NO TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACTS EXIST

It is well-established that a motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the moving party demonstrates that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c). In making this determination, the court may rely on affidavits, declarations ... and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b). For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The summary judgment statute was revised as of January 1, 1993, and now specifies that a party bringing a motion for summary judgment need only establish a defense or only negate a necessary element of the challenged cause of action to justify entry of summary judgment. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(n); cf. Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1050.

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Patient Suffers Negligent Below-The-Knee Amputation, Part 5 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

Thereafter, on April 23, 2006, plaintiff underwent a right leg arteriogram, performed by Dr. Brown, and skin oxygen saturation studies of his right lower extremity in order to determine the extent of the vascular disease. These studies revealed the blood supply in plaintiff's ankle and proximally to the lower portion of the anterior tibia and peroneal arteries was very poor. In addition, the ulceration had extended laterally, including some of the heel area and involving all of the toes, and the oxygen saturation was only adequate from the ankle upward. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Accordingly, due to the lack of blood supply and tissue oxygenation, severe sepsis, and the intolerable pain plaintiff was experiencing, Dr. Brown recommended that a below-the-knee amputation be performed. That same day, April 23, 2006, Dr. Woo, assisted by Joe Black, M.D., performed a right below-the-knee amputation of plaintiff's right foot. Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well and there were no complications.

Notwithstanding, as elaborated infra, plaintiff cannot prove the essential elements of a breach of the standard of care or causation against the moving defendant.

Continue reading "Physician's Negligence Results In San Francisco Man's Catastrophic Injury, Part 4 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about April 21, 2006, plaintiff was seen in the emergency department at Universal Medical Center. At that time, he was assessed as having gangrene of the right foot, diabetes mellitus, and sepsis. The plan was to admit plaintiff under the services of his attending physician, Mary Smith, M.D., and to have plaintiff seen by surgeon, Paul Woo, M.D. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Thereafter, on April 21, 2006, a physical examination performed by Dr.. Woo revealed that plaintiff's right foot had no palpable pulsation on either of the dorsalis pedis, nor the posterior tibial artery. At that time, Dr. Woo's impression was gangrene of the right foot, and he recommended non-invasive studies of the arteries of the right lower extremity. Accordingly, on April 22, 2006, right lower extremity radiological studies revealed no significant stenosis and no occlusion, and that plaintiff's right foot gangrene was due to small vessel disease.

Continue reading "San Francisco Hospital Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 3 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

On July 4, 2007, plaintiff Travis Lee filed a complaint against several medical defendants, including defendant Richard Brown, M.D. In his First Cause of Action, plaintiff alleges that in or about March of 2006, he presented himself at Universal Medical Center, under the care of defendant Mary Smith, M.D., complaining of a cut he received in his right foot. Subsequently, plaintiff alleges that he presented himself to the emergency room at National Medical Center due to severe pain and discoloration in his right foot and, thereafter, was San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.">diagnosed with gangrene and an amputation was recommended. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant America INS refused to authorize the amputation and, accordingly, he was transported to Universal Medical Center where he underwent a right below-the-knee amputation on April 23, 2006. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that each of the defendants committed professional malpractice in that defendants performed procedures "in a negligent manner and below the standard of care," and that despite plaintiff's history of diabetes and gradually worsening condition of his cut, defendants, including Richard Brown, M.D., "conservatively treated and/or failed to properly diagnose and treat [plaintiff's] medical condition," resulting in severe and painful gangrene to his right foot.

Continue reading "Negligent San Francisco Doctors Amputate Man's Foot, Part 2 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

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, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Richard Brown, M.D. (C.C.P. §437c); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof.

This Motion will be made upon the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact in this action in that the care and treatment rendered by defendant Richard Brown, M.D., to plaintiff Travis Lee, complied, at all times, with the applicable standard of care. Moreover, the care and treatment of defendant in no way caused, or contributed to, plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. Defendant Richard Brown, M.D., is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "San Francisco Man Files Medical Malpractice Suit, Part 1 of 8" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

Further, in the case Cottle v. the Superior Court of Ventura County (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking review of the order of the trial court which required plaintiff to produce evidence establishing a prima facie claim for personal injury. Accordingly, the plaintiffs in Cottle were required to show that they could sustain a prima facie case against defendants prior to the start of trial. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In this matter, Defendants contend that Plaintiff is unable to sustain her cause of action against Defendants because Plaintiff lacks the required standard of care expert to prove her case of professional negligence. Accordingly, should the Court be disinclined to grant Defendants' motion to preclude standard of care testimony by Dr. Strong, Defendants respectfully request that a Cottle hearing or a 402 hearing be held to determine the qualification of Dr. Strong or Plaintiff's ability to sustain her case against Defendants, prior to jury empaneling in this matter.

Continue reading "San Francisco Female Needs Surgery After Chiropractic Malpractice, Part 9 of 9" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD CONDUCT A COTTLE HEARING OR SECTION 402 HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF CAN MAINTAIN THEIR PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION.

Under California Evidence Code section 402:

(a) When the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article.
(b) The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury...
(c) A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

CAL.EVID.CODE section 402 (emphasis added). Further, California Evidence Code section 400 states in pertinent part:

Continue reading "San Francisco Medical Malpractice Victim Sues Her Chiropractor, Part 8 of 9" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

In this matter, Plaintiff is presenting expert, Steven Strong, M.D,. as her medical malpractice standard of care expert. Dr. Strong, however, is clearly unqualified to render standard of care opinions as to the conduct of Defendants in this matter. Specifically, in his deposition testimony, Dr. Strong demonstrated that he has absolutely no knowledge of how chiropractors, such as Dr. Davis, conduct themselves on a day to day basis, nor does he have any training in chiropractics or have contact with chiropractors, to have any familiarity of the standard of care that governs that field of medicine. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In deposition, Dr. Strong testified on June 8, 2008 and his second session on August 6, 2008, that he does not read any chiropractic journals. Further, Dr. Strong was unable to name any chiropractor that he has referred his patients to, which was also minimal. Moreover, he is not a member of any chiropractic organization. Dr. Strong has never practiced as a chiropractor. Dr. Strong has never gone to chiropractic school. He has never been taught any chiropractic techniques used to reduce subluxations. He has never used any chiropractic techniques to treat subluxations. He is not aware of any of the names of techniques used by chiropractors to correct subluxations.

Continue reading "Battle Of Medical Experts In San Francisco Chiropractor Malpractice Suit, Part 7 of 9" »

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 medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco General, California Pacific Medical Center, or St. Francis Memorial Hospital.

Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a given field, and thus whether that witness's testimony as an expert will be admitted into evidence at trial, are fundamental issues for this Court to decide. The Court's exercise of its discretion to allow or exclude expert testimony will not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest abuse of discretion. Huffman v. Lindquist (1985) 37 Cal.2d 465, 476-478; Putensen v. Clay, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at 1081. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, in Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, the court emphasized the need for the expert to have a connection to the "field of the defendant." In the Mann case, the California Supreme Court's ruling reflects a careful analysis of the proposed expert witness's qualifications and cites specific evidence of the expert's qualifications to render expert testimony in the fields of medical malpractice at issue in that litigation. Id. At 38-40. Having analyzed the proposed expert witness's qualifications, the Court concluded:

Continue reading "San Francisco Chiropractor's Malpractice Causes Patient's Severe Injuries, Part 6 of 9" »