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 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 " »

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.

The competency of a witness to testify is a preliminary fact to be determined by the Court, not the trier of fact. Evidence Code sections 403, 405; Cooper v. Bd. Med. Exam (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 931, 945. Courts have the obligation to contain expert testimony within the area of professional expertise, and to require adequate foundation for the opinion. Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1523 [reversible error to admit foundationally defective expert testimony]. Upon challenge, an expert witness's qualifications must be established before that witness is permitted to testify. Evidence Code section 720(a). The burden is on the proponent of the expert testimony to demonstrate the witness's qualifications to testify. Evidence Code section 720. The incompetency of a witness to testify to certain matters renders that witness's testimony inadmissible. Evidence Code section 720. For more information you are welcome to contact San Francisco personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Case law establishes that a medical doctor is not automatically qualified to render expert opinions in all areas of medicine.

Continue reading " San Francisco Chiropractor Balks At Medical Malpractice Expert, Part 5 of 9 " »