Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

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

On that issue, defendant has failed to meet her prima facie burden because her moving papers do not include any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that Ms. Smith's fall treatment had concluded as of April 30. Nowhere in the evidence offered there does any health care provider opine that the care for the fall had concluded or the care that came afterward was completely unrelated to the fall. Again, nowhere do the words appear in Defendant's evidence that care for the fall had concluded. Without some evidence to that effect, the defendant has failed to meet its burden of producing evidence.

The defense asks the court to make an enormous leap of faith and make that finding by attaching to their attorney's declaration without foundation medical records that reflect pain medications were discontinued and discharge planning commenced. For the reasons stated in plaintiff's objections submitted herewith, this evidence is inadmissible to prove her care for the fall had concluded.

Thirdly, there is at least a factual dispute on the question of whether some or all of decedent's hospital care after April 30, was for the fall. Plaintiff, and logic, dispute any notion that on April 30, 2005, Ms. Smith's care for the fall had concluded. Tammy Bauer, who guided the medical care from the patient's standpoint declared that the care in the hospital for the fall continued during Ms. Smith's entire stay as she continued to have severe or intractable left thoracic pain.

Continue reading "Elder Abuse Action Filed By Sacramento Family, Part 6 of 6" »

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

THERE IS A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS A CAUSE OF MS. SMITH'S DEATH WHERE NEGLIGENCE OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER'S AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE SHE SOUGHT CARE CAUSED HER DEATH.

Defendant’s Motion misses the mark for several reasons.

First, defendant misstates the law of causation in this context. [W]here the additional harm results either from the negligence of doctors or hospitals who furnish necessary medical care, or from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care, the chain of causation set in motion by the original tort remains unbroken.

Even if one assumes, arguendo, that in the middle of this hospitalization the care for the fall concluded and the care for a completely unrelated seizure disorder began, the treatment for that disorder would still arise from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care. In this case, it is readily foreseeable that putting an elderly woman in the hospital would trigger some attendant care for unrelated medical conditions. Defendant's reading of the cases to exclude from causation these complications in care misstates the case law. That is why they do not cite nor is there any case where a negligent tortfeasors causal culpability stops during the hospitalization that the tortfeasor created. The fall put Ms. Smith in XYZ Hospital and subjected her to their care. While under their care, her death was negligently caused. That raises a triable issue of fact on causation.

Continue reading "Roseville Hospital And Nursing Facility Sued For Woman's Brain Injury, Part 5 of 6" »

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

In Hastie v. Handeland (1969) 274 Cal. App. 2d 599, a case involving a vehicular collision and subsequent death of the victim following medical care, the court held a tortfeasor was liable for the subsequent injury suffered during medical treatment. Id. at pp. 604-605 If death resulted from a risk inherent in the medical treatment reasonably required to cure the injuries caused by the accident, respondents the original would be liable irrespective of whether such treatment was rendered in a proper or a negligent manner.

The question is one of causation, and where the additional harm results either from the negligence of doctors or hospitals who furnish necessary medical care, or from the materialization of a risk inherent to necessary medical care, the chain of causation set in motion by the original tort remains unbroken. [Citations.] (Id. at p. 606.)

In one case, the victim of a motorcyle accident was injured further by a trauma room surgeon. Following that care, the patient sought care from Kaiser Foundation facilities, where their negligence further aggravated the situation. The court held that the trauma surgeon was responsible for the additional injuries caused by the negligence of the Kaiser staff. The court explained: The principle usually appears in cases involving automobile accidents, where the initial tortfeasor's careless driving exposed the plaintiff to a risk of physical harm, including medical treatment for the injuries resulting from the accident. The initial tortfeasor therefore is liable for the resultant medical treatment. The rationale for the rule is that such medical treatment is closely and reasonably associated with the immediate consequences of the defendant's act and forms a normal part of its aftermath.

Continue reading "Family Of Sacramento Woman Sues Nursing Home For Her Death, Part 4 of 6" »

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

DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL HOMES’ INSTANT MOTION
Defendant UNIVERSAL HOMES moves for summary judgment on the grounds the negligence that caused Ms. Smith to be hospitalized was not a legal cause her death due to negligence in that hospital.

In response, plaintiff contends that moving defendant's negligence was a legal cause of the death of Ms. Smith because her brain injury and subsequent death was caused by the negligence of health care providers she went to see as a result of the defendants negligence. At a minimum, there is a triable issue of fact.

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court's role here is whether or not there is, or could be, a triable issue on any material fact. Code Civ. Proc. Section 437. A defendant who seeks summary judgment must define all theories alleged in the complaint and then challenge each factually, showing that one or more elements of each of plaintiff's causes of action for negligence cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. CCP section 437c (p)(2); Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 714.

Summary Judgment is a drastic procedure and should be used with caution. Any doubt as to the propriety of granting the motion is resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Stationer's Corp v. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412,

Continue reading "Elder Abuse Claim Filed Against Roseville Nursing Facility, Part 3 of 6" »

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

FACTUAL SUMMARY cont.

She was thereafter taken by a friend and fellow Universal Home tenant to XYZ Hospital. She had fallen on her left side and was treated for injuries sustained in the fall. She was diagnosed with a left sided chest contusion. It caused her to have intractable left sided thoracic pain throughout her stay. [Declaration of Plaintiff Tammy Bauer] Ms. Smith was admitted to XYZ Hospital by her primary care and admitting physician Robert J., M.D.

After two days in the hospital, Ms. Smith developed and alteration of consciousness, including confusion and somnolence repeatedly trying to get out of bed. In addition, she developed seizures. Dr. J. asked for and received a neurology consultation with Nancy S., M.D. This was not a transfer of medical care to a new physician for a new problem but a simple consultation request by the admitting and primary treating physician.

Dr. S.'s initial exam occurred on April 30, 2005. [The foregoing references are to Dr. S.'s deposition.] The two reasons for the consultation were Ms. Smith's confusion somnolence, or alteration in her level of consciousness and unexplained tremors she was having. Dr. S. diagnosed intermittent partial seizures. After consulting with the patient and plaintiff, Tammy Bauer, Ms. Smith was started on Dilantin, an anti-seizure medication.

Dr. S.'s evaluation was part of the care and treatment for the falls, not independent of that. Contrary to the basic theme of defendant's Motion, care for the fall did not conclude at the time Dr. J. sought a consultation from Dr. S. Dr. S. considered the question of whether or not several reported earlier falls ending with the one that brought Ms. Smith to XYZ Hospital had been caused by the seizure disorder she had been asked to consult about.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Files Personal Injury Action Against Nursing Facility, Part 2 of 6" »

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

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Universal Homes Motion for Summary Judgment

THE PARTIES
This is a wrongful death action arising out of the death of plaintiff's beloved mother, Felicity Smith at XYZ Hospital on May 6, 2005. The decedent resided at the Universal Home in Roseville, California owned by defendant UNIVERSAL NURSING HOMES (hereinafter Universal Home ). Due to the negligence of Universal Home, Ms. Smith fell and was injured. Seeking treatment for injuries sustained in the fall, Ms. Smith was taken to XYZ Hospital, owned and operated by defendant XYZ TOWNSHIP HEALTHCARE DISTRICT (hereinafter XYZ Hospital ). Near the end of her hospital stay, Ms. Smith got out of her hospital bed to go to the bathroom. She had not been diapered, and urinated on the floor. She slipped and fell in her own urine striking her head. Ms. Smith died from this head and brain injury.

Plaintiff alleges that the negligence of Universal Home in causing the injury for which Ms. Smith was hospitalized in the first place was a cause of her death.

Continue reading "Roseville Nursing Home Sued For Brain Injury By Patient, Part 1 of 6" »