Sacramento Brain Injury Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also 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.)

The seminal case of Delaney v. Baker 20 Cal.App.4th 23, is cited extensively by Defendant. Unfortunately, it does not support Defendant. The decision specifically holds that medical malpractice and Elder Abuse are separate causes of action. After holding that the statute is ambiguous, the court held that if the neglect is reckless' or done with oppression, fraud or malice, then the action falls within the scope of section 15657 and as such cannot be considered simply based on ... professional negligence within the meaning of section 15657.2. Delaney, at 28. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff has pled that the failure to restrain and the failure to treat decedent in this matter was at least reckless. The pleading standard has been met, and defendants would like the court to make a factual determination that the actions were not "reckless" at the pleading stage which is an improper request. Delaney is not a case that interprets the scope of pleadings. It is a decision that interprets the scope of the statute. Delaney cannot be cited as setting forth pleading requirements as Defendant attempts in the Demurrer.

The result is relatively simple. Plaintiff is entitled to and does state a cause of action for Elder Abuse, and whether the proof presented at trial is sufficient to take the damages outside of the scope of ordinary negligence (15610.57) and into the scope of enhanced damages (15657 and 15657.2) is a separate issue. However, Plaintiffs submit that sufficient facts have been pled to meet the pleading standards as to this damage issue.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice At Sacramento Facility Results In Woman's Brain Injury And Death, Part 4 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also 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.)

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant argues that since there is insufficient pleading in Paragraphs 18-20 of the Complaint, the complaint must fail. This is the underpinning of the whole of the Demurrer and is wholly without merit. Defendant fails to cite Paragraph 17 of the Second Cause of Action which incorporates all of the facts plead in the first 16 Paragraphs. The argument is specious at best and justifies the court overruling the Demurrer without further consideration. The elements plead including the course of the care prior to death are provided in the earlier paragraphs.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

Defendant bases the argument on Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657 and 15657.2 and ignore §15610 et seq. which define Elder Abuse itself. Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements of pleading Elder Abuse as defined by the code. Defendant is mixing an argument that the damages portion of the claim cannot be made on the facts plead and, further, attempts to insert a requirement for pleading specificity as required if there was a claim for Punitive damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

No such damages claim has been made at this time, as the interplay between C.C.P. §425.13 and the Elder Abuse statutes has not been litigated or established.

Continue reading "Elder Abuse At Sacramento Nursing Facility Leads To Patient's Catastrophic Brain Injury, Part 3 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also 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.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' decedent suffered a stroke in 2003. She was hospitalized through February 19, 2004 when she was transferred to Defendant ABC Skilled Nursing Facility in Sacramento with orders that Posey restraints be used in view of the loss of use of one side of her body and confusion which could result in injury. Defendant chose to ignore the orders and on plaintiff's first night in the SNF decedent got out of bed apparently not remembering that she could not walk normally, fell and hit her head. A staff person for Defendant SNF heard her fall and eventually went to check on her. She was found on the floor with a bruise/abrasion on her forehead. She was anti-coagulated to prevent further strokes and presented a clear risk of developing a sub-dural hematoma, a common secondary response. The facility chose to do nothing until she was checked at about 7:00 in the morning and pronounced good. Finally at about noon when she started to present with severe problems showing loss of mental faculties Defendant decided that she should be sent to the hospital to be examined.

It was too late, the sub-dural hematoma had grown to the point where it was not operable by the time decedent arrived at the hospital. defendant's inadequate, delayed response proved costly for plaintiff. Decedent was, at the time, a strong-willed person and managed to hold on at home in a severely debilitated state until her death on April 25, 2004. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Dies From Brain Injury Due To Malpractice, Part 2 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

(Please also 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.)

Plaintiff Peter Greene’s Opposition to Demurrer of Defendant ABC Skilled Nursing Facility and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

The Opposition will be based on the following:

1. Defendant has failed to properly deal with the content of the complaint in that the initial basis for the Demurrer is that Paragraphs 18-20 do not state sufficient facts. Defendant does not cite the court to Paragraph 17 which incorporates all of the facts stated in the First Cause of Action. Thus, no basis for the Demurrer has been stated.

2. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts, including a 10-hour delay in treating a patient with a head injury who was on anticoagulant therapy, was aged, and had suffered a stroke. Further, Plaintiff has pled that Defendant ignored direct orders of the forwarding physician that decedent be restrained to prevent exactly the situation that occurred. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

3. Defendant has confused pleading and proof in the motion. At this time, Plaintiffs have not requested punitive damages in order to meet the requirements of C.C.P. §425.13 and need not meet the pleading requirements of C.C.P. §3294 until the motion to amend the complaint is heard. Thus, the pleading is more than sufficient in view of the pleading of the willful and intentional acts contained in the complaint.

Continue reading "Sacramento Skilled Nursing Facility Sued For Patient's Brain Injury, Part 1 of 4" »