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.)

PLAINTIFF HAS PLEADED EACH OF THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED)

A. Elements to Be Proven re Bystander NIED:

California Jury Instructions (CACI)Civil 2008 gives the elements required to be proven in a bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress case. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

CACI 1621: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

BYSTANDER NIED - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving [[an injury to] [the death of] [name of injury victim]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [ [injury to] [the death of] ] [name of injury victim];
2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;
3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and
4. That [name of defendant]'s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [plaintiff's] serious emotional distress.

Continue reading "Sacramento Child Suffers Brain Injury During Hospital Birth, 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.)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer by Defendant Darren White, M.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

Plaintiffs Ethan Lee, a minor, parents Kathleen Lee and Thomas Lee ("Plaintiffs"), oppose the demurrer of Defendant Darren White, M.D. ("Defendant"), to the Fourth Cause of Action brought by plaintiff-father Thomas Lee for negligent infliction of emotional distress, on the following grounds:

1. The complaint and the 4th cause of action allege each of the elements required for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress to Thomas Lee, who is the father of the minor child Ethan Lee and the husband of Kathleen Lee, and whom witnessed the negligent acts upon his child and wife.

2. The opposition will be based on this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all of the pleadings and records on file in this action, together with such other and further evidence, as may be presented at the hearing of the demurrer. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

This is an action for medical malpractice during labor and delivery of infant Ethan Lee and his mother who were injured during labor and delivery.

Continue reading "Sacramento Family Files Malpractice Action For Child's Brain Injury, Part 1 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 regulation interrogation.

In order for a statute or regulation to be relevant to this matter it must fit into the definition contained in CACI 418 et seq. A simple, quick reading of the entirety of the regulations presented by the defense herein makes it clear that they are not relevant.

The California regulations are all cited from the licensing requirements for skilled nursing facilities. They provide requirements that the facility must provide for a license. The regulations do not state anything as to the standard a doctor must follow. Licensing requirements are not standards of care nor is Defendant bound by the licensing requirements of the facility in seeing patients. These are two different issues. The regulations do not state that an assigned doctor is to see a patient in 72 hours, but that the facility is to make sure that some doctor sees the patient. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The restraint regulations of the state are just as faulty. They are in the same licensing section for SNF's not the doctor's duties to care for a patient. They relate to the regulations governing the party who saw the light and settled not what the doctor's duty was to take care of his patient. Moreover, the regulations have been taken out of context since the whole of the regulation is not provided to the court or jury.

Continue reading "Sacramento Doctors Departed From Standard Of Care Resulting In Patient's Brain Injury, Part 3 of 3" »

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.)

Moreover, given the settlement and the fact that the court has indicated that it will ignore the fact that ABC was a party (at the request of Defense counsel) the jury will not be told that there was a settlement or that ABC was a party. This dichotomy is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiff and, clearly, Defendant is attempting to place all of the blame (even through Gail Smith's effective mea culpa that she failed to chart all of the conversations she alleges she had with Dr. Lee and with Russell Greene) on other parties. Defendant is trying to back door the evidence for the defense that plaintiff failed to properly designate an expert. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Additionally, it is clearly prejudicial to Plaintiffs for the court to preclude disclosure of the existence of ABC as a party who has settled when Defendant is pointing right at them. The jury has the right to know that they were a party, that they settled and that the court will do the math after verdict. Otherwise, clearly all of the evidence relating to the alleged negligence of the staff of ABC is prejudicial under Evid. Code §352.

At this point in the matter, given the evidence that has been adduced, to prevent further undue prejudice to plainitffs the court must, (a) inform the jury that ABC was a party to the matter and that they settled but that the amount of the settlement is irrelevant, ...

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Presents Expert Testimony In Her Malpractice Brain Injury Trial, Part 2 of 3" »

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.)

Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief on Issues Arising During the Current Pendency of Trial

The issues are:

1. The court allowed Defendant to inquire of the standard of care as to the staff of ABC Skilled Nursing Facility (“ABC”) over the objections of counsel for Plaintiffs.

2. The court allowed Defendant to inquire about certain regulatory materials, i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations and the California Administrative Code of Regulations over the objections of counsel for Plaintiffs.

Neither of these lines of questioning were appropriate, material or relevant to this matter. Plaintiffs, with the filing of this brief, will renew their objections and request that the court strike the testimony and instruct the jury to ignore it. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The bases for the requests are as follows:

Standard of Care at ABC

Dr. Brown was designated solely as an expert on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Lee, M.D. Tamara White was Plaintiffs’ expert on the issue of the negligence of ABC. Ms. White was withdrawn and not deposed at the demand of Defendant Lee after the good faith settlement with ABC.

Continue reading "Complex Issues In Sacramento Malpractice Case Due To Brain Injury, Part 1 of 3" »