Baby Injured During Delivery Due To Sacramento OB/GYN's Malpractice, Part 10 of 12
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)
The declaration of defendant's expert herein is no more enlightening than that in Kelley as to the merits of Plaintiffs' case. The defense expert simply attests that he read the records and did not see anything in it that fell beneath the standard of care. He recites, for example, that the Woods corkscrew maneuver in the McRoberts position was applied, without any evidence that it was properly performed. In effect, he regurgitates the hearsay of the records and announces that the records do not contain any admission of neglect.
Nor has Universal's expert demonstrated his competence to attest to the standard of care governing nurses, stated what that standard is so that the Court can assess his opinion, or established that there is no evidence of nurse neglect in the Woods or McRoberts procedures.
Universal's failure to give its expert the photographs taken during delivery actually supports an inference against it. Hagy v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 361, 372, 265 P.2d 86 (defendant's failure to provide its expert with data regarding concentration of toxic fumes supports inference against it); Biondi v. Amship Corp. (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 751, 185 P.2d 94.
( It is quite significant, and the jury would be entitled to consider defendant's failure to have its safety inspector examine defective plank to seek what caused it to break.) (See Part 11 of 12.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins
