Sacramento Birth Injury Lawyer Blog

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

To meet this burden of proof, the defendant must show that either one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(o)(2).) This means that where plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of evidence, the defendant must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact not to find the underlying material fact more likely than not. Otherwise, he [defendant] would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. But would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact [the jury]. (Brackets added.) (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p.851.)

The import of the more likely than not in the foregoing quote is that a moving defendant must generally present evidence that, if uncontradicted, would constitute a preponderance of evidence that an essential element of the plaintiff's case cannot be established.... The same is true when a moving defendant seeks to secure dismissal of the complaint based on an affirmative defense. (Emphasis added.) (Kids' Universe v. In2labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.870, 879.) Consequently, if the Defendants' expert declaration is disputed by a declaration by plaintiff's expert, then the matter is contradicted and the summary judgment must be denied.

Consequently, if the defendants fail to meet the above burden or persuasion, their motion must be denied:

Therefore, at the summary judgment stage, the defendants in the present case had an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that their conduct came within the exposure exemption. [Citations omitted.] If they failed to meet that burden, the plaintiff need not make any showing at all. (Pepperell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054...].) Defendants contend that Dr. Amendola's declaration, together with Consumer Cause's discovery responses, shifted the burden of production to Consumer Cause. We disagree. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 469 - 470.

Continue reading " Physicians' Negligence Results In Birth Injuries For Sacramento Boy, Part 5 of 5 " »

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

THE MOVING PARTY HAS THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION

A party who seeks an court's action in his or her favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon:

Evidence Code, § 500 states as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he or she is asserting.

As our Supreme Court recently explained:
[
F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court's action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. "There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof...." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

In effect, the defendants in this medical malpractice action as the moving parties for summary judgment bear the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the cause of action in question "cannot be established," or that "there is a complete defense" thereto. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p.850.) Consequently, the burden of persuasion does not shift. Rather, when the court rules, one party has met its burden of persuasion and the other has not.

Regarding the burden of proof, the Supreme Court addressed that issue as follows:

[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.

Continue reading " Sacramento Boy Suffers Cerebral Palsy Due To Physicians' Malpractice, Part 4 of 5 " »

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

PLAINTIFF HAS PRESENTED HIS EXPERT DECLARATION WHICH DISPUTES THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT'S CONCLUSIONS - AND THIS DISPUTE REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff's obstetric and gynecology, John Zee, M.D. has properly presented his opinion in his declaration testimony. Plaintiff's expert declaration, which disputes the declaration of the Defendant's expert declaration, requires denial of this motion for summary judgement. Dr. Zee meets all the requirements of expert testimony - including the standard of care as it relates to nurses and physicians:

To qualify a witness as a medical expert, it must be shown that the witness (1) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under inquiry sufficient to qualify him to speak with authority on the subject; and (2) is familiar with the standard required of a physician under similar circumstances; where a witness has disclosed sufficient knowledge of the subject to entitle his opinion to go to the jury, the question of the degree of his knowledge goes more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility. (Emphasis added.) (Evans v. Ohanesian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 121, 128.)

Consequently, Defendant is not in a position to argue the "weight" of Dr. Zee's testimony; that is the domain of the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. The Plaintiffs have properly presented their expert testimony on standard of care and causation. Defendants' experts' declarations are now controverted by the Plaintiffs' expert who concludes the Defendants’ actions were below the standard of care and also significant contributing factors in the cause of the child's condition:

And counter affidavits disclosing evidence or inferences reasonably deducible from such evidence of a triable issue of fact require denial of the motion.
(Emphasis added.) (Sesma v. Cueto, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d at p. 113.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital Responsible For Medical Malpractice And Boy's Birth Injuries, Part 3 of 5 " »

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

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
This medical malpractice action arises out of the prenatal, perinatal and postnatal care and treatment provided to Molly Brown and her minor son Mark Brown by defendants Tom White, M.D., Richard Hill, M.D., and Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "Memorial"). On June 20, 2000, Mrs. Brown delivered her son, Mark at Memorial. Plaintiffs contend that as a result of defendants' alleged negligence in caring for Mrs. Brown and her son Mark Brown while at the hospital, Mark Brown suffered permanent neurological damages, including cerebral palsy.

As to defendant Memorial, plaintiffs contend its nurses negligently delayed in attaching Mrs. Brown to a fetal heart monitor upon her presentation to the hospital, that defendant failed to implement intrauterine resuscitation maneuvers, and that defendant's nurses failed to timely contact Dr. White. (See, Molly Brown's responses to special interrogatory no. 23). Plaintiffs further contend that, as a result of this alleged negligence, plaintiff Mark Brown suffered physical, emotional and other damages. Plaintiffs allege defendants' negligence caused Molly Brown to suffer physical, emotional and loss of earnings damage. Mrs. Brown brings her claim for emotional distress as a direct victim, under Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064. Plaintiff Stan Brown contends he suffered emotional distress as a bystander, pursuant to Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 and loss of consortium damages as a result of his wife's alleged injuries. (See Part 3 of 5.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Boy Suffers Birth Injuries Due To Medical Malpractice, Part 2 of 5 " »

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

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This is a medical malpractice action arising out of a birth injury suffered by the minor, Mark Brown. The minor suffered birth injuries resulting in cerebral palsy, and cognitive and developmental delay.

Memorial Hospital, where the minor was born, now moves for summary judgment claiming that the nurses acted within the medical standard of care and did not cause injury to the minor.

There is a triable issue of fact; Plaintiff has submitted evidence contradicting the Defendants' expert declaration. Plaintiff presents the expert declaration of John Zee, M.D., board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, contradicting the moving party's expert declaration. This counter declaration requires the denial of summary judgment (Sesma v. Cueto (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 108, superceded on other grounds).

The moving party bears the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of proof: [F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Emphasis added.) (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Here the Plaintiff has now contradicted the Defendants' expert declaration; the Defendant has failed to carry its burden of persuasion. (See Part 2 of 5.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Parents Sue Hospital For Catastrophic Birth Injuries, Part 1 of 5 " »