Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
PROPOSED SPECIAL INSTRUCTION
In lieu of CACI 430, Defendants request the following instruction regarding causation be given to the jury:
Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403.
This instruction not only accurately reflect the necessity of competent expert testimony in proving causation as required by Bromme, Id., Landeros, Id., Jambazian, Id., and Jones, Id., it also reflects the requirement that causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability which is an accurate reflection of the current law governing the elements of causation in a medical negligence action.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the jury be instructed with the following special jury instruction concerning causation in lieu of CACI 430:
Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.