Sacramento Birth Injury Lawyer Blog

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

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

DR. HILL’S PERSONAL OPINIONS WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME, WOULD CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT, AND CAUSE CONFUSION AND POTENTIALLY MISLEAD THE JURY (cont. below)

Since there are numerous other reasons, many unknown to Dr. Hill, why defense attorneys have not sought his expertise in the recent past a significant amount of time would be required on cross examination to establish Dr. Hill's opinions have no factual basis and are not based upon personal knowledge. Additionally, cross examination of Dr. Hill regarding medical societies, medical groups, and faculties that allegedly prohibit their members from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs would consume an inordinate amount of time.

More importantly, allowing testimony about the defense attorneys "shift in attitude," the alleged prohibition by the medical groups, faculties, and societies, or the meritorious nature of plaintiff cases, would create the very real danger of prejudice to the defendant in this matter. Dr.Hill's testimony infers not only that he has not been retained by the defense bar because the defense doesn't like his opinions, but also that if a non-supportive opinion is obtained from him the defense bar will simply find someone else. These opinions have no foundation and are highly prejudicial to the defense.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Hospital Negligence Leads To Birth Injury In Sacramento Family, Part 5 of 5 " »

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

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

DR. HILL'S PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE

Evidence Code, § 350 states:
No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.

Evidence Code, § 351states:
Except as otherwise provided by statute all relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant evidence is that which has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence ...." (Evidence Code § 210.) The test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends, logically, naturally, or by reasonable inference to establish a material fact, not whether it conclusively proves it. (People v. Peggese (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 415, 420; People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 376.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The most accepted test of relevancy is: Does the evidence offered render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence? (Ruiz v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 462, 468.)

Dr.Hill's personal opinions as to why he believes he has testified on behalf of plaintiff more often in the last five years is not relevant to any of the issues in this case. Such testimony does not impact any of his opinions regarding the medical issues or evidence, and does not add anything to support his expert testimony on the medical issues. This testimony, Dr.Hill's personal opinions, does not make the purported "chill" or "shift in attitude" more probable than it would be without such testimony.

Continue reading " Sacramento Family's Medical Expert Says Birth Injury Due to Malpractice, Part 4 of 5 " »

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

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

THE COURT HAS INHERENT POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF ITS PROCESS AND PROCEEDINGS AND TO CONFORM THEM TO THE LAW AND JUSTICE

California Code of Civil Procedure § 128, provides in part as follows:

(a) Every court shall have the power to do all the following ...(3) To provide for the orderly conduct before it, or its officers.A. To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. The court's power to grant this motion in limine, while not provided for by statute, is found in the court's inherent power to provide for the orderly conduct of the proceedings before it and to control its process and proceedings to make them conform to law and justice. A trial judge has broad authority over the admission and exclusion of evidence. (Peat Marwick, Mitchell & Company v. Superior Court (1988) 20 Cal. App. 3d 272, 288.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Malpractice By Sacramento Physicians Results In Birth Injuries, Part 3 of 5 " »

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

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

In this case defendants deposed plaintiff's designated pediatric neurology expert, Dr. Robert Hill on September 1, 2010. During the deposition Dr .Hill testified as to his personal opinions regarding why he has testified on behalf of plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases more often in the last five years. Essentially, Dr. Hill testified that during the first twenty to 25 years he was acting as an expert, a majority of the cases were reviewed for the defense. However, over the last 10 to 15 years, a gradual transition occurred to the point now 80 % of the cases in which he is deposed as an expert are on behalf of the plaintiff.

When asked about the reason for the transition Dr. Hill testified, There's some reasons that are flattering to you and some that are not. I'll give you one reason and one reason only for now, and that is, in the last 10 or 15 years, cases on behalf of families and children are far better prepared and far more meritorious, in association with very superior plaintiff lawyers than they were in the 70s, 80s, and even early 90s. So today I'm seeing plaintiff cases that have been well worked up by highly capable lawyers and the cases are very credible.

In addition, in the case of Dylan White v. XYZ Hospital, Dr. Hill was deposed as a medical expert.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Catastrophic Birth Injury At Sacramento Hospital Due To Malpractice, Part 2 of 5 " »