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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

On appeal, the Easterby court distinguished its circumstances from that of Kennemur and Jones, stating: The present case differs from Kennemur, Jones and [Bonds v. Roy (1999) Cal.4th 140 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 289] in one salient respect: Defendants learned approximately three months before trial that Brown would go beyond his original deposition testimony and offer a causation opinion at trial ... [U]nlike the defendants in Kennemur and Jones, and Bonds, defendants in this case had the opportunity to take Brown's deposition in light of his changed opinion and prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal of his testimony. The elements of unfair surprise and prejudice present in Kennemur and Jones, and Bonds are entirely absent in this case. Id. at 780.

The defense acknowledges that plaintiffs in this case did not receive as much advance knowledge regarding Dr. White's life expectancy testimony as the defendants did in Easterby. However, plaintiffs still had an opportunity to meet and confer with the defense on the issue of Dr. White's testimony for a period of time after the completion of Heather Xitco's deposition. Xitco's deposition was completed on March 30. Trial is not set to begin until April 19. Plaintiffs could have contacted the defense about re-deposing Dr. White on the limited issue of life expectancy, and could have imposed conditions on the deposition to make it more convenient for them, such as requiring the deposition to take place in their office to cut down on attorney time.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Physician And Hospital Responsible For Child's Birth Injuries, Part 4 of 4 " »

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Denise Easterby was injured while at a dentist's office when a dental assistant stepped on a wire connected to a sensor in plaintiff's mouth. She received pain management and physical therapy for pain in various areas of her body for several months, to little success. Thereafter, plaintiff was referred to an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed her with nerve compression, herniated disks and compressed spinal nerves. He performed successful surgery to resolve the conditions.The orthopedist, Dr. John Brown, was retained as an expert by plaintiffs and was deposed by the defense approximately seven months before trial. At deposition, Dr. Brown testified that he had not formed any opinions on the subject of causation as they related to the initial dental accident. Id. at 775. When asked whether he had an opinion as to what caused the plaintiff to require back surgery (whether it was a pre-existing condition or the result of the dental accident), the doctor said that he didn't know what caused it. Id.

Thereafter, three months before trial, plaintiffs sent the defense correspondence indicating that Dr. Brown now intended to express as to causation at trial. Id. at 775-776. The defense did not seek to depose the doctor after receipt of the letter. Id. at 776.

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

Continue reading " Doctor's Care Below Standard In Sacramento Birth Injury case, Part 3 of 4 " »

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

In Jones, the plaintiff sued her former attorney for legal malpractice after her ex-husband stopped paying marital support. At the plaintiff's expert's deposition, the expert testified that he believed the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care when he negotiated the underlying divorce settlement and judgment. When asked whether he believed the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care in other areas of his representation, the expert testified Not that I'm prepared to testify to at this time. Jones, at 563. When asked whether he anticipated arriving at any other opinions, the expert testified, No, but if I do, you will be notified well in advance, so as to be able to properly exercise your discovery rights. Id.

At trial, the expert testified that the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care when he failed to properly secure the source of plaintiff's marital support income, a task unrelated to his negotiation of the underlying settlement and judgment. The trial court excluded the pinion, holding that it "would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional pinions at trial" after he had made affirmative representations that he would not do so at deposition. Id. at 564-565.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital Sued For Causing Birth Injuries, Part 2 of 4 " »

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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Opposition of Defendants National Healthcare Corporation and Memorial Hospital, Inc., to Plaintiffs Jermaine and William Hills’ Motion in Limine #3 to Exclude Opinion of Jeffrey White, M.D., on Decedent's Life Expectancy

THE INSTANT CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THE CASES RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF

Plaintiffs rely on the cases of Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557 [95 Cal.Rtpr.2d 216] and Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 [184 Cal.Rtpr. 393] in support of their position that Dr. White's opinion relative to decedent's life expectancy should be excluded at trial because he did not offer this opinion at his deposition. However, this case differs from those matters.

In Kennemur, the plaintiff attempted to call an expert to testify about causation at trial. However, in three depositions prior to trial, the expert testified that he had no opinion to offer on causation. Kennemur, at 912-913. On that basis, the trial court did not allow the expert to testify on causation, holding that the plaintiff was required to give the defendant notice of the general substance of the testimony that his expert was expected to give at trial either in his witness list or that this information must be disclosed during the expert's deposition itself. Id. at 919.

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

Continue reading " Father Files Suit In Sacramento Birth Injury Case, Part 1 of 4 " »