Sacramento Birth Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

All of defendant's experts have reviewed the videotapes they complain of in their Motion in Limine. Not only have the experts reviewed and looked at the videotapes, but defense counsel's own experts have stated under oath that these tapes form the basis, in part, of their own opinions regarding the nature of injury and prognosis of this child. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of this Motion in Limine has the defense ever requested in any way to depose or question Dr. Smith or Cynthia Lee. Never at any time prior to plaintiffs receipt of defendant's Motion in Limine has defense counsel expressed a desire to supplemently designate their own experts in these particular areas. Consequently, it is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst, for them to state in their Motion: Therefore, Dr. Johnson was unable to depose them to assess whether they are qualified or to assess what was done during the testing. Further, because these alleged experts were not designated as such, Dr. Johnson was unable to supplemently designate his own experts in this area.

As stated previously, the defense has known for over a year regarding the reliance upon these reports by plaintiffs experts. If any side is engaged in gamesmanship, it is the defense who waits until the last moment to make these spurious allegations.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Physician's Negligence Causes Child's Birth Injuries, Part 5 of 5 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Here, Stefan Hall, M.D., is a pediatric neurologist. He has seen this child on three occasions and along the way has provided the child with recommendations for treatment and has reached a prognosis and opinions relative to future care needs of this child. Even outside of the forensic realm, pediatric neurologists always review outside tests done by physical therapists and speech therapists in an effort to more finitely define the specific delays and issues in those areas. There can be no question that these reports are quite specifically the type of reports and findings that pediatric neurologists always, even outside the realm of legal testimony, rely on in order to assist, prognose and make appropriate recommendations.

Sally Jackson is a registered nurse specializing in case management, rehabilitation and life care planning. Her entire profession is based upon review of outside physicians, physical and speech therapists. In her area of expertise inevitably and in every situation she relies upon the specific types of studies and testing performed by Dr. Hadley Smith and Ms. Cynthia Lee.
All of plaintiffs experts have indicated specifically that in part they relied upon these specific reports and the video in order to assist them in formulating their opinions.

Notwithstanding whether the reports themselves can be introduced into evidence, there can be no question based upon the above authority that plaintiffs experts can rely upon the findings and reports and make known their reliance upon same and the contents therein.

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

Continue reading " Sacramento Boy Suffers Birth And Brain Injuries, Part 4 of 5 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth and brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

If anything, after plaintiffs experts testify regarding the matters relied upon by them from Dr. Smith and Ms. Lee's report, the defense can certainly request a jury instruction that evidence from those reports only be received for that limited purpose, specifically as part of the information upon which those experts base their opinion. In fact, that was specifically what was done in the Kelley case.

Additionally, defendant's reliance upon the case of Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corporation (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 851 is misplaced. (In defendant's Motion this case is incorrectly cited as Mossman v. Pennant Corporation) In fact, the Mosesian facts are radically different than presented here. In Mosesian, a defense expert specifically testified as to the verbal hearsay opinions of six outside experts regarding the very specific conclusion that that expert was testifying to. This is not remotely close to the issues presented here. Additionally, the facts in Mosesian did not involve a medical issue with physicians relying on reports or studies and/or testing done by other medical experts.

In fact, the court in Mosesian acknowledged the rule and holding of Kelley v. Bailey. The court states:

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

Continue reading " Doctors At Sacramento Hospital Cause Catastrophic Birth Injuries, Part 3 of 5 " »