Personal Injury Law

Doctor's Experts Present Weak Evidence In Sacramento Malpractice Case, Part 7 of 13

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.

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

DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN AND THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED

Defendant submitted a Declaration by James Greene, M.D., to support the Motion for Summary Judgment. This "evidence" is insufficient, and therefore defendant's motion must fail. The declaration is improper, lacks foundation, and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Dr. Greene completely ignores those portions of the medical records that do not support his contentions, e.g., that Dr. Hall lacked experience with this type of surgery; that defendants should have halted the procedure after several drops in blood pressure attributed to "tugging on the lead;" and that he was "captain of the ship."

While expert opinions are given tremendous weight in Summary Judgment proceedings in medical malpractice cases, statements made without any notable foundation can not simply be accepted because they are made by a purported expert. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Plaintiff is entitled to have a degree of scientific reliability applied to the defendants' expert declarations. Mere statements without any explanation or foundation other than I'm the expert, trust me are not persuasive. These "experts" have not been deposed in order to discover the basis for their opinions, nor have they provided any such basis in their declarations. This testimony is inadequate for purposes of summary judgment as it does not meet any kind of scientific reliability standard. See, e.g., Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on September 30, 2010 (boomark / email).