Personal Injury Law

Medical Malpractice Suit Pits Sacramento Family Against Its Doctors, Part 3 of 10

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

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, 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 case and its proceedings.)

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT

Code of Civil Procedure Section 657(6) permits the vacating of a verdict and ordering of a new trial if the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that, in determining whether a new trial may be granted on this ground, the trial court must independently weigh the evidence and assess its sufficiency to support the verdict; a new trial may be granted even if the evidence would be considered sufficient to sustain the verdict reached by the jury on appeal. People v. Capps (1984), 159 Cal.App.3d 546, 552; Candido v. Huitt (1984) 151 Points and Authorities in Support of New Trial Points and Authorities in Support of New Trial Cal.App.3d 918, 923. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In the instant case, the testimony of the experts, including Dr. Hill herself, conclusively establishes that Dr. Hill included DRD in her differential diagnosis. She then failed to rule out this diagnosis and further failed to inform the patient of the availability of a simple medication to diagnose DRD. Given the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses, and Dr. Hill herself, the jury's failure to find Dr. Hill/The Medical Center negligent was clearly unsupported by the evidence and cannot be substantiated.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on November 04, 2010 (boomark / email).