Personal Injury Law

Trial Court Commits Prejudicial Error In Sacramento Malpractice Suit, Part 4 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.)

IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND ERROR OF LAW

Code of Civil Procedure Section 657(1) provides a new trial may be granted based upon any irregularities in the proceedings of the court, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which a party was prevented from having a fair trial. Section 657(7) provides for vacating a verdict and ordering a new trial due to an error of law which occurred at trial.

The grant of a new trial is a proper remedy for the giving of an erroneous jury instruction when the improper instruction materially affected the substantial rights of the aggrieved party. [C.C.P. §657.] ...'When a new trial was granted on the basis of an erroneous instruction, the order will not be disturbed unless the questioned instruction was absolutely accurate and under no reasonable interpretation could possibly have misled or confused the jury ...' (Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1325 citing Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 205, quoting Hand Electronics, Inc. v. Snowline Joint Unified School Dist. (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 862, 871; See also Brignoli v. Seabound Trans. Co. (1947) 29 Cal.2d 782, 791 : "Where it appears that an erroneous instruction confused or misled the jury, a new trial is justified.") For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

It Was Substantial Error to Give the CACI 506 Instruction

The order allowing CACI 506, when there was no evidence that Dr. Hill followed an approved or alternative method of diagnosis, was erroneous as a matter of law. This instruction presumptively was prejudicial to Plaintiff, as evidenced by the jury's note.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on November 07, 2010 (boomark / email).