On August 10, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bush, Lori,
Dignity Health, A Califonia Corporation,
and
Dignity Health, A Califonia Corporation,
St. Bernadine Medical Center A Business Entity Unknown,
Total Professional Network, Inc,
for Medical Malpractice Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\a
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
DIAMOND 81 DRAGOJEVIC, LLP
21860 BURBANK BOULEVARD, SUITE 370
WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91 367
TELEPHONE (8] 8) 340-1 009
F l
SCOTT R. DIAMOND. STATE BAR NO. 93706 sgIBEURIOR coulR'Tgs
gur—‘ORN IA
JULIA DRAGOJEVIC. STATE BAR N0. 93734 N BERNARD:
SAN BERNARmNO
DISTRICT
\OOONQU‘cbbJNH
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant, TOTAL FEB 14 2022
PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC, sued ‘
and served herein us DOE 1 _ snub?
BY
PAC AN Z, DEPuw
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
LORI BUSH, an individual;
CASE NO. CIVDSI61316]
[Assigned t0 Hon. John M. Pacheco
in Dept. S31 for all purposes]
Plaintiff,
SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITlON TO
MOTION IN LIMINE #3
PLAINTIFF’S
Trial:
Date: 2/14/22
Time: 10:00 am.
ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL Dept; S31
CENTER, a business entity form
unknown; DIGNITY HEALTH, a
[Complaint Filed: 8/10/16]
California Corporation; and DOES
NNNNNNNNt—Ar—ar—r—nw—Ib—Ir—u—AFH
1
QQMAWNHOOWVQIJ’IkWNWC
through 200, inclusive,
Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACT‘IONS.
DefendanflCross~DefendanL Total Professional Network, Inc., sued and served
herein as Doe 1 (hereinafier “defendant”), submits the following supplemental points and
authorities with respect to plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 to exclude or limit the testimony
of defense expert, Maurice Espinoza. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Espinoza cannot opine on
the standard of care for nurses because he has not reviewed the policies and procedures for
nurses at St. Bemardjne Medical Center- The law is clear that plaintiff’s argument must
28 fail.
C :\Users\Robi n snn\My
mmmmmoio
MLSBUPP-OPP-PLTF-MI
.-ooa.wpd SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE #3
I
STANDARD 0F CARE IS ESTABLISHED BY EXPERT TESTIMONY
A preliminary inquily to be presented to the jury in this lawsuit is whether the
ROOO'QONUIabUJNp—n
nursing care in this case breached the applicable standard of care. (Sec, BAJI 6.006.00. l .)
The applicable standard of care is to be determined based upon the opinions of qualified
expert witnesses. (See, BAJI 6.30.) The proper manner for assessment and care of a
patient is not a matter of common knowledge. Such matters are peculiarly within the
knowledge of experts, and compfise the basic issues in this action for medical negligence
against defendant. (See, Sin: v. Owens (1949) 33 Cal.2d 749, 453; Landems v. Flood
(1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410—412.)
t—Iw-‘v-‘t—am
AWNF‘O
When the California Supreme Court has considered the question of what constitutes
the standard of care in the context of health care providers, they have consistently opined
that it is established by expert testimony. (See, Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital
15 Med. Ctr. ( 1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 685; see, also, BAH 6.30.)
16
17 II
18 MEDICINE IS PRACTICED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT BY LICENSED HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
19
20 At issue is the standard of care for the defendant. That standard 0f care is
21 established by testimony of experts. A policy and/or procedure of St. Bemardine Medical
22 Center should not be considered as evidence 0f standard of care.
23 While such policies and procedures may be passed before many eyes, they are not a
24 substitute for thc exercise 0f sound judgment by a licensed provider. To the extent a
25 hospital’s policies and procedures are deemed t0 be evidence of the prevailing standard of
26 care for the practice of nursing by this Court, this would have a chilling effect. Under such
27 circumstances, practitioners concerned about their exposure to professional liability suits
28 would adhere to “cookbook” procedures, and avoid deviating from such policies or
C:\Usars\Robinsan\My
Sham WWEOEOD‘I 0
?\MILS‘SUPP—OPP—PLTF—Ml
2
L-003.wpd SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 1N LIMINE #3
Document Filed Date
February 14, 2022
Case Filing Date
August 10, 2016
Category
Medical Malpractice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\a (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) DIAMOND 81 DRAGOJEVIC, LLP 21860 BURBANK BOULEVARD, SUITE 370 WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91 367 TELEPHONE (8] 8) 340-1 009 F l SCOTT R. DIAMOND. STATE BAR NO. 93706 sgIBEURIOR coulR'Tgs gur—‘ORN IA JULIA DRAGOJEVIC. STATE BAR N0. 93734 N BERNARD: SAN BERNARmNO DISTRICT \OOONQU‘cbbJNH Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant, TOTAL FEB 14 2022 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC, sued ‘ and served herein us DOE 1 _ snub? BY PAC AN Z, DEPuw SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT LORI BUSH, an individual; CASE NO. CIVDSI61316] [Assigned t0 Hon. John M. Pacheco in Dept. S31 for all purposes] Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITlON TO MOTION IN LIMINE #3 PLAINTIFF’S Trial: Date: 2/14/22 Time: 10:00 am. ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL Dept; S31 CENTER, a business entity form unknown; DIGNITY HEALTH, a [Complaint Filed: 8/10/16] California Corporation; and DOES NNNNNNNNt—Ar—ar—r—nw—Ib—Ir—u—AFH 1 QQMAWNHOOWVQIJ’IkWNWC through 200, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACT‘IONS. DefendanflCross~DefendanL Total Professional Network, Inc., sued and served herein as Doe 1 (hereinafier “defendant”), submits the following supplemental points and authorities with respect to plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 to exclude or limit the testimony of defense expert, Maurice Espinoza. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Espinoza cannot opine on the standard of care for nurses because he has not reviewed the policies and procedures for nurses at St. Bemardjne Medical Center- The law is clear that plaintiff’s argument must 28 fail. C :\Users\Robi n snn\My mmmmmoio MLSBUPP-OPP-PLTF-MI .-ooa.wpd SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE #3 I STANDARD 0F CARE IS ESTABLISHED BY EXPERT TESTIMONY A preliminary inquily to be presented to the jury in this lawsuit is whether the ROOO'QONUIabUJNp—n nursing care in this case breached the applicable standard of care. (Sec, BAJI 6.006.00. l .) The applicable standard of care is to be determined based upon the opinions of qualified expert witnesses. (See, BAJI 6.30.) The proper manner for assessment and care of a patient is not a matter of common knowledge. Such matters are peculiarly within the knowledge of experts, and compfise the basic issues in this action for medical negligence against defendant. (See, Sin: v. Owens (1949) 33 Cal.2d 749, 453; Landems v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410—412.) t—Iw-‘v-‘t—am AWNF‘O When the California Supreme Court has considered the question of what constitutes the standard of care in the context of health care providers, they have consistently opined that it is established by expert testimony. (See, Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital 15 Med. Ctr. ( 1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 685; see, also, BAH 6.30.) 16 17 II 18 MEDICINE IS PRACTICED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BY LICENSED HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS 19 20 At issue is the standard of care for the defendant. That standard 0f care is 21 established by testimony of experts. A policy and/or procedure of St. Bemardine Medical 22 Center should not be considered as evidence 0f standard of care. 23 While such policies and procedures may be passed before many eyes, they are not a 24 substitute for thc exercise 0f sound judgment by a licensed provider. To the extent a 25 hospital’s policies and procedures are deemed t0 be evidence of the prevailing standard of 26 care for the practice of nursing by this Court, this would have a chilling effect. Under such 27 circumstances, practitioners concerned about their exposure to professional liability suits 28 would adhere to “cookbook” procedures, and avoid deviating from such policies or C:\Usars\Robinsan\My Sham WWEOEOD‘I 0 ?\MILS‘SUPP—OPP—PLTF—Ml 2 L-003.wpd SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 1N LIMINE #3