Nature of Proceedings: Motion Bifurcation Defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital’s motion to bifurcate its liability from all other issues
Ruling:
Denied
Analysis:
Plaintiff Keith Berry’s claims for professional negligence arise out of surgery performed by defendant David Laub, M.D., at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital on April 18, 2011, to remove a cyst from his kidney. He has alleged that defendants were negligent in diagnosis, treatment, supervision and monitoring, resulting in irreparable damage to Keith’s kidney, immune system and other organs. As a direct result of the negligence, Keith had his right kidney removed and suffered a perforated bowel, several abscesses, bacterial infection, severe vomiting, severe pain, sleeplessness, hopelessness and fear of death. Plaintiff Tina Berry brings a claim for loss of consortium against both defendants.
Defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (SBCH) seeks an order bifurcating the trial of plaintiffs’ claims against it sepa
Hearing Date
February 05, 2013
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Bifurcation Defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital’s motion to bifurcate its liability from all other issues
Ruling:
Denied
Analysis:
Plaintiff Keith Berry’s claims for professional negligence arise out of surgery performed by defendant David Laub, M.D., at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital on April 18, 2011, to remove a cyst from his kidney. He has alleged that defendants were negligent in diagnosis, treatment, supervision and monitoring, resulting in irreparable damage to Keith’s kidney, immune system and other organs. As a direct result of the negligence, Keith had his right kidney removed and suffered a perforated bowel, several abscesses, bacterial infection, severe vomiting, severe pain, sleeplessness, hopelessness and fear of death. Plaintiff Tina Berry brings a claim for loss of consortium against both defendants.
Defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (SBCH) seeks an order bifurcating the trial of plaintiffs’ claims against it sepa