Camacho v. Meridian Neurocare
Filed 6/21/06 Camacho v. Meridian Neurocare CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
| SALVADOR CAMACHO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MERIDIAN NEUROCARE, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Civ. No. B178473 (Super. Ct. No. 214086) (Ventura County)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 23, 2006, be modified as follows:
1. On page 8, the first full paragraph, beginning "None of the qualifications" is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
None of the qualifications of those testifying were challenged by appellant. Although appellant presented expert testimony on the issues, it did not rely on the evidence presented by any of its experts to refute the testimony of Camachos' witnesses. There is substantial evidence that the treatment Arturo received at Care Meridian-Oxnard fell below the standard of care.
2. On page 9, the second full paragraph, beginning "Appellant presented" is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
Appellant points to nothing in the record to refute the fact that Arturo was malnourished during his stay at the Oxnard facility, or that his death was caused by anything other than his inability to fight off infection due to malnutrition. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict on the wrongful death claim.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Lawyers.
