|
P1098 In a malpractice action against a hospital based on the claim that it was negligent in managing plaintiff's labor and the delivery of her infant, the fact that a firm to which plaintiff's attorney formerly belonged represented defendant's parent company in connection with similar actions against the parent company was not sufficient to justify inferences that the attorney had received confidential information about defendant's playbook or its childbirth practices, and so did not justify the presumption that the attorney acquired confidential information material to the present case, and did not justify the trial court's order disqualifying him from representing the plaintiff.CitationFAUGHN v PEREZ (Hospital Attorney) 145 CA4 592 [See: R of PC 3-310(E); Neal v Health Net 100 CA4 831, P/AT 9/02; Adams v. Aerojet-General 86 CA4 1324, P/AT 3/01; Jessen v Hartford 111 CA4 698, P/AT 9/03]
|
|
