Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to advise her mother, Haley White, that a pregnancy with twins carries more risks than a single fetus, and that the defendants failed to advise the plaintiff’s mother of her right to an abortion. Plaintiff does not allege that there was anything wrong with the pregnancy, other than the fact that the plaintiff was a twin, or anything else to suggest that the plaintiff’s mother was at risk for complications or needed special precautions to prevent pre-term labor. Unlike Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 811, 165 Cal.Rptr. 477, where a properly performed genetic test would have provided a high probability (id. at p. 815) of disclosing the risk of Tay-Sachs disease, there is no test that could have been offered to plaintiff’s mother which would have revealed the potential problems allegedly suffered by plaintiff, Joan White. Additionally, when testing revealed the shortening of Haley White’s cervix, and cerclage was recommended, Ms. White refused it.
A hypothetical possibility that some unstated or unknown action on the part of the moving defendants might have revealed some problem does not establish a reasonably probable causal connection (Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 403) between defendants’ alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injuries. A less than 50-50 possibility that defendants’ omission caused the harm does not meet the requisite reasonable medical probability test of proximate cause. (Id. at p. 404).
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In light of the above, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support this cause of action. In addition, the allegations are uncertain, and the plaintiff cannot recover the damages she seeks. She is only limited to the costs of the extraordinary care that is the result of her birth injury, and she cannot recover general damages, or loss of future earnings. Therefore, as pled, plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for wrongful life. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.