Articles Posted in Birth Injury

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

In its next First Amendment pronouncement, in Keenan v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal 4th 413, 117 Cal.Rptr. 2d 1, our Supreme Court held facially unconstitutional the “Son of Sam” law, Civil Code Section 2225(b)(l), concluding that these provisions of the California statute are facially invalid under both the free speech clause of the First Amendment in the Federal Constitution, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment and the Liberty of Speech clause, of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Subdivision(a).

Just about one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Tory v. Cochran (2005) 542 U.S. 965, struck down an injunction issued by a judge of this court (and upheld by the Court of Appeal), prohibiting petitioners from picketing, displaying signs, placards or other written or printed material, and from orally uttering statements about one Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. and about Cochran’s law firm in any public forum .

In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the injunction …. amounts to an overly broad prior restraint upon speech, lacking plausible justification, and that “Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” (Tory. supra) (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted. )

Then, just two months ago, in ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 841, Justice Epstein, for Div. 4 of our 2nd District, affirmed a courageous (conservative Republican) judge, (Stephen Peterson, who sits in Van Nuys) who held unconstitutional, strictly on 1st Amendment grounds, Civil Code. Section 2527, a statute compelling speech, with severe consequences for its violation.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A PLAINTIFF TO INCLUDE A PRAYER FOR A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT, AS WELL AS A PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BECAUSE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.13(a) (AS IS C.C.P. SECTION 425.10) IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Preventing plaintiffs from stating the amount of damages they seek violates a litigant’s First Amendment right to free expression, as the two cited statutes command prior restraint on freedom of expression.

To put this matter in perspective, we start with the dissenting opinion of our late, beloved Justice Mosk, who, more than a decade past, in Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 428, 440-441, 280 Cal.Rptr. 83, wrote:

A statutory scheme that forbids a party to provide useful information-a form of compulsory silence-and that creates anomalous results … urgently needs reexamination. Moreover, in a newsworthy case, a lawyer or party can always call a press conference and trumpet the claims to the heavens, or at least to the terrestrial media. Thus, not only are (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS) 425.10 and 425.11 bad law and bad policy, they are an ineffective means of implementing the legislature’s apparent intent. Nor can they be made effective: I cannot conceive of legislation that could constitutionally prevent plaintiffs with sensational personal injury damage claims from announcing those claims in any forum whatsoever. (Emphasis added).

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF HAS PLEADED EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WILFUL MISCONDUCT

Defendants David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group next demur to Plaintiff’s third cause of action, for Wilful Misconduct.

Defendants’ demurrer is replete with colloquy about how plaintiff has failed to plead any facts demonstrating that defendants’ conduct rose above the level of mere negligence.

Defendants David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group have offered no judicial authority as to just why plaintiff’s pleaded claim for wilful misconduct fails to meet the requirements of that well accepted tort.

The elements of wilful misconduct are as follows:
1. actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended;
2. actual or constructive knowledge that injury is probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger; and

3. conscious failure to avoid the peril.

(Witkin, 6 Summary of California Law, 9th edition, Torts, section 761)

This standard was tested in New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 681. New involved two motorcyclists who sued a landowner to recover for injuries sustained while they were riding their motorcycles on defendant’s property. In upholding the jury’s finding that defendant had acted wilfully or in conscious disregard of its duty to plaintiffs, the New court found that the trial court’s instruction of wilful misconduct did no more than state the well-established objective component of the test of wilful misconduct. (New, supra at p. 681).

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT
IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT INCONSISTENT PLEADINGS ARE PERMITTED

Defendants’ David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group’s demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is based (initially) on the grounds that Plaintiffs first cause of action, for medical negligence, is duplicative of Plaintiff’s second cause of action, for Wrongful Life.

It is well established that a plaintiff is entitled to plead inconsistent causes of action. Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10.

Rader Co., supra, involved an appeal from an Order of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers, without leave to amend.

In holding that inconsistent causes of action are appropriate, the Rader Co., supra, court, stated, at p.29, of 178 Cal.App.3d, as follows:
Moreover, Rader is not precluded by law from alleging in one cause of action the breach of a contract and an inconsistent theory of recovery in another cause of action. To the extent Rader’s allegation in one cause of action of a fully executed contract with Stone is at odds with an allegation in a separate cause of action that PSR interfered in Rader’s advantageous relationship with Stone, such inconsistency is not fatal to Rader’s claims at the pleading stage, as a plaintiff is permitted to plead inconsistent or …, alternative counts.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DAVID X., M.D, AND DOCTORS MEDICAL GROUP’S DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

In response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, defendants David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group of Sacramento, California have filed a demurrer to, and Motion to Strike portions of, Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendants’ David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group argue that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, for medical negligence, on the grounds that it duplicates the Second Cause of Action, for Wrongful Life.

As will be seen from the following Points and Authorities, inconsistent pleadings have long been permitted, and therefore defendants’ David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group’s demurrer, upon grounds of inconsistency, is without merit.

Defendants’ David X., M.D. and Doctors Medical Group next contend that Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action, for Wilful Misconduct, fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for this tort.

Again, as demonstrated by the following Points and Authorities, Plaintiff has properly pleaded each and every element of a cause of action for Wilful Misconduct, and defendants’ assertions to the contrary are specious.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANTS’ DESTRUCTION OF CRUCIAL RECORDS OR PREVARICATION ABOUT FACTS MAY SUPPORT EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS OR AN INFERENCE OF LIABILITY

Universal’s failure to produce legible copies of the fetal monitor strips is the equivalent of a failure to produce evidence and will support an evidentiary sanction so that the defendant cannot benefit from loss of the evidence. Puritan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 885, 217 Cal.Rptr. 602 (even unintentional loss of evidence justifies evidentiary sanctions sufficient to cure any advantage that party might gain over opponent); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 739, 149 Cal.Rptr. 499; Caryl Richards Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 305, 10 Cal.Rptr. 377; Newland v. Superior Court (1997) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 24.

Such orders may put the requesting party in the position it would have been in had the requested discovery been entirely favorable (Sauer v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 213, 227, 240 Cal.Rptr. 489, excluding all evidence of economic loss as sanction for failure to produce financial documents), or preclude any evidence which might have been impeached by the destroyed matter. People v. Michael L. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1052, 199 Cal.Rptr. 207.

A jury may find that the hospital’s records or Dr. X.’s account of the birthing procedure are so far from the actual facts as to constitute willful misrepresentation, or that they willfully falsified the medical records so as to conceal what really happened. A false exculpatory statement can be evidence of consciousness of liability, and evidence that a party falsely denied knowledge of a fact permits the jury to infer that he or she had guilty knowledge. Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, 1841, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 192; Evidence Code §413; Biondi v. Amship Corp., supra, 81 Cal.App.2d 751.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

EVIDENCE OF TREATMENT BELOW THE STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION

The fundamental rule on summary judgment is that the motion may not be granted where there is any triable issue as to a material fact. There is direct controverting evidence as to defendants’ neglect, and a clear causal connection between that neglect and the injuries suffered by Sean Taylor.

In a medical malpractice action involving a birthing injury against a hospital and delivering obstetrician, the appellate court reversed a non-suit granted to defendants based on plaintiffs’ failure to sufficiently establish the element of causation. Espinoza v. Little Company of Mary Hospital (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1304, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 541. The Court addressed the nature of plaintiffs burden of proof as follows:

Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ…. [Citations.] (Carson v. Facilities Development Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 838-839, 206 Cal.Rptr. 136, 686 P.2d 656.) If the existence of facts sufficient to support a recovery can logically and reasonably be inferred from the evidence, the motion must be denied, regardless of whether the evidence is also susceptible to conflicting inferences. [Citation.]… When there is doubt in the court’s mind about the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence it is the duty of the court to let the case go to the jury. [Citations.] [Citation.] (Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611, 278 Cal.Rptr. 900, emphasis added.) [31 Cal.App.4th at 1313]

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

The declaration of defendant’s expert herein is no more enlightening than that in Kelley as to the merits of Plaintiffs’ case. The defense expert simply attests that he read the records and did not see anything in it that fell beneath the standard of care. He recites, for example, that the Woods corkscrew maneuver in the McRoberts position was applied, without any evidence that it was properly performed. In effect, he regurgitates the hearsay of the records and announces that the records do not contain any admission of neglect.

Nor has Universal’s expert demonstrated his competence to attest to the standard of care governing nurses, stated what that standard is so that the Court can assess his opinion, or established that there is no evidence of nurse neglect in the Woods or McRoberts procedures.

Universal’s failure to give its expert the photographs taken during delivery actually supports an inference against it. Hagy v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 361, 372, 265 P.2d 86 (defendant’s failure to provide its expert with data regarding concentration of toxic fumes supports inference against it); Biondi v. Amship Corp. (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 751, 185 P.2d 94.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

UNIVERSAL’S EVIDENCE FAILS TO CARRY ITS BURDEN AS TO DIRECT LIABILITY

Universal relies upon the recitation of medical records in the declaration of Peter Fine, concluding with the opinion that the conduct described therein complies with the standard of care. As Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, held, conclusory declarations without sufficient factual foundations are not sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue regarding standard of care.

In Kelley, the defendant physician submitted an expert declaration citing the records reviewed and then, after three paragraphs describing the records, announcing that At all times.. Dr. Trunk acted appropriately and within the standard of care under the circumstances presented. (Id. at 522) The Court of Appeal found that the declaration was inadmissible and failed to carry defendant’s burden on summary judgment.

Expert witnesses normally testify concerning the bases for their opinions, and the court may require the expert to state the bases before giving his opinion. (See Evid.Code, §§802.) Standard instructions give juries the common sense directive that [a]n opinion is only as good as the facts and reasons on which it is based.’ (BAJI 2.40.) An expert’s opinion, even if uncontradicted, may be rejected if the reasons given for it are unsound. (Kastner v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (1965) 63 Cal.2d 52, 58, 45 Cal.Rptr. 129,403 P.2d 385; Griffith v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 837, 847, 73 Cal.Rptr. 773 [expert opinions, though uncontradicted, are worth no more than the reasons and factual data upon which they are based]; BAJI 2.40 [ [Y]ou may not arbitrarily or unreasonably disregard the opinion testimony… which was not contradicted … unless you find that it is not believable… ].)
Applying the foregoing standards here, we conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury case and its proceedings.)

Nothing in the moving papers addresses the question of whether Universal complied with its duty to assure the competence of physicians – including Dr. X. – practicing in its facilities. The bare assertion that plaintiffs cannot prove their anticipated claim is an improper attempt to shift initial burden to the responding party. To support summary judgment on a theory that plaintiff has no evidence to prove an element of his case (Rio Linda School District v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 732, 735, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653), it is not enough to simply suggest that plaintiff cannot prove its case. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 952, 955-957, 960, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 82.

Allowing the moving party to allege that the opposing party has no evidence would effectively place an initial burden upon the opposing party that would directly contradict the procedure for burden shifting expressly set forth in the amended statute. Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 360. The moving party is required to make an affirmative showing of the absence of evidence to establish a prima facie case. (Id. at 83) To do so, the moving defendant should be required to produce direct or circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff not only does not have but cannot reasonably expect to obtain a prima facie case. Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 186, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 197. The burden does not shift until a review of all direct, circumstantial and inferential evidence available to the moving defendant establishes the absence of evidence to support the plaintiffs cause of action. Scheiding, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 83.

Continue Reading ›