Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Contrary to defendant’s objection as stated in their Special Interrogatory Responses, these individuals were not identified in the medical records in the possession of plaintiffs and/or their counsel. The medical records only identify Dr. Green and Dr. Brown as involved in the neonatal resuscitation and one labor/delivery nurse attending the birth. However, it has come out during depositions and through the course of discovery, through testimony of family and friends, that there was a resuscitation team as well as a great number of people in the room during the birth and the immediate post-birth period.
Also uncovered during the course of discovery is the fact that, according to University’s own pediatric department rules and regulations, a neonatal team “would include a neonatal transport nurse and a NICU nurse, as well as the neonatologist or his/her designee.” Further, University’s women and infants services procedure manual specifies that an Advance Practice Nurse, Transitional RN or NICU Charge RN shall be present at every delivery. Thus, it is clear that there are individuals known to University who were present who are not identified or reflected in the McCoy records.
By letter dated June 16, 2002, defendant University indicated that it would provide further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant agreed to provide supplemental responses on or before July 13, 2002. In addition, defendant agreed to extend plaintiffs time for filing a motion to compel further responses, up to and including July 27, 2002.
On or about July 16, 2002, after not having received any further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set One, counsel for plaintiffs telephoned defense counsel Andy Stone in order to obtain a status of the responses. Mr. Stone informed plaintiffs’ counsel that defense counsel Barbara Stein would be handling the responses and would give a status update by the end of business that day.
At the end of the day, having not received a call from Ms. Stein, plaintiffs counsel called her to again inquire as to the status of the responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel left a message for Ms. Stein and her assistant that an update on the responses was necessary or plaintiffs would be forced to file a motion to compel further responses. Defense counsel did not respond.
At the end of the day, having not received a call from Ms. Stein, plaintiffs counsel called her to again inquire as to the status of the responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel left a message for Ms. Stein and her assistant that an update on the responses was necessary or plaintiffs would be forced to file a motion to compel further responses. Defense counsel did not respond.
On or about July 17, 2002, counsel for plaintiffs left Ms. Stein another message inquiring as to the status of the responses. Again, the message went unanswered. On July 25, 2002, counsel for plaintiff informed defense counsel by letter that further responses to plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories were still outstanding and overdue. The attempts to telephone and meet and confer by plaintiffs’ counsel have been met with silence and letters have gone unanswered..
To date, plaintiffs have not received further responses to special interrogatories. Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to issue an order compelling defendant to further respond to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers One through Seven. Additionally, plaintiffs request sanctions be imposed for having to bring this Motion to Compel in the amount of $2275.00. (See Part 3 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.