Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this birth injury/medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
Motion for Summary Adjudication of Causes of Action and Damages Claims; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
This is a medical malpractice case arising out of the birth of plaintiff Abbey Green on October 6, 2004. The essential facts are not in dispute: In the early morning hours of October 6, 2004, Abbey’s mother, plaintiff Melissa Green, who was 39 weeks pregnant at the time, woke up and reported that her water had broken, and then began to exhibit seizure-like behavior. She was transported by paramedics to Regional Medical Center, which at the time was owned by the moving defendant Hospital Systems, Inc., arriving at the hospital at approximately 2:50 a.m. Ms. Green was taken to the emergency room and then labor and delivery, where Abbey was delivered at 3:37 a.m., 47 minutes after her mother arrived at the hospital. Husband and father, Paul Green, was at his wife’s side throughout. Following delivery, Ms. Green experienced complications and had to be hospitalized for another five days, although she has since recovered completely.
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
Plaintiffs’ complaint contains five causes of action for this birth injury case: (1) negligence by Abbey Green, (2) negligence by Melissa Green, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress by Melissa Green, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress (hereinafter, “NIED”) by Paul Green, and (5) loss of consortium by Paul Green. Two of these, the fourth and fifth causes of action, were challenged at the pleading stage but were permitted to remain. This motion is now brought because now, after the depositions of Melissa and Paul Green have been completed, the undisputed evidence establishes that Ms. Green has no separate cause of action for NIED, and Mr. Green has no causes of action for NIED or loss of consortium. (See Part 2 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.