Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication By David X., M.D.
and Valley Physicians
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
This is a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. Thirty-two year old Sundari Patel presented at herself to the defendants with abdominal pain which was later diagnosed as being from torsion of the left fallopian tube. She had excessive bleeding which was not timely addressed. The defendants should have arranged exploratory surgery to determine the source of the excessive bleeding. Because of the delay by the defendants, Sundari bled to death.
On March 1, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress which occurred prior to the death. The decedent’s husband, JAMES PATEL, and the decedent’s sister, MARI SINDHURI, witnessed Sundari’s excessive bleeding that cost Sundari’s life.
Now, DR. X. and VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS have filed a motion for summary adjudication asserting that the plaintiffs could not have contemporaneous observation because the husband and sister could only view the symptoms. But to the contrary, the Supreme Court in Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, has held that an injury-producing event can be the failure to provide proper medical attention – and that observing the symptoms was sufficient for bystander emotional distress:
The injury-producing event was the failure of custodial authorities to respond significantly to symptoms…. (Bird, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 919-920.)
The motion for summary adjudication should be denied. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.