It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this brain injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Sutter, or any skilled nursing facility.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
NIED Factual Pleading cont.
43. Plaintiff Ethan Lee was present at the scene of the injury to his child when it occurred and at that time and place and had contemporaneous sensory awareness of the causal connection between the negligent conduct of the Defendants and was reasonably certain that his child was being injured from negligent medical care during labor and delivery, as herein alleged.
44. Plaintiff Thomas Lee was present in the labor room during the labor and delivery his son and witnessed thick meconium during the labor, and knew that the meconium was impeding his son’s breathing, and causing a lack of perfusion of blood and oxygen to this child’s brain.
45. Plaintiff Thomas Lee also witness his son’s heart rate decrease, and knew at the time that the decreased fetal heart rate meant that this son was not receiving enough blood and oxygen to his brain, and was thereby being damaged from the lack of blood and oxygen. When Ethan Lee was born his father witnessed his son to be lifeless and in severe distress, and Thomas Lee understood that his son was suffering brain damage at the time.
46. Said Defendants in disregard of the probability that their actions, in failing to provide the necessary medical treatment to Ethan Lee, were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Thomas Lee to suffer severe emotional distress. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
47. By reason of the negligence of said Defendants in failing to treat his son timely, Plaintiff Thomas Lee suffered severe and serious emotional distress and shock and injury to his nervous system and body, all to his general damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this Court and pursuant to Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644.
Plaintiff Thomas Lee has thus properly pleaded each of the elements of bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress as required by CACI 1621 as ultimate facts, and not by evidentiary facts, which are improper.
Plaintiff has alleged that he contemporaneously perceived the injury to his wife and child and was present at the injury producing event, he has also alleged that he was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that his wife and child were at that time being injured. Consequently, the demurrer should be overruled.
Plaintiff Thomas Lee has pleaded this cause of action according to the requirements set forth in CACI 1621, and Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644.
By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs respectfully urge the court to overrule the demurrer.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.