It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

(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.)

CAUSES OF ACTION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THAT WILL BE TRIED

In this case, plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for medical negligence, wrongful life and wrongful birth.

The affirmative defenses that will be raised (as asserted in the answer to the first amended complaint) are the first affirmative defense (failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants), the sixth affirmative defense regarding the applicability of the MICRA provisions pursuant California Civil Code Sections 3333.1 and 3333.2, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 667.7; the eighth affirmative defense (California Civil Code Section 1714.8.)

STIPULATION

Counsel have stipulated that plaintiff Nicholas Smith cannot recover general damages or assert a claim for loss of earnings or earning capacity. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

The evidentiary issues that will be raised at trial are whether or not the defendants complied with the standard of care and whether or not the defendants care and treatment was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries as well as issues pertaining to the plaintiffs' alleged damages.

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

(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.)

The remainder of Ms. Smith's pregnancy was completely uneventful. The balance of her prenatal course was normal with the patient matching fundal height with gestational age.

On December 13, 2008, Ms. Smith had an spontaneous rupture of membranes. There were no uterine contractions following the rupture of membranes. The plaintiff was advised of the risk of infection due to prolonged rupture of membranes. The plaintiff opted to go to the hospital approximately six hours after her membranes ruptured. Ms. Smith was started on Pitocin augmentation. With Pitocin augmentation, the fetal heart rate showed decreased variability. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The plaintiff was advised to have a cesarian section which she agreed to and the infant was delivered by Dr. Brown during the early morning of December 14, 2008. Following his birth, the minor plaintiff was diagnosed with hemimeganencephaly, which is an enlargement of one cerebral hemisphere. All experts are in agreement that this is a very rare congenital malformation.

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

(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.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Nancy Smith was initially seen at Women's Health Group by Stanley Woo, M.D., on July 21, 2008. Ms. Smith reported a last menstrual period of March 24, 2008, and an estimated delivery date of December 31, 2008. Ms. Smith received her initial prenatal care at California Medical Center by Eric Goldberg, M.D., in Sacramento in May 2008.

At the initial prenatal visit, Dr. Woo noted Ms. Smith to be 16.2 weeks pregnant. On this visit, Dr. Woo performed an ultrasound to document a single viable intrauterine fetus. This was not a fetal anatomic ultrasound and thus no measurements were taken. Further, the testimony by defendants' experts will be that no measurements were required by the standard of care. Further, all experts agree that if measurements had been taken, they would have essentially shown a normal fetal anatomy. Additionally, all experts are in agreement that the defendants were not required by the standard of care to perform an ultrasound. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

At the initial office visit, blood was drawn for AFP screening. The test results were received on or about July 30, 2008, and were negative for open neural tube defects, Down's Syndrome, and trisomy 18. There was also no history of neural tube defects in the family. The plaintiffs were informed of the results on or about August 5, 2008.

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

(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.)

DEFENDANTS ELIZABETH BROWN, M.D., STANLEY WOO, M.D., AND WOMEN’S HEALTH GROUP’S TRIAL BRIEF (PRE-TRIAL REPORT)

INTRODUCTION

The instant action is one for medical malpractice, wrongful life and wrongful birth brought on behalf of the plaintiffs, Nancy Smith, Thomas Smith, and minor plaintiff Nicholas Smith, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Nancy Smith, for the failure to diagnose multiple congenital anomalies prenatally during ultrasounds performed on July 21, 2008, by defendant Stanley Woo, M.D., and August 11, 2008, by defendant Elizabeth Brown, M.D.

Plaintiffs allege that Drs. Woo and Brown failed to properly perform the ultrasounds by failing to obtain measurements. Plaintiffs allege that had the congenital anomaly that the plaintiff Nicholas Smith was born with, known as hemimeganencephaly, been diagnosed, plaintiffs Nancy Smith and Thomas Smith would have aborted the pregnancy and the minor plaintiff Nicholas Smith would not have been born. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The evidence will show that both Dr. Woo and Dr. Brown met the standard of care regarding the ultrasounds performed, both of which were limited ultrasounds and they were not required to evaluate the anatomy of the baby.

(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.)

WHETHER ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAVE NOT BEEN SUED FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS ACTION

The only issue properly before the court and the trier of fact is whether or not the defendants breached the standard of care to these patients; whether or not said breach was a substantial factor in causing injury or damage; and the extent of that injury/damage. It is of no consequence that this case may, or may not be, the first in either of these individual defendants' career in obstetrics.

Comments, suggestions, or innuendo that defendants are good obstetricians or because of a non-existent lawsuit history will only serve to prejudice the jury against plaintiffs, confuse the issues and allow for the potential for jury speculation, rather than focusing on the evidence. Like evidence of good "conduct" or good "character," such comments, evidence or argument, is improper because it asks the jury to violate the law and their oath to judge the case based on the evidence presented to them and without regard to sympathy for any party. While such propaganda can be cleverly worded and disguised in its presentation, it is still inadmissible and improper and should not be allowed by this court. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

EVIDENCE CODE § 352 MANDATES EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE, AS IT WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFFS, CONFUSION OF THE ISSUES, AND WOULD MISLEAD THE JURY SUCH THAT ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE

This Court has the discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence. California Evidence Code § 352 provides that:

(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.)

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Prohibit Argument or Evidence to Suggest That This is the Only Time the Defendant(s) Have Been Sued for Malpractice

Plaintiffs will move this court in limine, before trial and selection of jury, on the grounds that any such evidence is not relevant to any issues presented in this action, and would be highly improper and prejudicial to Plaintiffs.

This motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any documents already on file with this Court, and upon such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented prior to or at the hearing of this matter.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Nicholas Smith, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Nancy Smith, in the instant personal injury lawsuit seeks damages for devastating permanent personal injuries sustained during the course of his gestation in this birth injury action. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins

Plaintiffs anticipate that defense counsel may improperly attempt to inform the jury that this case is the first and only medical malpractice claim filed against the defendants. (See Part 2 of 2.)

(Please 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.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

As such, with trial likely to occur in the next six to nine months, defendants have been severely prejudiced by plaintiffs' inappropriate conduct including the following: (1) defendants have been unable to ascertain plaintiffs' specific contentions/allegations; (2) defendants have been unable to identify subsequent treating doctors so that they may subpoena such records, keeping in mind that it will take an additional 30-45 days to obtain these records once subpoenas are issued; and (3) while defendants can retain, at least, some experts, they will be unable to obtain complete expert opinions until the experts are allowed to review all records. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Code of Civil Procedure §36 provides, in pertinent part, the following:

(b) A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under the age of 14 years unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. A civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision.

(Please 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.)

It is also worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

When responses were not forthcoming, by letter dated May 22, 2002, counsel for these responding defendants requested that plaintiffs' counsel provide responses to the outstanding discovery responses by May 29, 2002. In said letter, counsel for responding defendants further indicated that given plaintiffs' pending motion for trial preference, it was imperative that these severely outstanding responses be provided posthaste. While plaintiffs' counsel again requested, and was granted, another extension of time, until June 1, 2002, to provide responses, no responses were forthcoming. As such, it is disingenuous for plaintiffs to request trial preference in a highly complex action involving extensive damages when they have impaired defendants' ability to conduct even basic discovery necessary to evaluate this action and to prepare for trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

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

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

This is a complex medical malpractice and birth injury action, involving numerous issues pertaining to prenatal and neonatal care, with allegations of catastrophic injury. Indeed, this action involves three distinct plaintiffs, comprised of the infant and his two adult parents, each of whom has claims which will require extensive work-up for purposes of evaluation and trial preparation. Given the nature of the allegations, it is expected that plaintiffs will be claiming several million dollars in damages. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

However, while defendants have acted expeditiously in recognition of the complexity of the issues presented in this matter, their efforts to do so have been severely impeded by these same plaintiffs who are now seeking a preferential trial setting. Indeed, despite the fact that these responding defendants served initial written discovery on February 27, 2002, to date, nearly four months later, plaintiffs have failed to provide any responses thereto. Plaintiffs' repeated failure to respond to discovery has required defendants to file Motions to Compel.

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

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth 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, or Sutter.

Response of Defendants, Mark Davis, M.D., Glenn Hall, M.D., and Universal Perinatal Group, to Plaintiffs' Motion for Trial Preference; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING A PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING AS ONE OF A NUMBER OF STRATEGIC MANEUVERS DESIGNED TO IMPEDE DEFENDANTS AND PREJUDICE THEIR ABILITY TO PROPERLY PREPARE THIS MATTER FOR TRIAL.

This is an action for medical malpractice and intentional tort (battery) arising out of the care and treatment rendered to co-plaintiff, Kristy Smith, during the course of her pregnancy with, and during the delivery of minor plaintiff, Owen Smith. This action also appears to be based on the care and treatment rendered to the infant immediately following his birth. With respect to the infant, plaintiffs are alleging that he suffers from severe and catastrophic neurological deficits as a result of defendants' alleged negligence. Plaintiffs, Wesley Smith and Kristy Smith, are also alleging a cause of action for emotional distress. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

(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.)

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’ citation of Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, is confusing at best. Molien involved a husband's claim of emotional distress based on the harm that occurred to him and his marriage. Specifically, the physician misdiagnosed Mr. Molien's wife with syphilis, leading her to believe he had had an extramarital affair. This caused significant marital problems as well as causing Mr. Molien to be medically tested and to take medication. As the Supreme Court later held in Burgess, to the extent Molien stands for the proposition that it introduced a new method for determining the existence of a duty, as limited by foreseeability, it should not be relied upon and its discussion of duty is limited to its facts. Burgess, at 1074. However, Burgess did reaffirm the principles derived from Molien as follows:

(1) damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress may be recovered in the absence of physical injury or impact, and (2) a cause of action to recover damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress will lie, notwithstanding the criteria imposed upon recovery by bystanders, in cases where a duty arising from a preexisting relationship is negligently breached. (Burgess at 1074.) Again, no duty arose between these moving parties and Mr. Lee. Therefore, Timothy Lee cannot sustain a claim for NIED, based on the direct victim theory.

(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.)

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' opposition also relies on several cases involving a mother's claim for NIED, which differ from the motion before the court. First, plaintiffs' rely on Sesma v. M. Cuento, M.D., (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 108. According to plaintiffs' brief, Sesma involved a woman in labor who brought a cause of action for NIED based on a stillbirth. The motion at bar does not involve a mother's claim for NIED. Rather, it involves Mr. Lee's claim for NIED, which must be based on the bystander theory. Plaintiffs raise the issue of foreseeability, but, as put forth in moving parties' motion, have alleged no facts that would support this theory. Rather, they rely on their strategy of intertwining the mother's and father's claims of NIED. Again, Johnson v. Superior Court, (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1002, involved a mother's claim for NIED caused by a medically caused stillbirth.

Plaintiffs argue that Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic Inc., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, applies. Marlene F., as stated in plaintiffs' opposition, involved two mothers and their sons who sought therapy. Plaintiffs state it best: the court held that a mother of a minor child could state a claim for NIED against the psychotherapist who consulted to treat both the mother and son and then sexually molested the son.

(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.)

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.

Direct Victim Analysis Is Inapplicable to Plaintiff Timothy Lee.

Plaintiffs argue that Timothy Lee is a "direct victim," thereby entitling him to damages based upon a cause of action for NIED. Plaintiffs inappropriately rely on Burgess v. Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064. In Burgess, the Supreme Court held that a mother could claim emotional distress damages as a direct victim of medical negligence which injured her baby during the birthing process. The Court's rationale was based on the physician-patient relationship that gave rise to a duty owed to the mother which encompassed medical care rendered to both her and her fetus. As the Court stated:

It is in light of both these physical and emotional realities (the court was referring to the altruistic physical and emotional connection between a woman and her fetus. (Burgess at 1076)) that the obstetrician and the pregnant woman enter into a physician-patient relationship. It cannot be gainsaid that both parties understand that the physician owes a duty to the pregnant woman with respect to the medical treatment provided to her fetus. Any negligence during delivery which causes injury to the fetus and resultant emotional anguish to the mother, therefore, breaches a duty owed directly to the mother. Id. at 1076.

(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.)

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.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Attorneys for Defendants, Frank White, M.D., Max Green, M.D., and XYZ MEDICAL GROUP.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Introduction and Summary of Plaintiffs' Reply

Plaintiffs' opposition is a confusing quagmire that improperly attempts to interweave Mr. and Ms. Lee's claims regarding their son's birth injuries. Mindy Lee's claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ( NIED ) is not the subject of moving parties' motion. Plaintiffs' opposition confuses the relevant case law as delineated by the Supreme Court and misapplies the facts of the case at bar.

The Moving Parties Do Not Dispute Timothy Lee's Right to Allege a Cause of Action for NIED.

In Marina Emergency Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 435, the defendant emergency room doctor was negligent in treating plaintiff's lacerated thumb and that injury was later aggravated by the negligence of plaintiff's personal physician. (Id. at p. 437.) At the trial against the ER doctor only, plaintiff successfully moved to exclude all evidence of the subsequent medical treatment, preventing the jury from allocating fault among the various individuals responsible for plaintiff's injury. (Id. at pp. 437-438.)

On appeal, plaintiff argued the ER doctor was an "original tortfeasor who was vicariously" liable to plaintiff for the subsequent tortfeasor's negligence. Therefore, according to plaintiff, the successive tortfeasor liability law eliminated the requirement of apportionment of fault under Proposition 51 in the same manner as respondeat superior eliminated apportionment in employer/employee cases. (Id. at p. 440.) The Second District Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the ER doctor was allowed to reduce his liability to plaintiff through apportionment of fault among all responsible parties.

The Marina Court distinguished the line of cases involving pure respondeat superior (i.e., employer/employee) or imputed liability based on statute. The Marina Court correctly recognized that the "subsequent medical treatment" liability theory is not vicarious liability as that term is normally understood. The original tortfeasor's liability for subsequent negligence is not derivative of the subsequent tortfeasor's conduct. (Id. at p. 440.) Rather, the law holds the original wrongdoer liability because it regards the subsequent medical treatment to be proximately caused by the original injury. (Ibid.)