 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County3/13/1996
WOODS, J.:
Petitioner Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ("Cedars") contends that under College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 882 P.2d 894, real party in interest Kristopher Schon Bowyer ("Bowyer") failed to offer admissible evidence demonstrating a prima facie case entitling him to punitive damages against a health care provider as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. We conclude that section 425.13 is not applicable to this case and deny the petition for a writ of mandate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS
On July 21, 1995, Bowyer filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 425.13. In the first cause of action of the proposed third amended complaint, Bowyer alleged that Cedars and the other defendants were negligent in the delivery of Bowyer, resulting in severe and permanent injury. The second cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence alleged that certain medical records, including the fetal monitoring strips from delivery, were missing. The third cause of action for intentional spoliation alleged that: "This pattern of 'missing' records, all of which relate to the specific identification of obstetrical risk factors, and which are the only records 'missing' from the medical records of RHONDA BOWYER and KRISTOPHER SCHON BOWYER are indicative of a knowing and purposeful removal of said records after the events which became the subject of litigation between Plaintiff and Defendant CEDARS." The third cause of action further alleged that the missing records interfered with his ability to prove his allegations of medical malpractice.
With his motion, Bowyer submitted declarations from his attorneys essentially stating that they believed the fetal monitoring strips had been purposefully destroyed by Cedars' agents, the action had been taken with the express authorization of a managerial agent, and it was highly improbable that only those specific and essential records would be missing. Bowyer also attached pages from the deposition of Cedars' custodian of records to the effect that she did not know what had become of the missing records and her inquiries of other personnel had been unsuccessful. Cedars did not file any declarations in opposition to the motion.
In granting the motion to amend, the court stated that it was a matter of permissible pleading not proof.
Cedars filed a petition for a writ of mandate, requesting that this court direct the superior court to vacate its order granting Bowyer leave to amend. This court summarily denied the petition citing Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 181, 191-192, 832 P.2d 924. Cedars then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court asserting that writ relief was necessary to determine whether Bowyer's intentional spoliation claim was subject to section 425.13. Citing pages 719-720 of College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal. 4th 704, the Supreme Court granted the petition for relief and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to issue an alternative writ. This court issued the alternative writ.
Discussion
Cedars contends that the permissible pleading standard used by the court was contrary to law. However, before considering that issue, this court must determine whether Bowyer's cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence was subject to section 425.13. Because the relevant facts are not in dispute, the application of the statute may be decided as a question of law (cf. International Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co. (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 606, 611
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|