 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County3/13/1996
WOODS, J.:
Petitioner Temple Community Hospital ("Hospital") contends that the court erred in holding that the claim for intentional spoliation of evidence of real party in interest Sandra Ramos ("Ramos") was not subject to the procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. We agree that the section is not applicable and deny the petition for a writ of mandate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS
According to Ramos' complaint, she was admitted to the Hospital on January 16, 1995, to undergo surgery to remove a nonmalignant mole over her right eyebrow. The surgeon, Dr. Nazarian, applied an electrocautery tool to remove the mole. As the tool was used, it ignited the mixed oxygen used to anesthetize Ramos, resulting in severe third degree burns, so far requiring four skin grafts. Dr. Nazarian's records showed that the cautery equipment failed.
Ramos' spoliation claim stems from a series of letters sent by her attorney to the Hospital before her lawsuit was filed. The letters, which were attached to the complaint, requested that the Hospital preserve the cautery equipment and other evidence relevant to Ramos' facial injury and sought information as to the identities of the manufacturers of the relevant equipment.
The spoliation cause alleges that the Hospital advised Ramos' attorneys in April 1995 that the oxygen tank (which is alleged to have been the source of the oxygen which ignited) had not been preserved by the Hospital. The complaint alleges that the Hospital spoliated the tank and other items. Ramos alleged that the loss of the oxygen tank "deprived of the opportunity to establish her right in a judicial forum to receive reimbursement from the Defendants for such injuries."
The Hospital filed a motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the intentional spoliation cause of action. Ramos opposed the motion, arguing that the allegations of spoliation did not "arise out of" professional negligence. In reply, the Hospital argued that as Ramos had conceded that any duty to preserve the oxygen tank arose from the prior confidential relationship between it as a health care provider and Ramos as a patient, the alleged breach of that duty arose out of professional services provided by a health care provider and thus was subject to section 425.13.
The court denied the motion to strike.
The Hospital filed a petition for a writ of mandate, requesting that this court direct the superior court to vacate its order denying their motion to strike and enter a new and different order granting that motion. Citing Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 181, 191-192, 832 P.2d 924, this court summarily denied the petition. The Hospital then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court asserting that writ relief was necessary to determine whether Ramos' intentional spoliation claim was subject to section 425.13. 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
The Hospital contends that the court erred in finding that Ramos' cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence was not 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, 888 P.2d 1279), subject to independent review ( Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 881, 888, 264 Cal. Rptr. 139, 782 P.2d 278)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|