Cruz v. Siddiqi

• Decision Date: 05 August 2013
• Docket Number: SJC–11274.
• Citation: Cruz v. Siddiqi, 466 Mass. 1004, 993 N.E.2d 346 (Mass. 2013)
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Parties: Senaya Zayas Santana CRUZ & another v. Javed SIDDIQI.

466 Mass. 1004

993 N.E.2d 346

Senaya Zayas Santana CRUZ & another ¹

v.Javed SIDDIQI.

SJC–11274.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Aug. 5, 2013.

Kenneth M. Levine (Sheila E. Mone with him), Brookline, for the plaintiffs.

Chad P. Brouillard, Cambridge, for the defendant.

John J. Barter, Boston, for Professional Liability Foundation, Ltd., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiffs seek interlocutory review of the judge's order refusing to reduce the amount of the $6,000 bond they were required to file in order to pursue their medical malpractice claim against defendant Dr. Javed Siddiqi after a tribunal convened pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 60B (§ 60B), determined that there was not sufficient evidence to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry as to Dr. Siddiqi. The appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, and we then transferred the case to this court on our own motion. For reasons set forth in our decision in Faircloth v. DiLillo, 466 Mass. 120, 993 N.E.2d 338, 2013 WL 3957794 (2013) ( Faircloth ), we conclude that the judge abused his discretion where he denied the plaintiffs' motion based solely on his belief that plaintiffs' attorney was paying or advancing the court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the indigent plaintiffs, including the cost of the bond.²

Background. The plaintiffs, Senaya Zayas Santana Cruz and her mother Suleyka Zayas Santana, brought a medical malpractice action against a number of defendants allegedly involved with Senaya's prenatal care. As part of the plaintiffs' offer of proof before the tribunal, they submitted an opinion letter from Dr. Berto Lopez, wherein Lopez opined that Siddiqi “deviated from the prevailing professional standard of care in the treatment of [the plaintiffs] by failing to obtain informed consent from Suleyka, including but not limited to discussions concerning shoulder dystocia and permanent neurological injury to Senaya and the availability of alternative mode of delivery via cesarean section.” The tribunal determined that the evidence in the offer of proof was insufficient to support a finding of liability as to Siddiqi. Pursuant to § 60B, the plaintiffs were informed that they had to provide a $6,000 bond to avoid dismissal of the claim. In response, the plaintiffs filed an emergencymotion to reduce the amount of the bond, asserting that they were indigent and that “[f]ailing to lower the bond amount [would] result in the dismissal of this case against Dr. Siddiqi, thereby denying [p]laintiffs the right to have the case heard by a jury of their peers.”

The judge, who was the same judge who participated in the tribunal and the same judge who issued the contested order in Faircloth, supra, found that the plaintiffs were indigent but denied the plaintiffs' motion solely because he believed that it was the plaintiffs' attorney, and not the plaintiffs themselves, who was paying the court costs and expenses of litigation incurred in pursuit of the plaintiffs' claim. Applying the exact same analysis he used in denying a similar motion to reduce the amount of the bond in Faircloth, supra at 123, the judge stated that he would “exercise [his] discretion and reduce the bond amount” if “there was in fact no agreement by plaintiffs' counsel to advance costs and expenses, and plaintiffs had in fact paid the filing and service fees, as well as expert witness and other costs and expenses, and [were] obligated under the fee agreement to pay plaintiffs' counsel all fees and costs in advance or upon their accrual.”

Discussion. This case is governed by our decision in Faircloth, supra at 121–122, where we held that, in...