Mullin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

• Decision Date: 24 July 1962
• Citation: 206 Cal.App.2d 23,23 Cal.Rptr. 410
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jean MULLIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 26050.

Page 410

23 Cal.Rptr. 410

206 Cal.App.2d 23

Jean MULLIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 26050.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

July 24, 1962.

Thelan, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee, James W. Baldwin and John G. Flett, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Wm. C. Wetherbee, Los Angeles, for respondent.

WOOD, Presiding Justice.

Appeal by defendants from an order granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The action was for damages resulting from negligence in rendering medical services. Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, a corporation, owned and operated the hospital where the services were rendered. Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a partnership, furnished the medical services. Defendant Dr. Haughey was one of the physicians in the Medical Group. In a jury trial, the verdict was for plaintiff for $10,000 against all the defendants. Judgment for that amount was entered. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial on the ground that 'inadequate damages' were given under the influence of passion and prejudice; and also on all the grounds stated in section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except the ground of excessive damages. On July 14, 1961, the court made an order which stated that the motion was thereby granted on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment in that the damages were inadequate, unless the plaintiff and the defendants 'shall by July 19, 1961, file with the court their consent in writing that the court may make its Order amending the judgment' to increase the amount thereof from $10,000 to $17,500.

Appellants (defendants) contend that the court, in granting a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages, abused its discretion. They argue that the damages awarded were adequate.

A new trial may be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence for the reason that the damages awarded are inadequate. (Harper v. Superior Air Parts, Inc., 124 Cal.App.2d 91, 92, 268 P.2d 115; Franklin v. Bettencourt, 16 Cal.App.2d 511, 514, 60 P.2d 1017.) Upon a motion for a new trial based upon the contention that the damages are inadequate the trial court should review the evidence, not only with respect to the issue of damages but also with respect to the issue of liability. (Harper v. Superior Air Parts, Inc., supra, Bakurjian v. Pugh, 4 Cal.App.2d 450, 454, 41 P.2d 175.)

On October 21, 1958, plaintiff consulted a doctor at the clinic of defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Harbor City, and examinations and tests were made there which indicated that she had been pregnant about two and one-half months. Plaintiff returned to the clinic for prenatal care once a month for the following five months and on four occasions during April 1959. Reports of laboratory tests made at the clinic for albumen in her urine on all occasions prior to April 21 were negative. Reports of tests made on April 21 and 28 showed there was an albumen content of 1 plus and 3 plus on those respective days. On May 4, about 12:30 a. m., plaintiff went to the hospital of defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in Harbor City, registered at the office, and went to the labor room of the hospital.

Shortly after plaintiff entered that room, a nurse, who was in charge of the patients in the labor and delivery rooms of the hospital, tested the blood pressure of plaintiff and ascertained that it was 210 over 100. She told Dr. Haughey (the obstetrician on duty) that plaintiff's blood pressure 'was grave.' He told her to give seconal to plaintiff. About 1 a. m. plaintiff said that there was a throbbing in her head. The nurse noticed that plaintiff was perspiring profusely and was having trouble in breathing. Other blood pressure tests, given about 2:30 a. m. and 4 a. m., showed that the pressure was about the same as it had been at 1 a. m. The nurse called Dr. Haughey after each test and reported the results. He told her to follow the routine procedure for patients. She administered pain-relieving drugs, and requested the supervisor to send another nurse to take care of plaintiff. The supervisor told her to 'carry on the best she could.' Dr. Haughey went to see plaintiff about 4 a. m. About 4:25 a.m. she (nurse) was in the delivery room assisting Dr. Haughey in attending another patient. The nurse testified that at that time no one was in the labor room with plaintiff; the nurse saw plaintiff raise her arm; the nurse went into the labor room, and plaintiff was 'just starting to have a convulsion'; the nurse told Dr. Haughey regarding the convulsion, and he prescribed a drug (apresoline) which she gave to plaintiff; plaintiff's blood pressure then went down to 170 over 80; thereafter plaintiff was taken to the delivery room, her hands were tied, and 'sometime after' 5 a.m. plaintiff's child was delivered. (Hospital records show that plaintiff was taken to the delivery room at 5:20 a. m.) After the delivery, plaintiff had another convulsion. (Hospital records show that the second convulsion occurred while plaintiff was in the delivery room.) At 5 p. m. plaintiff had another convulsion.

The nurse testified further that she could not recall whether plaintiff's wrists were strapped to the delivery table; that, 'We do it for all our patients * * *.'

Dr. Haughey testified that: On May 4, 'around' 1 a. m., he received a call from the nurse regarding plaintiff's condition; within 15 or 20 minutes thereafter he examined plaintiff, and took her blood pressure. She was in a critical condition as the result of toxemia.

Hospital records show that Dr. Haughey diagnosed plaintiff's convulsions as eclamptic convulsions.

Plaintiff testified as follows: On the way to the hospital she did not feel any discomfort other than labor pains. She did not remember anything that occurred after she went to bed in the labor room and prior to the time she awoke two or three days after the child was born. When she regained consciousness she noticed a big black and blue mark on the upper part of her left arm, and both her arms were sore. She told the doctors and nurses that her arms and shoulders were sore. The nurses rubbed her arms and shoulders from time to time. When she left the hospital on May 19, Dr. Garthaus (one of the doctors there) told her to 'use heat' on her arms, but not to exercise them. Thereafter she used heat on her arms and shoulders, and the left shoulder 'cleared up fine,' but her right shoulder continued to hurt. She was not able to use her right arm, and a week after she left the hospital she returned to the clinic, and Dr. Garthaus examined her arm. He told her that she had strained muscles as the result of the convulsions, and to start exercising her arm. After she left the clinic, she tried to use her right arm, but it continued 'to be sore.' Three weeks after leaving the hospital she returned to the clinic, and told Dr. Garthaus that her right arm was still sore and that she could not use it. He told her that he would call the hospital and make arrangements to take X rays of the arm. He sent her to Dr. Solomon, who sent her to the X-ray department where X rays were made. Two days later Dr. Solomon told her that her shoulder was dislocated. On the following Tuesday she talked with Dr. Jeffries in the Edgemont Clinic of defendant Medical Group in Los Angeles, and he told her that she would have to undergo surgery on her shoulder. The following Thursday she entered the hospital, and an operation was performed the following day (June 26, 1959). She remained in the...