Elderly Sacramento Man’s Family Sues Hospital For Wrongful Death, Part 6 of 9

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC 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.)

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action does not allege a capacity to sue, is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, and contains a defect and misjoinder of the parties.

Neither Robyn Lee, as an individual, nor as representative of decedent’s estate, has the capacity to sue Dr. Goldstein for medical malpractice – survival. Robyn Lee, as an individual, has no standing to allege medical malpractice against Dr. Goldstein. There are no facts to show that a physician-patient relationship existed at any time between Dr. Goldstein and Robyn Lee, or that any duty of care was owed by Dr. Goldstein to Robyn Lee as an individual, that there was a breach of any such duty, or that the breach of any such duty was the legal cause of any harm to her. Because Robyn Lee, as an individual, cannot assert a survival claim on her own behalf, plaintiffs’ second cause of action fails to allege a capacity to sue. Because Robyn Lee is not decedent’s successor-in-interest or the legal personal representative of decedent’s estate, the second cause of action fails to allege a capacity to sue on behalf of the estate. Defendant’s motion should be granted on this basis.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The fact that both Robyn Lee, as an individual, and as the erroneous representative to decedent’s estate, assert this cause of action, the second cause of action is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. It is unclear whether both plaintiffs assert this second cause of action, or just one of them. Defendant’s Motion should be granted on this basis. (15)

If Robyn Lee, as an individual, is asserting a cause of action for medical malpractice – survival, the cause of action contains a defect because she has not alleged any special relationship between she and Dr. Goldstein, which would give rise to a duty of care owed to her. Thus, she cannot assert a medical negligence claim against him on her own behalf. Moreover, any claim that Robyn Lee could have, even assuming she had such a special relationship, would not be a survival action because she is still alive. This defect is fatal in plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and thus, the court should grant this motion, with prejudice.

Finally, plaintiffs’ second cause of action contains a misjoinder of a party because Robyn Lee, as an individual, cannot assert a survival action for the reasons stated above. Thus, she is misjoined as to that cause of action. Moreover, Robyn Lee, as the representative of decedent’s estate, is misjoined because only the legal personal representative of the estate, as defined by law, can assert the survival action. Therefore, the court should grant defendant’s motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on each of these non-statutory grounds. (See Part 7 of 9.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information