Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01199/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1.4 

15 

16 

17 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MADISON-RAE JORDAN, individually 

and as next friend ofD.M., a minor, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 15-cv-1199 BEN (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF JORDAN'S 

CLAIM ONLY 

18 Before this Court is a partial Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendant United States 

19 of America. (Docket No.9.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

20 BACKGROUND 1 

21 On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff Madison-Rae Jordan, on behalf of herself and D.M., 

22 initiated this medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 

23 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. On May 3, 2013, D.M., Plaintiffs three year-old child, was 

24 treated at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton for flu-like symptoms. (Compl. ~ 19.) The 

25 

26 

1 Unless otherwise noted, the following background is drawn from the allegations of 

27 Plaintiffs Complaint. The Court is not making any factual findings, but rather only 

28 summarizing the relevant facts alleged for purposes of evaluating Defendant's motion to 

dismiss. 

1 

15-cv-1199 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1 next day, D.M. was brought to the hospital's emergency room where a Dr. Strohl decided 

2 to perform a lumbar puncture to test D.M. for meningitis. (Compl." 20,22.) A Dr. Lilli 

3 actually performed the procedure. (Compl., 23.) The procedure was performed before 

4 obtaining D.M.'s blood work, a blood culture, or starting an IV. (Compl., 22.) During 

5 the procedure, D.M. was not sedated or restrained, nor was any local anesthesia 

6 administered. (Compl., 23.) After the procedure, D.M. vomited, experienced increased 

7 headache pain, and pain and weakness in his legs. (Compl., 25.) According to the 

8 Complaint, D.M. was unable to walk without pain or assistance within 12 hours of the 

9 procedure. (Compl., 25.) No further treatment occurred on May 5. (Compl., 29.) 

10 On May 6, 2015, D.M. was transferred to the Naval Medical Center San Diego 

11 where an MRI of his brain and spinal cord was conducted. (Compl., 33.) Afterwards, 

12 D.M. underwent an urgent laminoplasty and evacuation of the subarachnoid hemorrhage 

13 located on his lower spine. (Compl., 33.) 

14 Plaintiff Jordan alleges Defendant was negligent by: (1) performing the lumbar 

15 puncture, which it would have known was unnecessary had it waited for D.M.'s blood 

16 work; (2) failing to properly sedate and restrain D.M. during the lumbar puncture; and (3) 

17 delaying in diagnosing and treating D.M. 's symptoms after the lumbar puncture. (Compl. 

18 ,,37-38.) Jordan also claims that Defendant's negligent conduct was the actual and 

19 proximate cause of both hers and D.M.'s injuries. (Compl., 37.) Jordan seeks damages 

20 on behalf ofD.M. for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of income, 

21 medical and attendant care expenses, etc. (Compl., 40.) Jordan also seeks damages on 

22 behalf of herself for past and future suffering and mental anguish, medical, health care, 

23 and attendant care expenses for D.M. until his age of majority, and pecuniary damages. 

24 (Compl., 41.) 

25 

26 I. 

27 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Dismiss 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint 

28 if, taking all factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for 

2 

15·cv·1199 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1 relief on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. 

2 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). Dismissal is appropriate ifthe complaint fails to 

3 state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of 

4 the matter complained of, or if the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory under which 

5 relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. "Threadbare recitals ofthe elements 

6 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 

7 556 U.S. at 678. 

8 II. Applicable Law 

9 Under the FTCA, the United States may be held liable for the negligence of its 

10 agents or its employees. Liability is to be determined "in the same manner and to the 

11 same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Tort 

12 actions under the FTCA are to be governed by the "law of the place." 28 U.S.C. § 

13 1346(b); Kangley v. United States, 788 F.2d 533, 534 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the acts 

14 which are the subject of this action occurred in California, California law applies. 

15 DISCUSSION 

16 Defendant asks this Court to dismiss Jordan's claim for medical malpractice and 

17 damages in her individual capacity only. 

18 I. 

19 

Jordan's Individual Claim 

Defendant argues that it owes no duty to Jordan because no doctor-patient 

20 relationship exists between Jordan and Defendant. For the same reasons, Defendant 

21 contends Jordan is precluded from recovering damages for emotional distress. 

22 In California, a medical malpractice claim is the same as a negligence claim. Mero 

23 v. Sadoff, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1466,1474 (2d Dist. 1995) ("In California, however, there is 

24 no distinction between malpractice and negligence."); see also Flowers v. Torrance 

25 Mem 'I Hasp. Med. Ctr., 8 Cal. 4th 992,997 (1994). To establish a claim for negligence, 

26 a plaintiff must show "a legal duty of care, its breach, causation and resulting injury." 

27 Schwarz v. Regents ofUniv. of Cal. , 226 Cal. App. 3d 149, 153-54 (2d Dist. 1990). 

28 "Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question oflaw. Its existence depends 

3 

15-cv-1199 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1 upon the foreseeability of the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and 

2 against imposition ofliability." Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 48 

3 Cal. 3d 583,588 (1989). 

4 A plaintiff may recover damages for the emotional distress caused by observing 

5 the negligently inflicted injury of a third person, if the plaintiff: 

6 

7 

8 

9 

(1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) is present at the scene of the 

injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is 

causing injury to the victim; and (3) as a result suffers serious emotional 

distress-a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a 

disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the 

circumstances. 

Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 667-68 (1989). 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Here, Jordan seeks to recover damages for the injury suffered by her son, D.M., as 

a result of Defendant's negligent conduct at the hospital. Jordan need not allege the 

14 existence of a doctor-patient relationship between herself and Defendant, as she may seek 

15 damages under Thing's bystander theory. However, as Defendant points out, Jordan 

16 failed to allege that she was present at the hospital with D.M., that she was aware that 

17 Defendant's conduct was causing harm to her son, and that she suffered any emotional 

18 distress as a result. The Complaint therefore fails to allege sufficient facts to support 

19 Jordan's claim of medical malpractice. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED 

20 and Jordan's claim in her individual capacity is DISMISSED. 

21 II. Prayer for Relief 

22 Defendant maintains that Jordan's prayer for medical, health, and attendant care 

23 expenses should be dismissed because Jordan waived her right to recover such damages 

24 by seeking to recover the same relief on behalf ofD.M. 

25 Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for failure to state a claim. A prayer for damages 

26 constitutes a remedy, not a claim within the meaning of Rules 8(a)(2) or 12(b)(6). Thus, 

27 Jordan's prayer for relief does not provide any basis for dismissal under Rule 12. See 

28 Oppenheimer v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 13-cv-260, 2013 WL 3149483, at *3-4 (S.D. 

4 

15·cv·1199 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
· . 

1 Cal. June 17,2013). 

2 CONCLUSION 

3 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Jordan's individual claim for 

4 medical malpractice is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff 

5 leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date this Order is filed. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 Dated: Octobenl6 ,2015 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HOI. RogerT. Benitez 

United states District Judge 

5 

15·cv·1199 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5