Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03110/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03110-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Lou Cavender
Plaintiff
Sutter Lakeside Hospital, Inc
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

EX PARTE REQUEST

Alan L. Martini SB#77316

SHEUERMAN, MARTINI & TABARI

A Professional Corporation

1033 Willow Street

San Jose, CA 95125

(408) 288-9700

Fax: (408) 295-9900

Attorneys for Defendant, SUTTER LAKESIDE HOSPITAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY LOU CAVENDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUTTER LAKESIDE HOSPITAL, INC. and 

Does 1 through XXX,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-03110 MMC

DEFENDANT, SUTTER

LAKESIDE HOSPITAL’s EX

PARTE REQUEST TO BRING TO

THE COURT’S ATTENTION A

RELEVANT JUDICIAL OPINION

AFTER THE DATE THE

OPPOSITION IS FILED (LR 7-

3(d)); [PROPOSED] ORDER

Hearing: September 2, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m

Courtroom 7, 19 Floor th

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

Defendant SUTTER LAKESIDE HOSPITAL makes this ex parte request to bring to the court’s

attention supplementary material, in the form of a relevant judicial opinion published in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Central Division on an issue raised for the first

time in plaintiff’s reply brief, namely whether plaintiff’s son and ex-husband had authority under

EMTALA to request a medical screening, if plaintiff had the capacity to refuse medical treatment. This

published opinion was not previously brought to the attention of the court in connection with plaintiff’s

motion for partial summary judgment, because initially, it appeared from plaintiff’s memorandum of

points and authorities in support of motion for partial summary judgment that it was based upon the

proposition, as stated by plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Simic, in connection with plaintiff’s motion that, although
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

EX PARTE REQUEST

respect for patient autonomy is paramount in medical practice, it was rendered moot by plaintiff’s altered

mental status, at which point the family’s wishes supersede those of the patient. Defendant responded,

accordingly, arguing that the plaintiff had capacity to refuse treatment. It was only in plaintiff’s reply

brief, that plaintiff argued that the motion was not based upon the proposition that plaintiff was

incompetent to refuse treatment at all, but based upon the proposition that whether or not she was

competent, the hospital had an obligation to screen her, notwithstanding her refusal to be screened, when

her son and ex-husband requested it. Defendant would like to bring to the attention of the court a

published opinion which directly refutes plaintiff’s legal claim.

It is therefore respectfully requested that the court allow defendant, prior to oral argument, to

bring to the court’s attention this relevant judicial opinion, by providing the court with the citation and

a copy of the opinion, without additional argument.

Dated: August 31, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

SHEUERMAN, MARTINI & TABARI

By: /s/

Alan L. Martini

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

Defendant’s request to provide the court with the citation of the above-referenced case is 

granted.

DATED: __________________ ________________________________

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 Defendant shall efile the citation no later than 4:00 p.m. today, September 1, 2005.

September 1, 2005