Opinion ID: 844152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Leading to Lawsuit

Text: On Monday, March 24, 2003, Aidan Ming-Ho Leung, of East Asian descent, was born at Verdugo Hills Hospital in Glendale, Los Angeles County. He was born at less than 38 weeks‟ gestation (37 weeks and two days). On the day of his birth, his mother, Nancy Leung, tried to breastfeed him five or six times, but she could not tell whether he was taking in milk. At least three times she expressed her concern to two of the attending nurses; two entries in Aidan‟s hospital medical chart indicated problems with breastfeeding. The next day, Aidan‟s pediatrician, Steven Wayne Nishibayashi, examined Aidan at the hospital. Dr. Nishibayashi told the parents that Aidan was a healthy baby, that two bruises on the side of Aidan‟s head were nothing to worry about, that it was safe to take Aidan home, and that a followup appointment should be made for the next week. Later that morning, about 24 hours after his birth, Aidan was discharged from the hospital. The hospital gave Aidan‟s parents a manual entitled “Caring For Yourself and Your New Baby,” and the nurses told the parents to consult the manual if there were problems. When the parents arrived home, Aidan‟s mother made an appointment for a followup visit with Dr. Nishibayashi for March 31, seven days after Aidan‟s birth. 3 On Thursday, March 27, 2003, Aidan‟s parents noticed that his eyes looked yellow and that his lips were chapped. They checked the care manual that the hospital had given them. The manual said that jaundice is common in newborns, that in most cases jaundice can be ignored, and that although jaundice can be dangerous, it rarely is so, depending on various factors such as age, premature birth, and “any other medical conditions.” The manual also stated that any bruises on the head were not dangerous and would heal in a few days, and that any questions about the baby‟s jaundice should be directed to the baby‟s treating physician. That same day, Aidan‟s mother telephoned the office of pediatrician Nishibayashi and told the responding nurse about Aidan‟s yellowish tint. The nurse told her not to worry but said she would check with the doctor. When the nurse returned to the telephone, she asked whether Aidan was “feeding, peeing, and pooping.” Aidan‟s mother responded, “Yes.” After saying that Aidan seemed fine, the nurse suggested putting Aidan in the sunlight. When Aidan‟s mother mentioned his chapped lips, the nurse told her to apply lotion. When the mother asked whether she should bring Aidan in that day or wait for the scheduled appointment with Dr. Nishibayashi four days later, the nurse said to wait until that appointment. The next day (Friday) and the day thereafter (Saturday), Aidan‟s mother continued trying to breastfeed him and, as suggested by Dr. Nishibayashi‟s office, put him in the sunlight, but the jaundice remained. By Saturday evening, Aidan appeared lethargic. Early Sunday, Aidan was very sleepy and would not wake up to be fed. His mother telephoned Dr. Nishibayashi‟s office and left a message with his answering service. An on-call physician returned the call and, after listening to a description of Aidan‟s symptoms, said to immediately take Aidan to the emergency room at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. There Aidan 4 was given a blood-exchange transfusion to reduce the level of bilirubin, but it was too late. Aidan had already developed kernicterus, resulting in severe brain damage. C. The Lawsuit, the Trial, and the Court of Appeal’s Decision Through his mother, Nancy, as guardian ad litem, Aidan brought a negligence action against his pediatrician and the hospital in which he was born. Before trial, plaintiff settled with defendant pediatrician for $1 million, the limit of the pediatrician‟s malpractice insurance policy. Defendant pediatrician agreed to participate as a defendant at trial, and plaintiff agreed to release him from all claims. The pediatrician petitioned the trial court for a determination that the written settlement agreement met the statutory requirement of having been made in “good faith,” seeking to limit his liability to the amount of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877 [judicial determination of settlement in good faith discharges the settling party “from all liability for any contribution to any other parties”].) The trial court denied that motion, as it found the settlement to be “grossly disproportionate to the amount a reasonable person would estimate” the pediatrician‟s share of liability would be. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt) [a settlement is in good faith when the trial court has determined it to be “within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor‟s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff‟s injuries”].) Plaintiff and defendant pediatrician nevertheless decided to proceed with the settlement. At trial, a jury found both defendant pediatrician and defendant hospital negligent. The jury awarded plaintiff $250,000 in noneconomic damages; $78,375.55 for past medical costs; $82,782,000 (with a present value of $14 5 million) for future medical costs; and $13.3 million (with a present value of $1,154,000) for loss of future earnings. The jury apportioned negligence as follows: 55 percent as to the pediatrician, 40 percent as to the hospital, and 2.5 percent as to each of Aidan‟s parents. The judgment stated that, subject to a setoff of $1 million, representing the amount of settlement with the pediatrician, the hospital was jointly and severally liable for 95 percent of all economic damages awarded to plaintiff. Defendant hospital appealed, and plaintiff filed a crossappeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant hospital that under the common law release rule, plaintiff‟s settlement with, and release of liability claims against, defendant pediatrician also released nonsettling defendant hospital from liability for plaintiff‟s economic damages. The court did so reluctantly, observing that although our court has criticized the common law release rule, it has not abandoned it. We granted plaintiff‟s petition for review.