Kannappan

Lauren H. v. Kannappan

Bad Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 484·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 2370·2002 Daily Journal DAR 2523·96 Cal. App. 4th 834·2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2067
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2002F034098California2,175 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dibiaso, J.

Appellant Lauren H. (Lauren), through her guardian ad litem, Renae Romandia, sued respondents Dr. Tillaikarasi Kannappan and San Dimas Medical Group, alleging personal injury, medical malpractice and negligence. Lauren suffered permanent damage as a result of certain conditions and events which occurred during her birth at San Dimas. Kannappan was the physician responsible for Lauren’s delivery.

The trial court granted respondents’ postverdict motion for a new trial on all issues of liability and damages and did not decide appellant’s motion for a new trial on damages only. The trial court’s specification of reasons for its new trial order stated:

Discussion

Reduced to its essence, appellant’s contention is that the trial court erred in finding a compromise verdict and therefore the portion of the order which directed a new trial on liability must be overturned because the finding of a compromise verdict lacks support in the record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) Appellant stakes her case upon the three juror declarations she produced in opposition to respondents’ new trial motion and claims the declarations “constituted unrebutted, direct evidence which completely negated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.