Bird

Bird v. Saenz

Good Law
123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 465·2002 Cal. LEXIS 5235·2002 Daily Journal DAR 9137·28 Cal. 4th 910·51 P.3d 324
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 12, 2002No. S095474California4,842 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Werdegar, J.

We granted review to consider whether plaintiffs have viable claims as bystanders for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of alleged medical malpractice directed to their close relative. We conclude they do not.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

This is an action for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) based on medical malpractice. Plaintiffs are the adult daughters of decedent Nita Bird. Nita succumbed to cancer on January 15, 1996. Defendants are the physicians who treated Nita. The superior court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims, but the Court of Appeal reversed. In granting review, we limited briefing and argument to the question “whether defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

The very general allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint do not identify the specific acts underlying their claim for NIED. However, the evidence and arguments submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment reveal that plaintiffs base the claim on the events of November 30, 1994.

On that date, plaintiff Janice Bird…

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.