1 2 3 F ILE Norman M. Finkelstein, Esq. CSB 108305 LAW OFFICES OF NORMAN M. FINKELSTEIN, A.P toR etc grY 110 Juniper Street San Diego, California 92101 2018 JUL 13 NI 2 Telephone: (619) 232-1815 Facsimile: (619) 232-1884 netfiRQ,g„ cdp-ME "COUNTY:If:4r 4 5 44 Attorneys for: Plaintiffs 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - NORTH COUNTY DIVISION 10 DELPHINA MOTA and PAUL IHEANACHOR, CASE NO7.-2° 184°°34758cualmac 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED UPON: , Plaintiffs, 12 13 V. 14 TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRICITY MEDICAL CENTER; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and DOES 1 through 30, Inclusive, 15 16 1. Medical Malpractice 2. Loss of Consortium 3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Assault and Battery Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiffs allege the following: PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 20 21 1. All of the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred within the 22 County of San Diego, State of California. The amount in controversy in this matter 23 exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 24 2. Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL 25 CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, own, control, maintain, manage 26 and operate an acute care hospital, known as TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, located at 27 4002 Vista Way, Oceanside, CA 92056, within the County of San Diego, State of 28 California. Moth vs. Tri-City Health Care District, et. al. 1 Complaint for Damages 3. Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL 2 CENTER; and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, are and at all material times 3 herein, were, qualified and licensed to do business in the State of California, County of 4 San Diego. ' 5 4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; 6 SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and DOES 7 11 through 20, and each of them, were physicians and surgeons licensed by the State of 8 California to practice medicine and surgery, and each of them held themselves out to 9 possess that degree of skill, learning, ability and expertise possessed by similar medical 10 11 practitioners in the County of San Diego, State of California. 5. The exact form of business, association or organization under which 12 Defendants, DOES 21 through 30, and each of them, exist and conduct themselves is 13 unknown to Plaintiffs at the time of filing this Complaint and they therefore will ask leave 14 of court to amend this Complaint to set forth this information when the same is 15 ascertained. 16 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued 17 as Does 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue Doe defendants by such fictitious 18 names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the 19 fictitiously named defendants are responsible, in some manner, for the acts alleged and 20 for the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this 21 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe defendants when they 22 have been fully ascertained. 23 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all 24 times mentioned herein, the Defendants and each of them, including the DOE 25 Defendants, were the agents, servants, employees, assistants, partners, joint venturers, 26 and/or consultants of their co-Defendants, and of each other, and as such, were acting 27 within the course of and within the scope of their agency, employment, partnership, joint 28 venture, as well as the authority for each other with the knowledge and consent of their Moth vs. Tr-City Health Care District, et. al. Z Complaint for Damages co-Defendants; and when each Defendant was acting as a principal, was negligent in 2 the selection and employment as well as the supervision, of each and every other 3 defendant as its agent, employee, assistant and/or consultant. Furthermore, in 4 committing the acts and omissions alleged herein, the Defendants were all acting with 5 the knowledge, consent, approval, and/or ratification of their co-Defendants. 8. 6 In owning, operating, managing, controlling and/or supervising the subject 7 acute care hospital, Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY 8 MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, held themselves out to 9 the general public, and to patients and their families, as being in compliance with all 10 applicable federal and state laws. 9. 11 Prior to the filing of this Complaint, and on or about March 9, 2018, 12 Plaintiffs served notice of this claim, to Defendant, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, 13 pursuant to California Government Code §900, et seq. (A true and correct copy of said 14 claim, is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 and is incorporated herein by this reference.) 10. 15 It has been more than 45 days since Plaintiffs served the Notice of Claim 16 on Defendant, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, and no formal response to said 17 Claim has been received by Plaintiffs. Thus pursuant to the California Government 18 Code section 900, et seq., said claim is deemed denied. 11. 19 On or about April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs served notice to Defendants, SANDRA 20 LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., and DAVID SEIF, M.D., 21 INC., of their intention to commence this action pursuant to Cal. Code Civil Procedure 22 Section 364. (a true and correct copy of said Notices of Claim are attached hereto as 23 Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein by this reference). FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Medical Malpractice: 24 25 12. 26 Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs and 27 incorporate them by this reference as though set forth here in their entirety. 28 /// Moth vs. Td-City Health Care District, et. al. Complaint for Damages 13. 1 On or about November 15, 2017, at approximately 11:51 A.M., Plaintiff, 2 DELPHINA MOTA, a 25 year old, who at the time was, 41 weeks and 4 days pregnant, 3 with gestational diabetes, presented to Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE 4 DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, 5 for inducement of labor. 14. 6 At admission, she was awake and alert X2, with no apparent distress. 7 She was attended by Defendant, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; 8 and DOES 11 through 15, and each of them. The fetal weight was estimated at 7 9 pounds and the fetal heart tracing was reactive. She was initially 2 cm dilated. She was 10 admitted for induction of labor, consultation was done and a discussion of the options 11 were agreed to. Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA requested an epidural for pain management 12 in labor, her induction proceeded with Pitocin augmentation, however during the course 13 of labor she had an intolerance to Pitocin augmentation. 15. 14 At approximately 11:06 P.M., an epidural was administered by Defendant, 15 DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and DOES 16 through 20, and each of 16 them. At approximately 11:20 P.M., Pitocin was started. At approximately 12:39 A.M. 17 on 11/16/17 her blood pressure dropped and the Pitocin was temporarily discontinued. 18 Sometime before 5:21 A.M., the fetal heart rate became unable to be read. At that time, 19 Defendant, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 11 20 through 15, and each of them, were made aware and at 05:24 appropriately called for 21 an emergency C-Section. 16. 22 Although Defendant, DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and 23 DOES 16 through 20, and each of them, the anesthesiologist on call, was paged 24 multiple times, he did not respond and the C-Section was performed by Defendant, 25 SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 11 through 15, and 26 each of them, with no anesthesia given. 27 28 /// Moth vs. Tri-City Health Care District, et. al. 4 Complaint for Damages 17. The epidural that had been previously administered to Plaintiff, DELPHINA 2 MOTA, had the intended effect of numbing her from her waist down, based upon the 3 planned natural delivery. It had absolutely no effect on the surgical site for the C- 4 Section which was located on her abdomen. 5 18. At 5:33 A.M., Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA arrived in the operating room, 6 and there was still no response from Defendant, DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., 7 INC.; and DOES 16 through 20, and each of them, or any other anesthesiologist, for that 8 matter. Defendant, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 9 11 through 15, and each of them, announced, "Strap her down," at which time, Plaintiff, 10 DELPHINA MOTA's four extremities were strapped down to the operating table. Then, 11 Defendant, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 11 12 through 15, and each of them, proceeded to perform the C-Section. 13 14 19. The following is an excerpt from SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 11 through 15, and each of their Operative Report: 15 "Due to the fact that the anesthesiologist was not in the operating room I 16 proceeded to cutting a Pfannenstiel skin incision with a knife through the skin down to 17 the layer of the fascia. The fascia was nicked in the midline and scored and dissected off 18 bluntly. The rectus muscles were separated in the midline and the peritoneum was 19 entered bluntly and stretched. Dr. Self then entered the room when the lower uterine 20 segment was incised with a knife. The incision was extended with an anterior posterior 21 pull and the membranes were ruptured. The vertex was delivered with manual 22 assistance. There was no nuchal cord and the shoulders and baby delivered easily and 23 atraumatically. The baby was crying and the cord was clamped twice and cut. The baby 24 was handed off to Dr. Movahhedian. A segment of cord was separated for cord gas and 25 cord blood was collected. The placenta was removed manually. The placenta was sent 26 to pathology for examination. The uterus was exteriorized, was cleared of all clots and 27 debris. The uterus was very boggy and Dr. Seif was told to increase the dose of Pitocin 28 to 40 as opposed to the usual 20." Moth vs. Tr-City Health Care District, et. al. Complaint for Damages 20. 1 During that part of the surgery, prior to the arrival of Defendant, DAVID 2 SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and DOES 16 through 20, and each of them, (the 3 anesthesiologist), Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA was crying and screaming at the top of her 4 lungs, that she could feel everything that was happening, and was also pleading for 5 help, and for Defendants to stop cutting and hurting her. 21. 6 Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL 7 CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, were careless and negligent in the 8 supervision, hiring, training and staffing needs of said facility. 22. 9 Defendants, and each of them, were negligent and careless with regard to 10 their respective duties owed to Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, as more fully specified 11 herein, all resulting in permanent and significant physical injury and emotional distress. 23. 12 The nursing and administrative staff provided by Defendants, TRI-CITY 13 HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and 14 each of them, fell below the community standard of care for an acute care hospital, 15 which was a direct and legal cause of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, sustaining significant 16 permanent injury. 17 24. As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence, Plaintiff, 18 DELPHINA MOTA, underwent excruciating and unnecessary pain and suffering, until 19 she eventually passed out from the pain. In addition, she continues to undergo 20 significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for 21 the remainder of her life. 25. 22 As a further direct and legal result of the negligence of the Defendants, 23 and each of them, described herein, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, sustained great 24 emotional disturbance and injury to her nervous, digestive and reproductive systems and 25 illness, all of which required medical attention, all to her damage in an amount according 26 to proof. 27 /// 28 /// Mote vs. Id-City Health Care District, a. al. • Complaint for Damages 26. As a further direct and legal result of the negligence of the Defendants, 2 and each of them, described herein, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was reasonably 3 required to, and did incur medical and incidental expenses for the examination, 4 treatment and care of the aforesaid injuries. 27. 5 Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA' s injuries were the direct and legal result of 6 Defendants, and each of their, negligent conduct. Accordingly, Defendants, and each of 7 them, are liable to Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, for general, and special damages, 8 according to proof at trial. 28. 9 As a further direct and legal result of the above described negligent 10 conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was injured in 11 her health, strength and activity, and required medical care and treatment for said 12 injuries. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Loss of Consortium: 14 29. 15 16 Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by this reference as though set forth here in their entirety. 30. 17 Prior to her injuries, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, the fiancé and life partner 18 of Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, was able to and did perform her duties as a fiancé and 19 life partner. Subsequent to the injuries and as a direct and legal result thereof, Plaintiff, 20 DELPHINA MOTA, has been incapacitated and unable to perform the necessary duties 21 as life partner, and the work and duties usually performed in the care, maintenance, and 22 management of the family home, and Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, will be unable to 23 perform such work, services and duties in the future. By reason thereof, Plaintiff, PAUL 24 IHEANACHOR, has been deprived, and will be deprived in the future, of the consortium 25 of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Moth vs. Tr-city Health Care District, et. al. I Complaint for Damages THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: 2 3 4 5 31. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by this reference as though set forth here in their entirety. 32. On or about November 15, 2017, at approximately 11:51 A.M., and at all 6 times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, accompanied his fiancé and life 7 partner, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, to Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE 8 DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, 9 for inducement of labor. 10 11 12 33. Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, remained at Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA's side during the entire time she was present in the labor and delivery room at said facility. 34. When Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was rushed to the operating room, for 13 the emergency C-Section, Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, stood just outside of the 14 operating room door. 15 35. At the same time that Defendant, SANDRA LOPEZ, M.D.; SANDRA 16 LOPEZ, M.D., INC.; and DOES 11 through 15, and each of them, were cutting into 17 Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA's belly without the benefit of anesthesia, Plaintiff, PAUL 18 IHEANACHOR, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA's fiancé, life partner, and the father of the 19 baby, was just outside the operating room door, and heard Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA 20 screaming for help, and for Defendants to stop cutting and hurting her. He was aware 21 that the anesthesiologist had been paged multiple times and had not responded. He 22 was thus a percipient witness to the negligence with contemporaneous awareness of 23 both the negligence as well as the ongoing injury to his fiancé, and also feared for his, 24 as yet unborn child. Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR tried to obtain entrance to the 25 operating room, but was held back by several hospital personnel, also present just 26 outside the operating room. After a considerable period of time, Plaintiff, PAUL 27 IHEANACHOR noticed Defendant, DAVID SEIF, M.D.; DAVID SEIF, M.D., INC.; and 28 DOES 16 through 20, and each of them, running down the hallway and enter the Moth vs. Tri-City Health Care District, et. al. 8 Complaint for Damages operating room, Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR noted sleep lines on said Defendants 2 face. 3 36. While at the Defendants hospital, just outside the operating room door, 4 Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, was a percipient witness to the ongoing negligence of 5 Defendants, and each of them, concerning the care and treatment rendered to his fiancé 6 and life partner, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA. 7 37. Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, who as percipient witnesses, observed 8 the confusion and negligence of Defendants, and had contemporaneous awareness of 9 the misconduct or lack of appropriate care of the defendants, and each of them, herein 10 described. In addition to contemporaneous awareness of the resulting serious injuries 11 inflicted on his fiancé and life partner, as well as significant concern for the wellness of 12 his as yet unborn child, thereby inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff, PAUL 13 IHEANACHOR, as percipient witnesses. 14 38. The emotional distress, mental anguish, and upset, together with the 15 disruption of his life and lifestyle (partial loss of enjoyment of life) has been sustained by 16 Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, resulting in the ongoing reminders of the negligence and 17 carelessness of the defendants, and each of them, which he witnessed. Whereby said 18 plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof. 19 39. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that Plaintiff, 20 PAUL IHEANACHOR, being in close physical proximity would be a percipient witness of 21 said defendant's negligence and the resulting injuries to his fiancé and life partner. 22 40. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned negligence of 23 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, has sustained great 24 emotional disturbance and shock and injury to his nervous system, all of which has 25 caused, continues to cause, and will cause him great physical and mental pain and 26 suffering for the remainder of his life. 27 /// 28 /// Moth vs. Tr-City Health Care District, et al. Complaint for Damages III FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Battery: 41. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by this reference as though set forth here in their entirety. 42. On or about November 16, 2017, commencing at approximately 5:33 a.m., Defendants, and each of them, touched, or caused Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, to be touched with the intent to harm or offend her, or with a "willful disregard" of her rights. 43. Although Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, consented to being operated upon by Defendants, and each of them, she did not consent to being operated upon without the benefit of anesthesia. In other words, her consent to the surgery quite naturally included the use of anesthesia, without which her consent to be so "touched", evaporated. 44. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was both physically harmed as well as offended. 45. A reasonable person in Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA's situation would have been offended by the touching, i.e., C-section surgery without the benefit of anesthesia. 46. Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and each of their, administrative and management personnel and employees, were aware that there was a lack of a back up system in place in the event an anesthesiologist assigned to a surgery failed to show up for said surgery. 47. As a direct and legal result of the above described battery, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, underwent excruciating and unnecessary pain and suffering, until she eventually passed out from the pain. In addition, she continues to undergo significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of her life. Moth vs. Tr-City Health Care District, et. al. 11) Complaint for Damages /// 2 3 /// 48. As a further direct and legal result of the battery of the Defendants, 4 and each of them, described herein, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, sustained great 5 emotional disturbance and injury to her nervous, digestive and reproductive systems and 6 illness, all of which required medical attention, all to her damage in an amount according 7 to proof. 8 9 49. As a further direct and legal result of the battery of the Defendants, and each of them, described herein, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was reasonably required to, 10 and did incur medical and incidental expenses for the examination, treatment and care 11 of the aforesaid injuries. 12 50. Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA' s injuries were the direct and legal result of 13 Defendants, and each of their, battery upon her body. Accordingly, Defendants, and 14 each of them, are liable to Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, for general, and special 15 damages, according to proof at trial. 16 51 . As a further direct and legal result of the above described battery of 17 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, was injured in her health, 18 strength and activity, and required medical care and treatment for said injuries. 19 52. In doing the acts herein complained of, Defendants, and each of them, 20 acted despicably and wilfully and with conscious disregard of the health, safety and 21 rights of the Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, and with oppression, fraud, or malice in the 22 commission of this physical abuse and assault/battery within the meaning of §3294 of 23 the California Civil Code. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, TRI-CITY 24 HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 10, and 25 each of them, had advance knowledge, provided authorization for, or ratification of, the 26 alleged conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that said advance knowledge, authorization 27 and/or ratification was taken on the part of officers, directors, or managing agents of 28 Defendants, TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT; TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER and Mote vs. Tr-City Health Care District, et. al. Ii Complaint for Damages DOES 1 through 10, and each of them. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, 2 and each of them, acting by and through their agents and employees, were personally 3 guilty of recklessness, fraud, oppression, or malice. 4 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for Judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, pursuant to a jury verdict, as follows: AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 6 7 8 9 10 1. For general damages of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, in an amount according to proof; 2. For medical special damages of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, in an amount according to proof; 11 3. For costs of suit in an amount according to proof; 12 4. For prejudgment interest as provided by law; and, 13 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 14 15 16 17 18 I. For general damages of Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, in an amount according to proof; 2. For special damages of Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, in an amount according to proof; 19 3. For costs of suit, according to proof; 20 4. For prejudgment interest as provided by law; and, 21 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 22 23 24 25 26 1. For general damages of Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, in an amount according to proof; 2. For special damages of Plaintiff, PAUL IHEANACHOR, in an amount according to proof; 27 3. For costs of suit, according to proof; 28 4. For prejudgment interest as provided by law; and, Moth vs. Tr-city Health Care District, et. al. 12 Complaint for Damages 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 2 3 4 5 6 AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. For general damages of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, in an amount according to proof; 2. For special damages of Plaintiff, DELPHINA MOTA, In an amount according to proof; 7 3. For costs of suit, according to proof; 8 4. For prejudgment interest as provided by law; and, 9 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper 10 11 DATED: July 11, 2018 12 13 By: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moth vs. TrI•Ity Health Care District, et. al. 1,3 Complaint for Damages LAW OFFICES OF 1 RMAN M. FINKELSTEIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Norman M. Finkelstein E-mail - Finkelstein@sbcglobal.net website - normanmfinkelstein.com March 9, 2018 Tr-City Healthcare District Tr-City Medical Center 4002 Vista Way Oceanside, CA 92056 Attn: Legal Affairs Re: NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 900 et seq. Dear Sir/Madame: You are hereby notified of the following claim: A. The name and cost office address of the claimant: Delphina Mota & Paul lheanachor 2429 Catalina Circle, Apt. 579 Oceanside, Ca. 92056 B. The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent: Norman M. Finkelstein LAW OFFICES OF NORMAN M. FINKELSTEIN, APC 110 Juniper Street San Diego, California 92101 C. The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrences which gave rise to the claim asserted: On or about November 15, 2017, at approximately 11:51 A.M. Claimant, Delphina Mota presented to Tri City Medical Center, for inducement of labor. She was attended thereat by Sandra Lopez, M.D., and an epidural was administered by David Seif, M.D. at approximately 11:06 P.M. At approximately 11:20 P.M., when she was dilated to 2 CM, Pitocin was started. At approximately 12:39 A.M. on 11/16/17 her blood pressure dropped 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 EX ff/ arr-S / Tr-City Healthcare District • March 9, 2018 Page 2 and the Pitocin was temporarily discontinued. Somewhere before 05:21 the fetal heart rate became unable to read. At that time, Dr. Lopez was made aware and at 05:24 called for an emergency C-Section. Although the anesthesiologist was called, he did not respond and the C-Section was performed with no anesthesia given. Ms. Mota felt her abdomen being cut into and was screaming at the to of her lungs. Claimant, Paul Iheanachor, Ms. Mote's fiance and the father of the baby, was right outside of the operating room, and heard Ms. Mota screaming. He was aware that the anesthesiologist had been paged multiple times and had not responded. He was thus a percipient witness to the negligence with contemporareous awareness of both the negligence as well as the ongoing injury to his fiance, and also feared for his child. Mr. lheanachor tried to obtain entrance to the operating room, but was held back by several hospital personnel also present just outside the operating room. After a considerable period of time, Mr. lheanachor noticed Dr. Self, running down the hallway and enter the operating room, Mr. lheanachor noted sleep lines on Dr. Seifs face. D. A general description of the injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of this claim: As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence of your staff, Claimant, Delphina Mota underwent excruciating and unnecessary pain and suffering, until she eventually passed out from the pain. In addition, she continues to undergo significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of her life. As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence of your staff, Claimant, Paul lheanachor, also continues to suffer from significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of his life. E. The name or names of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage or loss, if known: Doctors, Lopez and Self, nurse Vida Sudaria, Nurse Katie Collier, CNM Yong Weary, and possibly other employees as yet unknown to claimants, at the time of filing this claim. Claimants reasonably believe that said public employees were employed at Tri City Medical Center at the time and the acts and omissions complained of were taken within the course and scope of said employment/agency. 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 Tr-City Healthcare District March 9, 2018 Page 3 F. The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: Your Claimants intend to bring a lawsuit for medical malpractice and assault and battery, seeking all available legal remedies. The full extent of the damages is unknown at this time, but for purposes of satisfying the requirements of this claim, claimants submit the following: MEDICAL SPECIAL DAMAGES (Past and Future) GENERAL DAMAGES (Delphina Mote) GENERAL DAMAGES (Paul lheanachor) PUNITIVE DAMAGES (Assault and Battery) $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 Sincerely,. . LAW OFFICES OF NOR4AN M. FINKELSTEIN By: Norma(rM. Finkelstein, 'Esq. Counsel for Claimants 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 LAW OFFICES OF -RMAN M. FINICELSTEIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Norman M. Finkelstein E-mail - Finkelstein@sbeglobalnet website - NormanMFinkelstein.com April 2, 2018 CERTIFIED MAIURETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NOTICE OF CLAIM CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 364 Sandra Lopez, M.D. Sandra Lopez, M.D., Inc. 1000 Vale Terrace Dr Vista, Ca 92084-5218 RE: Your patient: Delphina Mota Dear Doctor Lopez: Be advised that this office has been retained by the above referenced patient, and her fiancé, Paul Iheanachor, to pursue litigation against you for medical malpractice, emotional distress and battery. Please accept this as the required notice of our intent pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 364. It is our understanding that on or about November 16, 2017, you were on duty at Tri City Medical Center, and were assigned to Delphina Mota. It is our further understanding that sometime before 05:21 the fetal heart rate became unable to read. At that time, you were made aware and at 05:24 called for an emergency C-Section. Although Dr. Seif, the anesthesiologist was called multiple times, he did not respond and the C- Section was performed with no anesthesia given. Ms. Mota felt her abdomen being cut into and was screaming at the to of her lungs. Claimant, Paul Iheanachor, Ms. Mota's fiancé and the father of the baby, was right outside of the operating room, and heard Ms. Mota screaming. He was aware that the anesthesiologist had been paged multiple times and had not responded. He was thus a percipient witness to the negligence with contemporaneous awareness of both the negligence as well as the ongoing injury to his fiancé, and also feared for his child. Mr. Iheanachor tried to obtain entrance to the operating room, but was held back by several hospital personnel also present just outside the operating room. After a considerable period of time, Mr. Iheanachor noticed Dr. Self running down the hallway and enter the operating room, Mr. Iheanachor noted sleep lines on Dr. Seifs face. 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 E101- lair ito? Sandra Lopez, M.D. April 2, 2018 Page Two As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence, Claimant, Delphina Mota underwent excruciating and unnecessary pain and suffering, until she eventually passed out from the pain. In addition, she continues to undergo significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of her life. As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence, Claimant, Paul lheanachor, also continues to suffer from significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of his life. Please have your malpractice carrier contact the undersigned. At this time there should be no further direct contact with our clients. NMF:abm o Finkelstein 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 LAW OFFICES OF ,ZMAN M. FINKELSTEIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Norman M. Finkelstein E-mail - Finkelstein@slmglobal.net website- NormanMEinkelstein.cont April 2, 2018 CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NOTICE OF CLAIM CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 364 David Seif, M.D. David Self, M.D., Inc. 3626 Ruffin Rd San Diego CA 92123-1810 RE: Your patient: Delphina Mota Dear Doctor Seif: Be advised that this office has been retained by the above referenced patient, and her fiance, Paul Iheanachor, to pursue litigation against you for medical malpractice, emotional distress and battery. Please accept this as the required notice of our intent pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 364. It is our understanding that on or about November 16, 2017, you were on duty at In City Medical Center, and were assigned to Delphina Mota. It is our further understanding that on 11/15/17, at approximately 11:06 p.m. you administered an epidural to Ms. Mota, who was in active labor at that time. Sometime before 05:21 the fetal heart rate became unable to read. At that time, Dr. Lopez (the obgyn) was made aware and at 05:24 called for an emergency CSection. Although you were called multiple times, you did not respond and the CSection was performed with no anesthesia given. Ms. Mota felt her abdomen being cut into and was screaming at the to of her lungs. Claimant, Paul lheanachor, Ms. Mota's fiancé and the father of the baby, was right outside of the operating room, and heard Ms. Mote screaming. He was aware that you had been paged multiple times and had not responded. He was thus a percipient witness to the negligence with contemporaneous awareness of both the negligence as well as the ongoing injury to his fiance, and also feared for his child. Mr. lheanachor tried to obtain entrance to the operating room, but was held back by several hospital personnel also present just outside the operating room. After a considerable period of time, Mr. Iheanachor noticed you running down the hallway and enter the operating room, Mr. Iheanachor noted sleep lines on your face. 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619) 232-1884 David Self, M.D. April 2, 2018 Page Two As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence, Claimant, Delphina Moth underwent excruciating and unnecessary pain and suffering, until she eventually passed out from the pain. In addition, she continues to undergo significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of her life. As a direct and legal result of the above described negligence, Claimant, Paul lheanachor, also continues to suffer from significant emotional distress from the above described conduct, and will likely do so for the remainder of his life. Please have your malpractice carrier contact the undersigned. At this time should be no further direct contact with our clients. there NMF:abm 110 JUNIPER STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (619) 232-1815 • FAX (619)232-1884