Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 19AVCV00157, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 19AVCV00157    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

This action arises from a medical malpractice/birth injury that occurred on or about July 3, 2018. Petitioner Samantha Henderson (“Petitioner”) gave vaginal birth to Minor Claimant Maurice Junior Williams (“Minor Claimant”) while assisted by Defendant Michael J. Hakakha, M.D. (“Dr. Hakakha”) at Antelope Valley Hospital, located at 1600 W. Avenue J, Lancaster, CA 93534. Dr. Hakakha is a member of Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“Defendant”). During the birth, Minor Claimant’s right arm was dislocated, causing the diagnosis of brachial plexus birth injury to right upper extremity.   

On February 25, 2019, Minor Claimant, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Petitioner, filed a Complaint for Medical Negligence against Dr. Hakakha and Defendant.

On July 5, 2022, Petitioner filed the Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim of pending action on behalf of Minor Claimant.

Analysis

Standard for Approving Minor’s Compromises – Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests . . . .  [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) 

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952.  The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a).)

An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision-making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.953 and 7.954.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.)

-----

The petition shows that Minor Claimant settled with Defendant for a total amount of $1,050,000.00. $34,536.98 will be used to pay medical expenses, $199,987.50 will be used to pay attorney’s fee, and $197,849.45 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $617,626.07 for Minor Claimant. Petitioner proposes the net proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the court.

The Court finds the settlement is fair and reasonable.  The Court also finds the requested attorney’s fee, which constitutes about 19% of the gross settlement amount, are reasonable.

Conclusion