Women "distressed" by seeing doctors rush to help mom

California court says bystanders must meet specific criteria if they want to sue for emotional distress in medical malpractice cases.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Sept. 2, 2002.

The California Supreme Court in August made it more difficult for bystanders to sue physicians for emotional distress.

Physicians, dentists and hospitals say the court's decision helps ensure that patients' family and friends can remain nearby while a patient is receiving care.

"We're pleased with the result," said H. Thomas Watson, an attorney who wrote a brief filed by the California Medical Assn., California Dental Assn. and California Healthcare Assn.

"It takes away physicians' liability except in the most egregious situations. ... But if a bystander witnesses conduct that violates the standard of care and at the time understood it was harming the patient, they can still potentially recover something."

The case, Bird v. Saenz, stems from a Nov. 30, 1994, incident in Los Angeles County.

On that day, Janice Bird, the adult daughter of Nita Bird, brought her mother to the hospital for outpatient surgery to insert a Port-A-Cath for chemotherapy. Nita Bird had been diagnosed with metastatic ovarian cancer six weeks earlier, according to court documents.

The procedure took longer than Janice Bird expected and she asked a hospital volunteer to find out why. Then, over the loudspeaker system, Bird heard an announcement for a thoracic surgeon "stat."

About an hour to 90 minutes later, one of the physicians told Bird that they had more trouble than expected when inserting the Port-A-Cath and thought her mother may have had a mild stroke. Soon after that, Bird saw her mother "being rushed down the hallway," according to court documents. She was bright blue and her bed was on an angle so that her head was almost touching the ground. [...]