Alkins v. Loma Linda University Medical Center CA4/1
D069646
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Priscilla Alkins, 28 weeks pregnant with twins, was transferred to Loma Linda for high‑risk preterm labor after her water broke and she began leaking copious amniotic fluid.
- During an overnight period (approximately 2:15 a.m. to 5:20 a.m.), Alkins repeatedly called for nursing help and could not locate a nurse for about three hours; the trial court found the nurses’ documentation gap during that period showed negligent nursing care.
- A few hours later a physician informed Alkins that one twin (Sebastian) had died in utero; autopsy attributed death to an infection (Group B Strep) likely present well before membrane rupture.
- Alkins sued Loma Linda and Dr. Arthur for medical negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the bench trial found no physician negligence and that nursing negligence did not cause Sebastian’s death.
- The trial court concluded Alkins suffered serious emotional distress but that the three‑hour nursing lapse was not a substantial factor in causing that distress, which the court attributed to the inherently stressful, high‑risk premature labor and fear for the fetuses.
- Alkins appealed only the denial of emotional‑distress damages related to the nursing negligence; she argued the evidence did not support the trial court’s causation finding and that the court erroneously required physical injury or proof nurses could have lessened the leaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether three‑hour nursing lapse was a substantial factor in Alkins’s serious emotional distress (NIED causation) | Alkins: nursing neglect (being ignored) caused her serious emotional distress and was the worst part of her experience | Loma Linda: Alkins’s distress stemmed from prolonged preterm labor and fear for the twins (including existing infection risk), not the nurses’ temporary absence | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports that distress was caused by the overall high‑risk labor and fear for the fetuses, not the three‑hour nursing lapse |
| Whether plaintiff must show physical injury to recover NIED damages here | Alkins: physical injury is not required to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress | Loma Linda: trial court treated physical injury (and ability to mitigate leaking) as relevant; argued Alkins failed causation even without physical injury requirement | Court: did not ultimately impose a physical‑injury requirement; even if it had, any error was harmless because causation failed on the record |
| Whether any legal error (e.g., requiring proof nurses could reduce leaking) mandates reversal | Alkins: the court legally erred and those errors prejudiced her case | Loma Linda: any such errors were harmless because the record shows the distress was caused by the labor circumstances | Held: legal errors, if any, were harmless; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1064 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (explains direct‑victim and bystander NIED frameworks)
- Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965 (1993) (defines "serious emotional distress" and proximate‑cause principles)
- Rutherford v. Owens‑Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (1997) (describes the substantial‑factor causation standard)
- Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal.3d 916 (1980) (physical injury not always required for emotional‑distress recovery in limited contexts)
- Rideau v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 124 Cal.App.2d 466 (1954) (defendant takes plaintiff as found; preexisting susceptibility preserved but does not eliminate causation requirement)
- Stanley, People v., 10 Cal.4th 764 (1995) (appellate waiver principles for issues not adequately argued)