Norried v. Ortiz CA2/5
B326276
Cal. Ct. App.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Wendy Norried, on behalf of her deceased brother Darrell Norried’s estate, sued medical providers for alleged malpractice, wrongful death, and challenged provisions of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA).
- Darrell Norried died of hypertensive heart disease after treatment at Venice Family Clinic, specifically by defendant Ortiz, a physician’s assistant who prescribed medication.
- Litigation involved multiple proceedings: this wrongful death/survival action, a class action constitutional challenge to MICRA in Sacramento, and a separate lawsuit for emotional distress regarding access to medical records.
- Trial court: (1) denied leave to amend complaint to include MICRA constitutional challenge; (2) sustained demurrers to wrongful death claims on standing/statute of limitations/sham pleading doctrine; (3) denied request for court-appointed expert; (4) granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining medical negligence claim.
- On appeal, Norried challenged all adverse trial court rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to Amend to Add MICRA Challenge | Denial blocks redress for harm from unconstitutional damages/fee caps | No actual controversy; declaratory relief unwarranted | Amendment properly denied; no actual controversy or justiciable dispute exists |
| Demurrer to Wrongful Death Claim | Plaintiff is a rightful heir; prior complaints naming Stratman were mistaken | Stratman is only heir; new allegations are sham pleadings | Demurrer sustained; sham pleading doctrine applies; Stratman remains decedent’s heir |
| Court-Appointed Expert Witness | Needed expert but could not afford; denial is unfair | Discretionary; others in similar position find experts | Denial within trial court’s discretion; plaintiff failed to exhaust other options |
| Summary Judgment on Medical Negligence | Defendants negligently canceled appointment, causing harm to Darrell | Standard of care met; no causation | Summary judgment granted; no triable issue; standard of care not breached, no causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez v. Bonta, 87 Cal.App.5th 389 (actual controversy for declaratory relief requires concrete, non-speculative dispute; speculative harm insufficient)
- Adams v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.4th 71 (wrongful death standing tied to statutory class and intestate succession)
- Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal.App.3d 379 (sham pleading doctrine prevents unexplained reversal of harmful prior allegations)
- Deveny v. Entropin, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 408 (explains application of the sham pleading doctrine)
- San Antonio Regional Hospital v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 346 (elements of medical malpractice: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (factors for imposing tort duty in California negligence law)