Bryant v. Bakshandeh
277 Cal. Rptr. 379, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1241, 91 Daily Journal DAR 776 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a physician to receive immunity under the Good Samaritan statutes for rendering in-hospital assistance, a triable issue of fact must exist as to whether the physician had a reasonable, good faith belief that they were responding to a medical emergency. An operating surgeon's mere declaration that an "unforeseen complexity" has arisen is not, by itself, determinative.
Facts:
- Shaun Bryant, an infant, was at Cedars Sinai Medical Center for a pre-planned, elective surgery to correct an imperforate anus.
- Doctors Stephen Gans and Edward Austin anesthetized Shaun in preparation for the surgery.
- A necessary preliminary step was the insertion of a catheter into Shaun's urethra, which the doctors attempted multiple times without success.
- The doctors made a 'stat' call for assistance from a urologist.
- Dr. Kiumars Bakshandeh, an urologist attending his own patient in the hospital, responded to the call.
- Dr. Gans informed Dr. Bakshandeh that the procedure was elective and asked for his assistance in inserting the catheter.
- Dr. Bakshandeh performed a cystoscopy and made several more unsuccessful attempts to insert the catheter, after which the elective surgery was postponed.
- Three days later, Shaun Bryant died from an infection that resulted from a perforation of his rectal pouch during the pre-operative procedures.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Virginia Bryant sued Cedars Sinai Medical Center and the operating surgeons in a state trial court for wrongful death and negligence.
- The Bryants later amended their complaint to add Dr. Kiumars Bakshandeh as a defendant.
- Bakshandeh filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court, asserting immunity from liability under California's Good Samaritan statutes.
- The trial court initially denied the motion, then reconsidered and granted summary judgment in favor of Bakshandeh, finding the operating surgeon's determination of an emergency was controlling.
- The Bryants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a physician who responds to an in-hospital request for assistance during a pre-planned, elective procedure automatically immune from liability under the Good Samaritan statutes merely because the operating surgeon deems the situation an 'unforeseen complexity,' or must a triable issue of fact exist as to whether the responding physician had a reasonable, good faith belief that a medical emergency existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, J.
No. A physician is not automatically immune from liability under the Good Samaritan statutes based solely on the operating surgeon's declaration of an 'unforeseen complexity.' The court reasoned that for Good Samaritan immunity to apply, a genuine emergency must exist, and the responding physician must have a reasonable, good faith belief they are acting in such an emergency. This case was distinguishable from prior precedents because the surgery was elective and had not yet begun; the difficulty arose during a preparatory step. While an operating surgeon's assessment is important, it is not conclusive. The court held that the responding physician's subjective, good faith belief is a critical element, and whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances—where the procedure was elective and no immediate threat to the patient's health during ongoing surgery was apparent—is a material question of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of Good Samaritan immunity within a hospital setting, moving away from a bright-line rule where the operating surgeon's determination of an emergency is conclusive. By introducing a subjective belief component for the responding physician, the court makes it more difficult for defendants to win summary judgment on this affirmative defense. This holding ensures that the powerful protection of Good Samaritan statutes is reserved for genuine emergencies, rather than foreseeable complications or procedural difficulties arising in the context of elective care. Consequently, physicians responding to in-hospital requests must now consider whether the situation constitutes a true emergency to be confident of immunity.
