LOS ANGELES – A California State Court of Appeals Second Appellate District panel affirmed a judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court rejecting a higher monetary award sought by a woman who won a malpractice suit in the death of her daughter from malignant melanoma.
“Marisol Lopez (plaintiff) appeals from a portion of a judgment in her favor that reduced the damages she was awarded for the wrongful death of her daughter, Olivia Sarinanan,” the court document read. “Olivia died from malignant melanoma when she was about four years old. Lopez prevailed in her negligence claims against three doctors and two physician assistants. The trial court awarded noneconomic damages of $4.25 million but reduced those damages to $250,000.”
The child died in 2014. Lopez sued the defendants Glenn Ledesma and Bernard Koire. Awarded $250,000 in damages by the court, Lopez appealed the reduced award.
A three-judge Court of Appeals panel, by a 2-to-1 vote, found that Lopez was not entitled to a $4.25 million pain-and-suffering award in the medical malpractice suit. Such awards are capped at $250,000.
“Lopez argued that the reduction in damages was improper because the conduct of the two physician assistants who treated Olivia — Suzanne Freesemann and Brian Hughes — fell within a proviso excluding certain conduct from the statutory damages reduction,” the brief explained. “Lopez argued that the physician assistants acted without the supervision of a physician in violation of the governing statutes and regulations.”
The court panel rejected Lopez’s argument, saying that the physician assistants had a legally enforceable agency relationship with supervising physicians over them, even though little actual supervision was received from the supervisors.
The court conceded that a clear legislative statement on the issue was lacking.
“We conclude that a physician assistant acts within the scope of his or her license for purposes of (state law) if he or she has a legally enforceable agency agreement with a supervising physician, regardless of the quality of actual supervision," the opinion noted. “A contrary rule would make the damages reduction (law) dependent on the adequacy of supervision. Such a rule would be uncertain and difficult to define.”
The Appeals Court panel affirmed the lower court decision and denied the plaintiff’s appeal for a larger money award.