Bentley v. Riverside Community Hosp
Filed 7/31/06 Bentley v. Riverside Community Hosp. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| SANDRA BENTLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant and Respondent. | E037566 (Super.Ct.No. RIC373137) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen D. Cunnison, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark A. Shoemaker for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Dummit Briegleb Boyce & Buchholz, Heather F. Solomon, and Steven E. Kushner for Defendant and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, Sandra Bentley and her husband Todd Bentley, appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, Riverside Community Hospital (RCH), on plaintiffs' complaint for medical malpractice. The judgment was entered following a bifurcated court trial on the limited issue of whether RCH or its personnel had a duty to ask Sandra whether she was or might be pregnant before her radiologist, Dr. Gilbert Zimmerman, using RCH's nuclear medicine facilities, administered radioactive iodine therapy to Sandra to treat symptoms of her Graves disease or hyperthyroidism. Pregnancy is a contraindication for radioiodine treatment because the treatment causes birth defects. Sandra later discovered she was pregnant at the time of her treatment. Fearing birth defects, plaintiffs terminated the pregnancy.
Following the bifurcated court trial and based on the evidence presented, the trial court concluded that RCH did not have a duty to ask Sandra whether she was or might be pregnant. The court based its conclusion â€
