|
Bertling & Clausen LLP
Attorneys at Law
13 West Carillo Street • Suite 100 • Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Brian H. Clausen bhc@bertling-clausen.com Telephone 805.892.2100 February 12, 2007 Facsimile 805.963.6044 Nathaniel J. Friedman, Esq. NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN A Professional Corporation 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 235 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Re: Araiza v. Sanchez, et al Dear Mr. Friedman: This correspondence is in followup to plaintiffs’ California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to Compromise for Dr. Scanchez’ policy limits which expired by way of extension on January 31, 2007. I want you to know, the plaintiff’s Offer to Compromise was declined after careful consideration of this matter. We have had this case reviewed on behalf of Dr. Sanchez by two separate board-certified perinatologists who are fully supportive of his care and treatment of Julie Araiza. To date, the only theory of liability you have set forth against Dr. Sanchez is his alleged failure to offer and perform a cerclage while Ms. Araiza was hospitalized at Beverly Hospital. As you well know, a cerclage, if at all indicated is typically performed at 14 to 16 weeks gestation and when the cervix is closed. I am not at all suggesting a cerclage should have been performed at 14 to 16 weeks in this case. Nonetheless, when Dr. Sanchez became involved with Ms. Araiza on August 22, 2001, she was approximately 23 weeks gestation with indications of pre-term labor versus an incompetent cervixc. Ms. Araiza was doing well with bed rest and there would be no medical reason for Dr. Sanchez to recommend a cerclage to Ms. Araiza. Further, the handwritten and dictated medical records of both Dr. Eloise Skelton and Dr. Ana Leung support that a cerclage was offered to Ms. Araiza and yet declined. Dr. Sanchez is not a perinatologist. If Dr. Leung had previously offered a cerclage that was declined by Ms. Araiza, the standard of care would not require Dr. Sanchez to repeatedly offer this surgical procedure. Further, he would not have been in a position to do such an operation. I believe Dr. Sanchez will make an excellent witness at the time of trial. He and the experts we have retained to review this matter on his behalf will support his care and treatment treatment was exemplary. Dr. Sanchez evaluated Ms. Araiza pursuant to bein “on call” for Dr. Origel and he followed the original plan instituted by Dr. Leung. When Ms. Araiza developed signs of impending labor, Dr. Sanchez appropriately arranged for her transfer to a Level III tertiary care center. Certainly a jury would look favorably upon his actions and we fully expect a defense verdict on his behalf. I am serving plaintiff with a California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offer to Compromise for a waiver of costs. In the event of a defense verdict, our offer to waive costs and rights to due for malicious prosecution in exchange for a dismissal will open the door for recovery of our expert costs at trial. As you know, the California Court of Appeals has held these offers are legitimate and not “token” offers. By the end of trial, I expect our cost bill will be no less than $60,000. I expect you will evaluate our offer and discuss it with your client. Please make sure that your clients are well aware that we will pursue our costs in the event of defense verdict. I know some attorneys do not take the collection of costs seriously and I want to make sure there are no surprises with future collection efforts. If you would like to discuss any aspect of this correspondence, please telephone me at any time. Very truy yours, BERTLING & CLAUSEN LLP [signed] Brian H.Clausen BHC:ph |