California Law: Analysis of the Nicolette Brand vs. Dr. Anna Liu Case

This case study presents the legal arguments in the case of Nicolette Brand against Dr. Anna Liu and Refresh Medical Spa, focusing on a cosmetic surgery procedure that resulted in an anaphylactic reaction. The case revolves around the application of the Good Samaritan Law, as Dr. Liu assisted in performing a tracheotomy to save Ms. Brand's life after she experienced a severe allergic reaction. The analysis examines whether the Good Samaritan Law protects the doctors from liability, considering the steps taken to address the medical emergency and the standard of care. The assignment explores the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the legal principles governing medical negligence and emergency assistance, ultimately addressing whether the statute of Good Samaritan law was tolled. The case study provides a detailed examination of the medical procedures, the legal claims, and the relevant case law, concluding with the application of the Good Samaritan Law.

Case and General Assignment
(P's and A's)

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF FACT................................................................................................................3
ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

SUE MS. NICOLLETE BRAND (5928)
A client for cosmetic surgery
California
Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Anna Liu
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Brand, an Individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
Refresh Medical Spa, a Medical cosmetic
Organisation,
Defendant
Case No.: 5928
DEFENDANT DR. ANNA LIU
MEMORENDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Memorandum of Points and Authorities which have been presented in front of court
of law shall be submitted by Plaintiff Nicolette and defendant Dr. Anna Liu and Dr. Golden
motion for the summary judgement. It has been seen with the following case that the court has
denied defendant's motion because an allegation has been put on defendant regarding surgery
which has tolled all the statute regarding Good Samaritan law, in which plaintiff has suffered
several health problems which has been caused due to surgery and plaintiff has suffered several
loses also.
STATEMENT OF FACT
The case between the parties have arose out of the fact that tracheotomy has been
operated on the face of plaintiff that is Nicolette. He has made an allegation on both the doctors
that the operation has not been done properly. McKenna v. Cedars of Lebanon Hosp., Inc.,93
Cal. App. 3d 282 (1979). Tracheotomy that was performed on her was not necessary and was
improperly completed, resulting in permanent scarring on her neck. It is seen in the case that Dr.

Golden who has been performing as defendant is a incensed physician and shall pursue the right
of carrying the practice as a physician on medicine in the state of California. Reynoso v.
Newman, 126 Cal. App. 4Th 494 (2005) He is a board certified cosmetic surgeon and a member
of American Academy of cosmetic Surgeon. Dr. Golden has added further in his statement that
surgery is a discipline of medicine which shall focused on enhancing beauty of a person by
operating it in medical techniques. Dr. has also completed his training in plastic surgery from
medical school of UCLA in San Diego. And also obtained certification in plastic surgery from
the American Board of Plastic Surgery in 1994. at present, Dr. has been working with a medical
spa known as Refresh Medical spa as in position of Physician – owner in cosmetic Surgeon.
On April 2016 Dr. was present in the surgical room no. 4 at refresh Spa, where he was
performing an elective cosmetic procedure on Ms. Nicolette Brand, age 42. an elective cosmetic
is a kind of surgery in which non medical emergency has been used. It has been done in order to
enhance the beauty and skin of the person, but it does not need to be performed immediately.
While doing any operation it is necessary to give anaesthesia to patient in order to relieve that
person from pain. Keeping this context in view, Dr, Golden has giver her patient a regional
anaesthetic to her neck in place of general anaesthetic. By the input of anaesthetic, the neck of
the patient blocks the nerve supply to the face during the surgery. This shall be done in order to
reduce the pain of patient while getting the treatment. Doctor has consider to give anaesthetic to
his patient so that no pain shall be felt by the patient and in-fact it has an advantage that it shall
allow the patient to be awake during the procedure and speeds up the recovery process. It has
been appeared from the case scenario that the spa authority has conducted a exploratory blood
tests before this procedure, that means all the necessary test has been conducted in order to
rectify the probability of any failure. But it has been appeared from the situation Ms.
Unexpectedly appeared to suffer a severe allergic reaction to the regional block. The plaintiff
began to thrashing around and gasping for breath. It became impossible for the plaintiff to take
proper breath by the intake of certain chemical. Dr. Golden has further stated that it was apparent
to him that patient was suffering from an anaphylactic reaction. Anaphylactic is a life threatening
allergic reaction that can develop rapidly. As it has been seen that patient was suffering from
suffocation which shall be developing rapidly, Dr. requested to give shot of epinephrine to be
administered by a surgical nurse, but during the rescue steps which has been take by the doctor,
patient Ms, Brand began to thrashing around so wildly that the syringe was knocked and dropped

down down from nurse hand and the content which has been filled in syringe spilled on nurse
and the floor.
During the operation has been taking place, Brand's heart rate was rapidly increased, her
blood pressure was dropping and she became cyanotic. Dr. Believed that it was needed to act
right away to save her life by performing a tracheotomy. In the procedure of tracheotomy, it shall
involves inserting a breathing tube into neck of the patient just under the voice box.
Breazeal v. Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 234 Cal. App. 3D 1329 (1991). As the situation
of patient became worse it was important ton take few actions but the surgical nurse, Ms. Lorene
Black was busy dealing with the epinephrine spill, Dr. called for help from any other
professional who may have been nearby in an office. Consulting or operating room.
While assisting Dr. Golden, Dr. Liu hold down the arm of Ms. Brand and Dr. golden cut
an opening in Ms. Brand' neck and inserted a tracheotomy tube. At the end after inserting the
tube it became a successful operation and patient was able to get oxygen delivered to her lungs
by breathing through the tube because her air passage were still blocked.
When Ms. Brand began to breath properly, Dr Golden administer a series of shots of Epinephrine
to Ms. Brand and he removed the Tracheotomy tube when he saw that she was able to breath
through her normal air passage. street v. Superior Court., Cal. App. 3d. 1397 (1990)
ARGUMENTS
THE STATUTE OF GOOD SAMARITAN LAW DOES NOT BECAME TOLLED AS DR.
GOLDEN TOOK THE NECESSARY STEPS FOR SAVING THE LIFE OF MS. BRAND AND
DR. LIU JUST ASSESTED HIM AS NO OTHER ASSISTANCE WAS PRESENT.
Kearns v. Superior Court,.204 Cal. App. 3D 1325 (1988).The statute of good Samaritan
law does not became tolled on the account of doctors as all the necessary steps has been taken by
Dr Golden and Dr, liu has assisted him in the operation. It has been seen in the case that, Ms.
Brand went for a cosmetic surgery in “refreshing Medical Spa”. There during the procedure of
surgery, Ms brand became to “thrashing around” and “gasping for Breath” it had appeared from
such a reaction of the patient that she was suffering from Anaphylactic reaction. All the
necessary steps are to be taken during the procedure cosmetic surgery. A pre blood test has also

be taken in order to avoid any complexity during surgery but it has apparently appeared on the
account of patient that she has undergone an incomplete surgery.
A. Ms. Brand suffered from thrashing around and grasping of breath because she was allergic not
because of the carelessness of doctors
Ms. Brand has made an allegation on the refreshing medical spa and on their doctors
who have taken care of her medical cosmetic surgery. It has been seen in the case that both the
doctors who have operated her surgery are responsible for her “thrashing around” and her
“grasping breath”. Here the word thrashing around means when the person moves rapidly
without knowing that is an abnormality has been transferred into his body by which he shall not
be able to move in proper way, rather then this he move or beat violently or wildly which is
uncontrollable. Grasping breath means breathing in an abnormal pattern that is, the person shall
not be able to take proper oxygen and therefore breath with abnormality. Noticing to that Dr.
Golden has observed that it has not been occurred on the account of giving her shots but she was
suffering from an anaphylactic reaction which is a life threatening allergy. In order to safe the
life of patient, Dr has taken all the necessary steps by which the patient shall be able to breath
properly Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2396 (West 2016) . They with the assistance of other doctor
that is Dr. Liu has make a cut to her neck and inserted a tube during the cosmetic surgery so that
the patient shall be able to breath properly and her life shall not be endangered. It has been
appeared from the case that Dr. has act in good faith. Perkins v. Howard, 232 Cal. App. 3D 708
(1991) According good Samaritan act it is not illegal for a person to act in good faith that is any
official during the discharge of his duty could take necessary step if it has been done in good
faith and here the steps which has been taken by Dr. Golden and Dr. liu was to save the life of
patient so that she can breath properly and her lungs could get enough oxygen.
The conclusion which can be drawn from the above situation is that At very most it is
duty of a doctor to save the life of a patient and in the process of a cosmetic surgery it is
important to insert a tube into the neck of patient so that the surgery could take place and here as
the breathing problem started getting worse it became necessary for Dr. to take precautionary
steps. Colby v. Schwartz., 78 Cal. App. 3d. 885 (1978). As the Dr. saw that heart rate was
rapidly increased and her blood drop pressure was dropping, and she was cyanotic, he believed it
is better to act right away in order to save the life of Ms. Brand.

B. Assistance of Dr. Liu has been taken in order to rescue the life of Ms. Brand
during the procedure of cosmetic surgery it was appeared that Ms. Brand was suffering
from anaphylactic reaction that is why she was thrashing around and grasping breath by which
syringe from hand of nurse knocked down. The condition of the patient start becoming worse
and surgical nurse was not present on the floor which is why Dr. Golden ask the assistance from
Dr. liu in order to safe the life of patient. Heart rate of patient was rapidly increasing and her
blood pressure was dropping and she was was becoming cyanotic. Dr. liu holds down Ms.
Brand's arm and Dr. Golden cut her neck to insert the tube. Bryant v. Bakshandeh .226 Cal. App.
3D 1241 (1991) .According to the Good Samaritan laws, it offer legal protection yo people who
give responsible assistance to those who are or who they believed to be injured. In this case it is
to be believed that Dr. liu has acted in giving reasonable assistance to Dr Gulden's patient. In the
law of good Samaritan, there is no criminal liability for failing to act in the event of another
person for being in danger. So no criminal liability shall fall on Dr. Liu as he was just providing
assistance to patient. California have seriously considered adding duty to assist subdivisions to
their good Samaritan statutes. According ton N.Y. Public Health L. § 3000, the furnishing of
medical assistance in an emergency is a matter of vital concern affecting the public health, safety
and welfare. Pre hospital emergency medical care, the provision of prompt and effective
communication among ambulances and safe and effective care and transportation of the sick and
injured are essential public health service.
It can be concluded from the above statement that Good Samaritan provisions are not
universal in application. Burciaga v. St. John's Hosp., 187 Cal. App. 3D 701 (1986). The legal
principle of imminent peril may also apply. In the absence of Imminent Peril, the actions of a
rescuer may be precieved by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. It has been
seen that Dr, Anna Liu had worked in the good faith in order to provide medical assistance to Dr.
golden as no surgical nurse was present on the floor and the condition of his patient was
becoming worse and according to Good Samaritan Law an assistance shall be provided which
will not amount to any criminal liability. Therefore this court should deny the motion of plaintiff
C. surgery was a success without major complications
in this case it was seen that Ms. Brand approach to take tracheotomy was successful in the initial
stage amny problems has been faced by the patient. But due to the assistance of Dr. Liu and

operation process continued by Dr. Golden helps Mrs. Brand to get oxygen delivered to her
lungs by breathing through the tube as her air passage were blocked but shortly afterwards when
Dr. Golden administer series of shots Epinephrine to Ms. Brand and he removed Tracheotomy
she was able to breath through her normal air passage
it can be concluded from the above argument that necessary steps was taken to save life of Ms.
Brand. There was no intention seen of hurting her.
D. confession which has been done by Dr. Anna Liu
a confession has been recorded of Dr. Liu which states that Dr. was touring the facilities and was
going to meet Dr. chang the CEO of the Spa. He was going to have lunch with some other co
physician. It has been further confessed by the Dr. that he wasn't helping Dr. Golden . He wasnt
there to work. He was touring facility and have lot of respect for the work he use to do. Dr. Liu
often refer some of his client to Dr. Golden when depend upon the need. Ms. Brand was not a
patient of Dr. Liu he just recommended her about Dr. golden for cosmetic surgery. While the
surgery has been carried out by the Dr. he noticed that Dr. Golden calling for help and did the
necessary performance.
It can be concluded from the above argument that Dr. Liu was just to help Dr. Golden as
his patient was not able to breath properly and for doctors, it is their foremost duty to save their
patient. It can be further noticed that there was no as such intention of Dr. to cause any injury to
his patient.
CONCLUSION
for the reason stated above, defendant Mr. Anna Liu respectfully request that Ms.
Nicollete Brand motion for summary judgement be denied
DATED: November 9th 2016 Respectfully submitted
Senior Partner Gail Greene
Green & Jin Law Firm

REFERENCES
Cases
1. McKenna v. Cedars of Lebanon Hosp., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3D 282 (1979)
2. Reynoso v. Newman, 126 Cal. App. 4Th 494 (2005)
3. Breazeal v. Mayo Newhall Mem'l Hosp., 234 Cal. App. 3D 1329 (1991)
4. street v. Superior Court., 224 Cal. App., 3d 1397 (1988)
5. Kearns v. Superior Court., 204 Cal. App. 3D 1325 (1988)
6. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2396 (West 2016)
7. Perkins v. Howard, 232 Cal. App. 3D 708 (1991)
8. Colby v. Schwartz., 78 Cal. App. 3D 885 (1978)
9. Bryant v. Bakshandeh. 226 Cal. App. 3D 1241 (1991)
10. Burciaga v. St. John's Hosp., 187 Cal. App. 3D 710 (1986)