Esquivel v. Watters
Court of Appeals of Kansas
154 P.3d 1184 (2007)
After receiving obstetric counseling at Ark City Clinic (defendant), a pregnant Michelle Esquivel (plaintiff) went to the South Central Kansas Regional Medical Center (SCKRMC) (defendant) for a free sonogram to determine the sex of the baby. Prior to the procedure, Michelle signed a consent and waiver of liability form stating that there was no guarantee that a gender could conclusively be determined and that the sole purpose of the test was to determine the baby’s gender—not to determine any fetal abnormalities or other complications. A technician at the SCKRMC performed the sonogram and, while taking pictures, noticed that the baby’s bowel was outside of his body, a condition known as gastroschisis. The technician was unable to determine the gender due to the presence of this condition. The technician did not inform Michelle of the condition because he was not qualified to make a medical diagnosis. He sent the sonogram pictures to a radiologist at Ark City Clinic who refused to view them because the procedure was solely to determine the sex of the baby. The technician also orally informed Michelle’s obstetrician, Dr. Aaron Watters, (defendant) of the condition. No written report was made by either the technician or Watters regarding the conversation. Shortly thereafter, Watters asked a nurse to follow up with Michelle. She was unsuccessful. During subsequent prenatal visits, Watters forgot to inform Michelle of the baby’s medical condition. Michelle gave birth to Jadon about one month later when she, her husband Jesse, and the medical staff became aware of his condition. Jadon was transferred to another hospital the same day and a physician performed surgery on Jadon, but informed the Esquivels that there was no hope for his survival. Jadon died approximately one month later. Michelle and Jesse Esquivel (plaintiffs) brought suit against the Ark City Clinic, Watters and the SCKRMC for the wrongful death of Jadon. The district court granted summary judgment to all of the defendants. The Equivels appealed the summary judgments of Watters and the SCKRMC.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curium)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.