USCF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland v. Superior Court of California, City of Alameda
California Supreme Court (Petition for Review)
2016 WL 4495093 (2016)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Thirteen-year-old Jahi McMath (plaintiff) went into cardiac arrest after a surgical procedure at USCF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Children’s Hospital) (defendant). Two medical professionals determined that McMath’s brain function had irreversibly ceased, and they pronounced her dead in accordance with California’s Uniform Determination of Death Act. A death certificate was issued. McMath’s mother, Latasha Winkfield (plaintiff), petitioned to compel Children’s Hospital to provide medical treatment to McMath, whom Winkfield asserted was still alive. In a probate action, a court-appointed specialist in child neurology confirmed McMath’s irreversible brain death, as did the two physicians who made the initial determination. The probate court issued a final order on the subject. Winkfield did not challenge the probate court’s findings or final order, but she did initiate a series of civil proceedings on McMath’s behalf to collaterally attack the determination of death. At various points, Winkfield claimed that changed circumstances warranted reconsideration of McMath’s medical state. Winkfield’s civil actions included a personal-injury action with which the Alameda County Superior Court allowed Winkfield to proceed. Children’s Hospital petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to preclude Winkfield’s efforts to overturn McMath’s death certificate on grounds of collateral estoppel, which was denied. Children’s Hospital then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.