Estate of Samanth Jean Curnow, et al. v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, et al

Case Number

24CV01539

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 07/09/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiffs’ Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claims of Sadie Victoria Khashoggi, a Minor, and Colette Marie Chapman, a Minor

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Estate of Samantha Jean Curnow, Sadie Victoria Khashoggi, and Colette Marie Chapman: Nora Hovsepian

For Defendants Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, William Hahn MD, and Rohit Sharma MD: Louise M. Douville

For Defendants Heather Terbell MD, Wanda Westerman and Carin L. Craig MD: James C. Schaeffer

For Defendants Alejandro R. Soffici MD and Elizabeth T. Patberg MD: Yuk K. Law 

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the petitions for approval of compromise of minors Sadie Victoria Khashoggi and Colette Marie Chapman are granted.

Background

This action commenced on March 18, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiffs Estate of Samantha Jean Curnow, Sadie Victoria Khashoggi (“Khashoggi”), by and through her guardians ad litem, and Colette Marie Chapman (“Chapman”), by and through her guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against Defendants Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital (“Cottage”), Serene Alexander, D.O. (“Dr. Alexander”), Heather I. Terbell, M.D. (“Dr. Terbell”), William Hahn, M.D. (“Dr. Hahn”), Wanda Westerman, C.N.M. (“Westerman”), Rohit Sharma, M.D. (“Dr. Sharma”), Alejandro R. Soffici, M.D. (“Dr. Soffici”), Elizabeth T. Patberg, M.D. (“Dr. Patberg”), Bradley Brown, M.D. (“Dr. Brown”), and Carin L. Craig, M.D. (“Dr. Craig”) (collectively “Defendants”) for medical malpractice resulting in wrongful death.

As alleged in the complaint:

Khashoggi and Chapman are the surviving daughters and legal heirs of decedent Samanth Jean Curnow (“decedent”). (Compl., ¶¶ 2, 3.)

On April 7, 2023, decedent presented to the birth center at Cottage after a premature rupture of membranes had occurred that day. (Compl., ¶ 27.) Decedent was 38 weeks and 2 days pregnant. (Ibid.) Decedent’s pregnancy was uncomplicated and had proceeded uneventfully. (Ibid.)

The purpose of decedent being admitted to Cottage was a plan for cervical ripening followed by the administration of Pitocin to induce labor. (Compl., ¶ 28.) On admission, decedent’s pre-natal labs revealed non-specific signs of infection, but this was not investigated, and decedent was not treated with antibiotics by any of the health care providers or Defendants caring for her. (Ibid.)

On April 8, 2023, decedent’s labor proceeded, but there was no follow-up on the lab findings from the previous day. (Compl., ¶ 29.) At 1:30 a.m. on April 9, 2023, decedent had a normal spontaneous vaginal delivery of Chapman. (Id. at ¶ 30.)

Despite the time from her rupture of membranes to delivery was a prolonged 48 hours and 13 minutes, which placed her at increased risk of endometritis, and even though decedent was suffering from a fever, no antibiotics were administered by Defendants. (Compl., ¶ 31.)

Immediately upon delivery, decedent suffered a first-degree laceration which was repaired under epidural anesthetic. (Compl., ¶ 32.) Shortly thereafter, decedent was found to be suffering from lower uterine segment atony, which is a serious post-partum complication that can cause life-threatening blood loss. (Id. at ¶ 33.)

On April 9, 2023, at 12:11 p.m., decedent’s lab results revealed alarming signs of infection and impending sepsis, but the signs were ignored by decedent’s treating physicians and nurses including Defendants, and no antibiotic therapy was given. (Compl., ¶ 34.) Shortly thereafter, decedent began to experience significant bleeding, weakness, and pain, for which there was no investigation or intervention. (Ibid.)

On April 10, 2023, at 6:09 a.m., decedent’s lab results revealed worsening signs of infection and impending sepsis, but the signs were ignored, and no antibiotic therapy was administered. (Compl., ¶ 35.) The standard of care required that decedent be immediately transferred to the intensive care unit with intravenous antibiotic treatment and aggressive resuscitation, but Defendants failed to do so. (Ibid.)

On April 10, 2023, between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., decedent consistently complained of severe pain, numbness in her face, and significant weakness in her legs. (Compl., ¶ 36.) Decedent was bleeding vaginally, she was tachycardic, agitated, pale, and diaphoretic with mottled skin on her chest and arms, but Defendants failed to investigate or treat decedent. (Ibid.)

On April 10, 2023, at 9:09 a.m., decedent’s lab results and vital signs revealed severe metabolic acidosis and septic shock, and decedent’s skin was turning blue and cold to the touch. (Compl., ¶ 37.) At 10:13 a.m., a rapid response team was called to resuscitate decedent. (Id., at ¶ 38.) At 10:35 a.m., decedent was taken by the rapid response team to undergo a CT scan to determine if she had a pulmonary embolus. (Id. at ¶ 39.) While in the CT scanner, decedent suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest for which resuscitative measures were immediately taken. (Ibid.) Decedent was intubated and transferred to the medical intensive care unit but never regained consciousness. (Ibid.) Decedent died at 4:12 p.m. (Id. at ¶ 41.)

Defendants filed answers to the complaint, asserting general denials and affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs have entered into settlement agreements with Cottage, Dr. Terbell, Dr. Craig, and Westerman, for a total settlement of $2,800,000.00 to be divided equally between Khashoggi and Chapman. Plaintiffs now petition for approval of the minors’ compromises.

There are no oppositions filed to the petitions.

Analysis

“The requirements that a guardian ad litem be appointed and that the proposed compromise of a minor’s claim be approved by the trial Court exist to protect the best interests of the minor.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4^th 1333, 1338.)

“While the guardian ad litem has the power to assent to procedural steps that will facilitate a determination of the ward’s case [citation], the guardian ad litem’s authority is that of “ ‘ “an agent with limited powers.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] For example, when a guardian ad litem believes that settling a case is in the ward’s best interests, that decision requires Court approval. (Code Civ. Proc., 372.) The Court has a duty to ensure that the ward’s rights are protected by the guardian ad litem.” (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4^th 540, 549.)

“A petition for Court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the Petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

“If the Petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:

“(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;

“(2) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party’s insurance carrier;

“(3) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;

“(4) Whether the attorney has received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;

“(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and

“(6) The terms of any agreement between the Petitioner and the attorney.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951.)

Plaintiff has submitted to following information, on the required judicial council form MC-350 (Petition), signed by Hernandez under penalty of perjury:

Khashoggi is 11 years old with a date of birth of October 10, 2013. (Khashoggi petition, ¶ 2.) Chapman is 2 years old with a date of birth of April 9, 2023. (Chapman petition, ¶ 2.) As the information contained in both petitions are identical as to all pertinent additional information, the references will simply be to “petition.”

On April 10, 2023, Khashoggi and Chapman’s mother died at Cottage Hospital of toxic shock due to an undiagnosed Group A Strep Bacteria. (Petition, ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Neither Khashoggi nor Chapman received medical treatment as the result of her mother’s death. (Petition, ¶ 7.)

The terms of the settlement are that Defendants will pay $2,800,000.00 ($1,800,000.00 from Cottage, $967,002.00 from Dr. Terbell, $29,999.00 from Dr. Craig, and $2,999.00 from Westerman) in settlement of the claims, with that amount to be equally divided between Plaintiffs. (Petition, ¶¶ 10, 11.)

Plaintiffs’ attorneys request that the Court approve $444,628.80 from each Plaintiffs’ settlement as attorney fees. (Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs’ attorneys claim reasonably incurred costs advanced, as well as a Medi-Cal lien in the total amount of $498.039.29, mostly consisting of expert fees, and request that that amount be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. (Petition, ¶ 13, subd. (b).)

The net balance of settlement proceeds to be paid to each Plaintiff totals $901,960.71. (Petition, ¶ 15.)

Plaintiffs’ attorney has provided all the information about her that is required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Petition, ¶ 17.)

Plaintiffs through their guardians ad litem, request that the balance of their settlements, after the above disbursements, be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. The terms and conditions of the annuities are specified in attachments to the petitions. (Petitions, ¶ 18, subd. (b) & Proposed Order, ¶ 8, subd. (b)(2).)

The Court has reviewed the petition, along with the attachments, and finds that the settlements are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor Plaintiffs. The Court intends on executing the proposed orders submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel.