Posts tagged "Siddiqi"

Cruz, et al. v. Siddiqi (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-146-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11274   SENAYA ZAYAS SANTANA CRUZ & another[1]  vs.  JAVED SIDDIQI.       August 5, 2013.       Medical Malpractice, Bond.  Negligence, Medical malpractice. Practice, Civil, Bond, Judicial discretion.  Bond.       The plaintiffs seek interlocutory review of the judge’s order refusing to reduce the amount of the $ 6,000 bond they were required to file in order to pursue their medical malpractice claim against defendant Dr. Javed Siddiqi after a tribunal convened pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 60B (§ 60B), determined that there was not sufficient evidence to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry as to Dr. Siddiqi.  The appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, and we then transferred the case to this court on our own motion.  For reasons set forth in our decision in Faircloth v. DiLillo, ante        (2013) (Faircloth), we conclude that the judge abused his discretion where he denied the plaintiffs’ motion based solely on his belief that plaintiffs’ attorney was paying or advancing the court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the indigent plaintiffs, including the cost of the bond.[2]     Background.  The plaintiffs, Senaya Zayas Santana Cruz and her mother Suleyka Zayas Santana, brought a medical malpractice action against a number of defendants allegedly involved with Senaya’s prenatal care.  As part of the plaintiffs’ offer of proof before the tribunal, they submitted an opinion letter from Dr. Berto Lopez, wherein Dr. Lopez opined that Dr. Siddiqi “deviated from the prevailing professional standard of care in the treatment of [the plaintiffs] by failing to obtain informed consent from Suleyka, including but not limited to discussions concerning shoulder dystocia and permanent neurological injury to Senaya and the availability of alternative mode of delivery via cesarean section.”  The tribunal determined that the evidence in the offer of proof was insufficient to support a finding of liability as to Dr. Siddiqi.  Pursuant to § 60B, the plaintiffs were informed that they had to provide a $ 6,000 bond to avoid dismissal of the claim.  In response, the [p]laintiffs filed an emergency motion to reduce the amount of the bond, asserting that they were indigent and that “[f]ailing to lower the bond amount [would] result in the dismissal of this case against Dr. Siddiqi, thereby denying [p]laintiffs the right to have the case heard by a jury of their peers.” […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 6, 2013 at 8:04 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,