A recent court ruling has brought to light a contentious medical malpractice case involving the tragic death of a patient. The plaintiffs, Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Sacramento County on August 26, 2024, against Dr. Inder Singh, alleging that his refusal to treat their mother led to her untimely demise.
The case revolves around the events of March 9, 2019, when Carol McCurry was rushed to Methodist Hospital's emergency department with severe shortness of breath. Despite her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease history, it was an aortic dissection that became the focal point after diagnostic imaging. Dr. Michael Brandon, the attending emergency physician, quickly realized that Carol might be suffering from a heart attack and needed immediate cardiac catheterization—a procedure not available at Methodist Hospital.
Dr. Brandon consulted Dr. Inder Singh, an on-call interventional cardiologist at Mercy General Hospital. Initially agreeing on the need for acute catheterization, Dr. Singh later decided against it due to Carol's elevated creatinine levels and other conditions. He offered to consult if she were transferred but did not accept her transfer outright. Consequently, another intensivist at Mercy General refused the transfer without interventional cardiology involvement.
As Dr. Brandon sought alternatives from Sutter Health, UC Davis Medical Center, and Kaiser Permanente—all declined—the clock ticked ominously for Carol McCurry. Eventually, Mercy General agreed to accept her transfer late in the evening; however, she passed away before this could occur.
Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell sued Dr. Singh and others for wrongful death due to medical negligence. They argued that Dr. Singh's refusal to accept their mother's transfer constituted negligence that directly caused her death.
Dr. Singh moved for summary judgment on grounds that he owed no duty of care as no physician-patient relationship existed between him and Carol McCurry—a stance supported by California law which states such a relationship is necessary for malpractice liability (Burgess v. Superior Court). The trial court sided with Dr. Singh, concluding he had not treated or advised Carol directly.
In their appeal, Daniel and Carie contended that Dr. Singh’s involvement in consultations about their mother's care should have established a duty of care—a claim dismissed by referencing similar cases where mere consultation did not create such relationships (Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla).
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of Dr. Singh based on California legal precedents emphasizing that without an established physician-patient relationship—marked by direct treatment or advice—no duty of care exists.
Representing Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell were attorneys from Wilcoxen Callaham including Michelle C. Jenni; while Cole Pedroza’s Kenneth R. Pedroza along with Cassidy Cole Davenport and Nathan J. Novak represented Dr. Inder Singh alongside Pollara Law Group’s Dominique A Pollara and Christopher N Leon.
The case was presided over by Judge Christopher E Krueger under Case ID No: 34-2020-00276858-CU-MM-GDS.