According to the Code of the Civil Procedure, section 412.

20, the defendant has 30

days to file a written response to the lawsuit (http://law.onecle.com/california/civil-

procedure/412.20.html). However, Dr. Williams is not obliged to respond to the lawsuit

immediately. According to the California Business and Professions Code 364a, the actions

of Dr. Williams can be qualified as the professional negligence. In such a case, she should

not respond immediately to the lawsuit. According to the Code, no action based upon a

healthcare provider’s professional negligence may be commenced unless the defendant has

been given at least 90 days prior notice of the intention to commence the action

(http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/ccp/364-365.html) . therefore, Joan’s attorney

has to give advance notice of the lawsuit 90 days before the lawsuit may be commenced.

Therefore, Dr. Williams and her defendant have ninety days to respond to the lawsuit and

during this time they can prepare for the defense of Dr. Williams. However, according to

California Business and Professions Code, 364b it states that no particular form of notice

is required, but it shall notify the defendant of the legal basis of the claim and the type of

loss sustained, including with the specificity the nature of the injuries suffered. At this

point, it is important to underline the fact that if the notice is served within 90 days of the

expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the time for the commencement of the

action shall be extended 90 days from the service of the notice (California Business and

Professions Code, 364d). However, according to the section 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

failure to comply with this chapter shall not invalidate any proceedings of any court in this state,

i.e. California, not shall it affect the jurisdiction of the court to render a judgment therein.

However, failure to comply with such provisions by any attorney at law shall be grounds for the
professional discipline and the State Bar of California shall investigate and take appropriate

action in any such cases brought to its attention.

In such a situation, I, as a witness of the error made by Dr. Williams, should better respond to

subpoena in order to avoid possible punishment. In fact, subpoena may be defined as a written

command to a person to testify before the court or be punished. In such a way, any attempts from

my part to avoid responding to the subpoena will result in the punishment. As a rule, the

subpoena is the request made by a government authority and it is attached to a request to enhance

it and ensure that I, as well as any other person receiving a subpoena, will respond to it. It is

worth mentioning the fact that I will respond to the subpoena ad testificandum which requires me

to testify before the ordering authority or face the punishment. Basically, I have three choices to

respond to the subpoena. Firstly, I can comply with the subpoena, i.e. show up and produce

evidence. Secondly, I can convince a court that I do not have to comply, i.e. motion to quash.

And, finally, I can refuse to comply but the court may then hold me and I will likely be punished

for such actions. Therefore, the most plausible way of actions from my part is to comply the

subpoena and assist the justice through giving my evidence in the case of Dr. Williams and

injuries of Joan. Hence, I have two options: either to be present and give evidence or provide

written evidence to the court.

Thus, it is obvious that the existing legal norms leave practically no room for escape the trial and

avoiding punishment if a mistake in healthcare services occurs. At the same time, it is highly

recommended assisting the justice system in order to avoid undeserved punishment.

References:
Klepper, D. (2005). “Medical clinic records sought.” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News,

Washington May 22, 2008, p. 1.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2003). Home Page. Retrieved on May 22, 2008,

from

http://cms.hhs.gov/default.asp?fromhcfadotgov=true.

“Cornell school of law, legal information institute” (2000). State Statutes on the Internet.

Retrieved on May 22, 2008, from

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html.

Spevak, C. (2006). “The grand jury and health care crimes: what every physician executive

needs to know. Physician Executive, 32(1), 68- 70.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Home Page. Retrieved on May

22, 2008, from

http://www.os.dhhs.gov/.

United States Food and Drug Administration (2003). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved on

May 22, 2008, from

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/faqs/faqs.html.

California Code of Civil Procedure - Section 364-365 :: Chapter 5. The Commencement Of

Actions Based Upon Professional Negligence

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SECTION 364-365
364. (a) No action based upon the health care provider's

professional negligence may be commenced unless the defendant has

been given at least 90 days' prior notice of the intention to

commence the action.

(b) No particular form of notice is required, but it shall notify

the defendant of the legal basis of the claim and the type of loss

sustained, including with specificity the nature of the injuries

suffered.

(c) The notice may be served in the manner prescribed in Chapter 5

(commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.

(d) If the notice is served within 90 days of the expiration of

the applicable statute of limitations, the time for the commencement

of the action shall be extended 90 days from the service of the

notice.