Doe v. Kachru (Oct. 13, 2025, A168669) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 2902027

Doe v. Kachru (Oct. 13, 2025, A168669) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2025 WL 2902027

Battery claim against obstetrician viable if delivery substantially deviated from the scope of consent, but statutory gender violence claim is not viable absent bias or animus against a woman in childbirth.

Jane and John Doe sued an obstetrician, Dr. Amita Kachru, and the hospital and other medical personnel involved in the birth of their child. They alleged nine causes of action against Dr. Kachru, including medical battery, gender violence, and dependent adult abuse. The Does’ claims against Dr. Kachru were premised on allegations (a) that they consented only to low-intervention care, (b) that Dr. Kachru performed a vacuum-assisted delivery without their consent, and (c) that she forcibly removed Jane’s placenta, inserted and removed a catheter in Jane’s urethra, and sutured Jane. Jane was diagnosed with postpartum PTSD, among other conditions. The trial court sustained Dr. Kachru’s demurrer to all causes of action against her except John’s consortium claim, which the Does dismissed. The Does then appealed the judgment of dismissal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of all claims except Jane’s medical battery cause of action based on the allegedly unconsented vacuum-assisted delivery. The court explained that this was not a “no-consent” case because Jane necessarily consented to obstetric care and most of the “touching” allegations in support of her medical battery claim by presenting to the hospital for delivery. The court concluded that Jane alleged a potentially viable claim that Dr. Kachru exceeded the scope of Jane’s consent by performing a procedure that substantially differed from what she authorized. But the court noted that Dr. Kachru might prevail eventually by proving (a) the vacuum-assisted delivery was not “substantially” different from the care Jane authorized or (b) she reasonably determined that an emergency situation had developed requiring immediate delivery. The court also affirmed dismissal of Jane’s gender violence claim under Civil Code section 52.4, holding that “some discriminatory motive” is required and Jane failed to allege that “Dr. Kachru performed a vacuum-assisted delivery because she was motivated, in some part, by bias or animus against Jane because of Jane’s status as a woman in childbirth.” Finally, Jane’s dependent adult abuse claim failed because she failed to allege that Dr. Kachru “acted with “ ‘recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice’ ” as required to state such a claim.

The bulletin describing this appellate decision was originally prepared for the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys (CSHA) by H. Thomas Watson, Peder K. Batalden, and Lacey Estudillo at the appellate firm Horvitz & Levy LLP, and is republished with permission.

For more information regarding this bulletin, please contact H. Thomas Watson, Horvitz & Levy LLP, at 818-995-0800.

Know someone who would like to receive Health Law Committee e-bulletins? Please visit the California Lawyers Association website.

Interested in becoming an official member of the Health Law Committee? The application to join the CLA Business Law Section is available online here. Applicants must be Business Law Section members who have been admitted to the California Bar and practicing for at least five years.