DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22NWCV01428·la·Civil·Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Hearing in about 3 hoursGRANTED

MICHELLE BAIK, ET AL. v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, ET AL.

Petition to Approve Minor's Compromise with Special Needs Trust

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
P
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffMichelle Baik
PlaintiffDiego Kim
OtherKira Kim
DefendantKaiser Foundation Hospitals
DefendantKaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
DefendantSouthern California Permanente Medical Group

Ruling

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01428 HEARING: 08/21/2026 @ 9:30 AM #11 TENTATIVE ORDER Petitioner Michelle Baik 's Petition to Approve Minor's Compromise with Special Needs Trust is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice. Plaintiff Michelle Baik (Petitioner or Plaintiff) petitions for approval of minor's compromise with a special needs trust.

Background

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Kaiser Foundation, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive. The

complaint alleges that on September 1, 2021, Baik engaged Defendants' services for treatment and care related to her pregnancy. (Complaint, P. 9.) The complaint alleges Defendants "negligently and unlawfully failed to properly and correctly diagnose, render care and treatment, to perform proper surgery on, and prescribe and administer medicine and drugs for the condition of [Baik] and her child" resulting in her child, Kira Kim, being born with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. (Complaint, P.P. 11-12.)

The complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants brought by Baik and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress brought by Diego Kim. On June 12, 2025, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate this matter with the related civil action, Case No. 23NWCV02091. This action is designated the lead case. This is a continuation. On July 30, 2026, this Petition first came on for hearing. The Court continued the hearing on this Petition to permit Petitioner to correct deficiencies in the proposed order.

Discussion

On July 30, 2026, the Court found that the proposed settlement proceeds to Claimant are reasonable and that the proposed Special Needs Trust instrument complied with Probate Code Section 3604, subdivision (b). (Order, 7/30/26.) The Court additionally approved the bond amount and the additional requests for relief. (Order, 7/30/26.) The Court continued this hearing to permit Petitioner to correct certain omissions from the proposed order. (Order, 7/30/26.) On July 31, 2026, and on August 12, 2026, Petitioner filed Proposed Orders and a Supplement to Petition.

The Court notes that the Proposed Order filed on August 12, 2026 appears to only change the characterization of Claimant in Section 3 of the Petition from (a) a minor to (b)(2) a " 'person with a disability' within the meaning of Probate Code section 3603 who is...[a] minor described in Probate Code section 3603(b)(3)." (Pet., P. 3.) Based on the findings made in the Court's Order on July 30, 2026 together with the corrected Proposed Order, the Court approves this compromise and disposition of proceeds.

Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition to confirm minor's compromise with special needs trust is GRANTED.

SOLIS, ET AL.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share