In a recently filed amended complaint against the State of California the family alleges:
"26. Ms. Fonseca has knowledge of other patients who had been diagnosed as brain dead, using the same criteria as in her son’s case. In some of those cases, where the decision makers were encouraged to consent to the withdrawal of life support, the patients emerged from legal brain death to where they had cognitive ability and some even fully recovering. Such cases are fully medically documented."
"38. Despite an official determination that Israel Stinson is dead, the child has shown movement in direct response to the voice and touch of his mother."
"39. Since the issuance of the Certificate of Death, three physicians, independent of Kaiser and UC Davis, have given their medical judgment that this child is in fact alive."
"45. As of the filing of this Second Amended Complaint the child is increasingly having more purposeful movements. In addition to the prior movements that he had at Kaiser in April, he now moves his arms, hands, legs and toes. Further, these movements are not random. They occur primarily in response to voices and music. A song that the child knows was played. He begins to move at the sound of the music."
"49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the definition of death is fallacious. In essence, the presupposition is that the cessation of all functions of the entire brain – including the brain stem – is per se irreversible. However, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that brain waves return in rare cases after having disappeared. Nonetheless, California law directs that such a person be deemed dead."
Among other relief, the family seeks:
- An order expunging all records archived by Defendant, or persons and entities under her control or authority, which state or imply that Israel Stinson is deceased
- A declaration that the California Uniform Determination of Death Act is unconstitutional on its face
- A declaration that the California Uniform Determination of Death Act is unconstitutional as applied