Priscilla P. DeGois
Since 2004, Ms. DeGois has successfully provided aggressive representation of individual and entity clients in diverse areas of litigation practice, including medical negligence claims, premises liability cases, professional licensing board investigations, product liability actions, and landlord-tenant disputes. Her broad experience includes averting lawsuits by executing effective pre-litigation strategies, prevailing on dispositive motions in both state and federal court, achieving defense verdicts at trial, and successfully advocating her clients’ interests on appeal. In recognition of her contributions and accomplishments, Ms. DeGois became a partner in 2010.
In January 2022, Ms. DeGois and Virgil Pryor achieved a defense verdict in favor of a trauma surgeon in a case involving complications arising from emergency abdominal surgery. With the assistance of experienced experts, Ms. DeGois and Mr. Pryor convinced the jury that the complications arose despite appropriate care by the surgeon and, therefore, the surgeon was not liable for plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
In March 2019, Ms. DeGois and Virgil Pryor obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of a urologist. In that case, the plaintiff alleged a failure to timely diagnose an impalement injury, allegedly resulting in necrotizing fasciitis and $3,000,000 in damages. Following five weeks of evidence, the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict after finding that the urologist exercised reasonable clinical judgment.
In 2017, following plaintiffs’ presentation of evidence at trial in a wrongful death action, Ms. DeGois prevailed on a Motion for Nonsuit and obtained a judgment in favor of a medical foundation.
Ms. DeGois’ appellate experience includes successfully advocating a surgery center’s interests before the California State Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. In that matter, Ms. DeGois obtained summary judgment in favor of her client on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations codified in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) did not apply to his “slip and fall” cause of action. On appeal, Ms. DeGois persuasively argued that the express language and principal legislative objective of MICRA dictated application of the one-year statute of limitations. Finding in favor of Ms. DeGois’ client, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations.
In her free time, Ms. DeGois enjoys playing league volleyball and is an avid basketball fan. Go Warriors!
San Jose State University (B.A., Political Science, magna cum laude)
Recipient of Outstanding Graduate Of The Year, Political Science Department
Santa Clara University School of Law
Recipient of Public Interest and Social Justice Law Certificate