What is the legal test for a motion to stay a medical malpractice action pending the outcome of an appeal in the underlying case?

Robinson v. McGinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at pp. 77-78, 240 Cal.Rptr. 423, suggests that considerations of court congestion should outweigh the public policy underpinnings of section 340.6. We disagree. Visions of judicial gridlock cannot color our perception of legislative intent and the temptation to reach a different result is nil where, as here, we see only the usual floodgates argument, devoid of substance. ²²

We similarly reject the suggestion that commencement of a malpractice action prior to resolution of an appeal in the underlying case will intrude into the attorney-client relationship or pose a threat of inconsistent judgments. In the face of either concern, the malpractice action can be stayed. (Knight v. Furlow (D.C.1989) 553 A.2d 1232, 1236 ["The fact that not all of a client's damages are finally ascertainable pending the outcome of an [235 Cal.App.3d 1815] appeal may suggest in some circumstances that trial of the malpractice action should be stayed pending the appeal; it does not indicate that the client has not been injured earlier"].)