Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 21STCV08390, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21STCV08390    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion Filed: 10/24/23                                                                             JURY TRIAL: 10/6/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Justin Spooler, M.D. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Petros Jabakjuryan (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Moving Defendant and against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

BACKGROUND 

This action arises out of the medical care and treatment received by Plaintiff in and around 2/20/21. Plaintiff alleges that after being involved in a car accident which resulted in a fracture of his cervical spine and a fracture and dislocation of his thoracic spine, he was transported by paramedics to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center. Plaintiff alleges he was later transferred to Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (“Holy Cross”). Plaintiff alleges that he should have been sedated and other measures should have been taken to stabilize his spine, but the named defendants failed to do so. Plaintiff alleges that at some point, he moved and/or was moved by hospital staff, and the movement allegedly pinched and permanently damaged his spinal cord.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants, collectively, willfully failed to provide adequate care during his hospitalization at Holy Cross, resulting in his development of urinary tract infections, sepsis, and pressure ulcers. Moving Defendant was, at all relevant times, Plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon. (4AC ¶¶ 31–32.)

On 12/27/22, Plaintiff filed his operative fourth amended complaint, (“4AC”), alleging against 11 named defendants causes of action for (1) Medical Negligence; and (2) Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect.¿On 12/30/22, Plaintiff dismissed the second cause of action as against Moving Defendant. On 1/26/23, Moving Defendant filed his answer to Plaintiff’s 4AC.

On 10/24/23, Moving Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment. No opposition has been filed to date. On 11/22/24, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the instant motion.

ANALYSIS

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 65, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382.) 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519–1520.)  

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) 

A.    Medical Negligence

Plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action against Moving Defendant alleges Medical Negligence. “The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Chakalis v. Elevator Solutions, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1571.)

Here, Moving Defendant argues that he, “at all times, complied with the applicable standard of care.” (MSJ 7:14.) In support of its contention, Moving Defendant proffers the sworn declaration of his expert, a licensed neurosurgeon specializing in brain and spinal surgery, stating that Moving Defendant “met the standard of care with respect to preoperative instructions, that he did not engage in transferring nor was he primarily responsible for transferring plaintiff during the workup, that Dr. Hanpeter had plaintiff intubated while ensuring that staff was aware of the importance of precautions, there is no evidence that staff was not aware of the need for precautions, and that no further intervention with respect to spinal precautions on the part of Dr. Spooler as the consulting neurosurgeon was warranted or clinically indicated. … Dr. Alberstone opines that it was appropriate and within the standard of care for Dr. Spooler to order more detailed imaging studies of the spine prior to surgery.” (Id. at 8:2–9, citing Decl. of Carey D. Alberstone, M.D., ¶¶ 17–20.) Furthermore, Moving Defendant asserts that “it is Dr. Alberstone’s opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that no negligent act or omission of Dr. Spooler caused or contributed to any of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.” (Id. at 9:15–17, citing Alberstone Decl. ¶ 21.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Moving Defendant has met his initial burden. As Plaintiff has chosen not to oppose the instant motion, he has therefore failed to offer any responsive evidence to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to this cause of action. Accordingly, the Court finds that Moving Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant to file proposed judgment within 10 days.