Department 58

Hearing Date: March 12, 2024

Case Name: Michaels v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Case No.: 23STCV03454

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants California Rehabilitation Institute, LLC and Alexandra Strouss, M.S.

Opposing Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The motion for summary judgment is granted.

This is a medical malpractice action. The Complaint alleges, on March 29, 2022, Plaintiff Ed Michaels (Plaintiff) was injured by Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars-Sinai), California Rehabilitation Institute, and Alexandra Strouss, M.S., in the course of their treatment and care of Plaintiff. The Complaint contains a single cause of action for professional negligence/medical malpractice.

Defendants California Rehabilitation Institute, LLC and Alexandra Strouss, M.S. (Defendants) now move for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. No opposition was filed.

The motion for summary judgment is granted.

Legal Standard

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,¿subd. (a).) “[I]f 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp.¿(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

The moving party has the initial burden of production to make¿a prima facie¿showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make¿a prima facie¿showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,¿subd. (p)(2).) A Defendant moving for summary judgment may meet its initial burden by proving that for each cause of action alleged, plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)

Discussion

Medical Negligence Cause of Action:

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Defendants did not provide any care to Plaintiff on the day Plaintiff allegedly sustained his injury.

“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.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.) To prove a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must first establish the applicable standard of care and then demonstrate that the standard of care was breached. (Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 122.)

Here, Defendants submit evidence that it has no record of ever treating Plaintiff and Plaintiff also has no medical records indicating that he received any treatment from Defendants. (DSS 7-14.)

Rather, Defendants’ medical evidence shows that on March 26, 2022, Plaintiff presented to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center with complaints of chronic neuropathic lower back pain and radiation into his legs. (DSS 9.) On March 29, 2022 at 4:28 p.m., Shireen Hosseini, PT performed an Acute Physical Therapy Initial Evaluation and Discharge. (DSS 11.) At approximately 4:55 p.m., Plaintiff was returned supine in bed and the evaluation was ended. (DSS 12.) At 5:48 p.m., physician assistant Bita Joobbani, PA-C, wrote a progress note stating that she was called by an unspecified nurse who told her that Plaintiff had an unwitnessed fall and was found on the ground in his room a while after he finished working with PT. (DSS 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff continued his care and treatment at Cedars-Sinai until the time of his discharge in stable condition on April 5, 2022. (DSS 14.)

Defendants’ evidence affirmatively demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot prove the essential element of a breach of duty of care by Defendants. Defendants have shifted their initial burden on this medical negligence claim.

In the absence of an opposition, Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in dispute.

Conclusion

The motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall prepare, serve and lodge a proposed Judgment on or before March 27, 2024.