Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00020162-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Medical Malpractice Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00020162-CU-MM-CTL HARGENS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 02/20/2024

Defendants The Regents of the University of California and Frederick T. Han, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

The Court considered Plaintiff's late opposition. The Court did not approve any extension of the opposition and, moving forward, the parties are expected to comply with all rules and statutory deadlines.

Defendants move for summary judgment on the Complaint, which alleges one cause of action for medical malpractice.

In ruling on a summary judgment, the trial court must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved, and the materiality of disputed facts.

(Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 289-90; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) The court then determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor, and if the moving party has carried its initial burden, decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Serri, supra, at p. 858.) The Court must '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.) In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish: (i) the duty of the processional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (ii) a breach of that duty; (iii) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (iv) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence. (Belfiore-Braman v. Rotenberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 234, 238, fn. 3, citing Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, 229-30.) Defendants met their initial burden. Defendants' expert declaration explains: (i) how Defendants met the standard of care during Plaintiff's care and treatment; and (ii) that none of the alleged negligent acts or omissions were a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages. (Notice of Lodgment, at Ex. C – Declaration of Carleton Nibley, M.D.) But, in liberally construing Plaintiff's evidence, Plaintiff's opposition raises factual disputes over whether Defendants' treatment complied with the standard of care 'at all times.' (Notice of Lodgment, at Ex. A – Declaration of Mirwais Saifi, at ¶ 3 ['Although the surgery appeared to go forward without complication, a Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083641  48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HARGENS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA  37-2022-00020162-CU-MM-CTL postoperative x-ray on February 25, 2021 revealed an unusually long right atrial lead prolapsing into the right atrium, which was suggestive of possible incorrect placement or dysfunction, and mild interstitial edema and pleural effusions – or swelling and fluid about the pleural space; which can be a sign of concerning etiology, such as acute or beginning stages of a perforation/micro-perforation. Together with the unusually long right atrial lead, this was sufficient evidence to prevent Mr. Hargens from being discharged and re-evaluated specifically for perforation before it became enlarged or more significant.'].) In addition, a factual dispute exists on causation. (Saifi Decl., at ¶ 3 ['To a reasonable degree of medical probability, had Mr. Hargens been kept in the hospital for further evaluation of possible lead misplacement or dislodging on February 25, 2021, the issue would have almost certainly been caught by repeat imaging before perforation occurred or was complete (because, at the very least, when his symptoms began to increase he would have been in the presence of health care providers), and would have necessitated a less extensive surgical revision procedure thereby resulting and shorter overall hospital course and less-severe outcome.'].) For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendants are ordered to give written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by April 9, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083641  48