Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 23PSCV00329, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00329, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

(1) DEFENDANT EMANATE HEALTH FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND EMANATE HEALTH’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION is GRANTED

(2) DEFENDANTS LAUREN TOMA, P.A., BRENDA HAYAKAWA, M.D. AND CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IN THEIR NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR DETERMINING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT is GRANTED.[1]

This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs Troy Denerson (“Plaintiff”) and Atlgela Denerson allege the following against Defendants Emanate Health Inc. and Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hosp. (“Emanate Hospital”) (collectively, “Emanate”); Brenda Hayakawa, MD; Lauren Toms, PA (“PA Toma”): On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff presented to the emergency room (ER) at Emanate Hospital because he was dumb from the waist down. Plaintiff was treated by PA Toma. Despite the MRI results being consistent with cauda equina syndrome, he was discharged Dr. Hayakawa. With a worsening condition, now requiring him to wear diapers, Plaintiff returned to the ER this time at Emanate Health Queen of the Valley Medical Center on June 8 where an MRI of his lumbar spine was taken again, which revealed a near complete obliteration of his spinal canal; Neurosurgery was consulted with a diagnosis of progressive cauda equina syndrome requiring emergency surgery, which happened on 6/9/22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff is left permanently disabled, incontinent of bladder and bowel, and the inability to walk except with the support of a cane. His wife, Angela, claims loss of consortium.

On May 31, 2023, EMANATE HEALTH (erroneously sued and served herein as EMANATE HEALTH, INC. filed its answer.

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff named Vituity Hospitalists, P.C as Doe 1 and CEP America, LLC as Doe 2.

On May 1, 2024, Emanate Defendants filed an MSJ motion, which they took off calendar on 8/7/24.

On November 5, 2024, PA Toma and Dr. Hayakawa filed the instant motion to seal and notice of settlement.

Emanate Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff was appropriately and within standard of care assessed by, attended to, and treated by defendants Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and Emanate Health including its nursing and ancillary care staffs on June 3, 2022 and June 8, 2022. In the alternative, Defendants seek summary adjudication on the grounds that Defendants did not owe plaintiffs a duty by reason of a lack an agency relationship with defendants Brenda Hayakawa, M.D. and Lauren Toma, P.A. The court need only address the grounds for summary judgment, which, for reasons to be discussed below, is granted.

In actions based on alleged medical malpractice, except where negligence is obvious to a layperson, the question of compliance with, or breach of, the standard of care and establishment of the causal connection are issues that can be determined only upon the basis of expert testimony. (Motion p. 14, citing Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001; see also Motion p. 16, citing Starr v. Mooselin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 999.)

Defendants submit the evidence of Dr. David Barcay, an American Board physician certified in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and critical care medicine. Dr. Barcay has reviewed the medical records of Plaintiff from Emanate Health Foothill Presbyterian Hospital, Emanate Health Queen of the Valley Hospital, Casa Colina Acute Rehabilitation, and San Antonio Regional Hospital, the Summons and Complaint in this case, and the deposition transcripts of Plaintiffs Troy and Angela Denerson. Based upon his review of the medical records and his education, training, and experience, it is Dr. Barcay’s expert opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Emanate Health and its nursing and ancillary care staffs, at all times, met the applicable standards of care in the community in its care and treatment of Mr. Denerson. More specifically, during Plaintiff’s first visit, in following the orders of PA Toma and Dr. Hayakawa, the nursing staff complied with the standard of care. And again, when Plaintiff returned to Emanate Hospital, he was again attended to and triaged by Emanate Health nursing staff who followed physician orders for diagnostic tests and arranging for consultation with a specialist. In following physician orders, the nursing staff, to a reasonable medical probability, complied with the standard of care.

Therefore, Defendants met their evidentiary burden. The burden shifts to Plaintiffs. However, as they have failed to file an opposition, they have failed to meet their evidentiary burden.

[1] The court will not provide a detailed analysis in this ruling as certain settlement terms are to remain confidential. The motion to seal is granted for a variety of reasons, including that this litigation involves medical malpractice allegations against Settling Defendants who may be subject to future claims and lawsuits and that the public has little interest in the terms of the private settlement between two private parties. (Motion p. 5.) As for the application for determination of good faith settlement, the parties attended a half-day mediation and the settlement that resulted in an agreed-upon resolution. Pursuant to CCP section 877.6, subdivision(a)(2), “If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement.” Thus, as the application is unopposed, the settlement is granted.