Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV01515, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV01515 Hearing Date: November 2, 2023 Dept: 74
Otis Vann, Jr. v. Christopher G.
Goring, et al.
Motion for Summary Judgment
The
court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over alleged medical malpractice.
On
January 13, 2020, Plaintiff Otis Vann, Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint
against Jamie L. Taylor (Defendant), Christopher G, Goring, St. Vincent Medical
Center, and Verity Health System of California, Inc.
In
the complaint, Plaintiff alleges medical negligence and lack of informed
consent against Defendant.
On
April 25, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment.
LEGAL STANDARD
“¿[A]
motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show
that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.¿” (¿¿Code Civ. Proc., §
437c, subd. (c)¿¿.) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to
make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.
(¿¿Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850¿¿.) If
the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party
to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (¿¿Ibid.¿¿)
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¿¿.)
DISCUSSION
Defendant
contends that neither cause of action in the complaint has merit. The elements
for medical negligence are as follows: (1) the duty of the professional to use
such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly
possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal
connection between the negligent conduct and resulting injury; and (4) actual
loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. (Turpin v.
Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, 229-230.) Courts categorize lack of informed
consent as negligence. (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 240; Saxena
v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 342; Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5
Cal.4th 1172, 1182.)
In
support of her motion for summary judgment, Defendant points to requests for
admission (RFAs) that she propounded on Plaintiff. RFA No. 2 asks Plaintiff to
admit that no act or omission by Defendant caused him any injury or harm. (Batshoun Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. B.) RFA No. 3 asks Plaintiff
to admit that he has no physical complaints that are attributable to the care
he received from Defendant. (Batshoun Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. B.) On March 22, 2022,
the court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the RFAs because
Plaintiff failed to prove that he ever served responses. (Batshoun Decl., ¶ 3;
Ex. C.)
Any
matter admitted in response to an RFA is preclusively established against the
party making the admission, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or
amendment of the admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410, subd. (a); Murillo
v. Sup.Ct. (People) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.) Plaintiff has not
sought leave to amend or withdraw the responses. Consequently, Plaintiff cannot
prove a causal connection between Defendant’s conduct and his injury. Thus, Plaintiff
cannot prevail on his causes of action for medical negligence and lack of
informed consent. Accordingly, Defendant has met her prima facie burden. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2) [“A defendant . . . has met . . . her burden
of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one
or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established . . .”].)
Because
Defendant has met her prima facie burden, Plaintiff must show that a triable
issue of material fact exists. However, Plaintiff has not done so by filing an
opposition to Defendant’s motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Defendant
shall prepare a proposed judgment.