Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV01482, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV01482    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Craig M. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Iris Yasmin Laguna (“Laguna”) and Juan Carlos Macario (“Macario”) filed this action against Defendant Craig M. Smith (“Defendant”) for negligence, medical battery and loss of consortium.

On April 2, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On June 14, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on October 13, 2022.

Trial is scheduled for November 29, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that there are no triable issues of material facts.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.) CCP § 437c(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, 67, 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. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) 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.) 

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, 166.)

The elements of a cause of action for medical negligence are: (1) duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of duty; (3) proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. (Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 696, 701-702.) The standard of care that a medical professional is measured by is a matter within the exclusive knowledge of experts; it can only be proven by their testimony, generally. (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001.) Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on competent expert testimony; “a less than 50-50 possibility that defendants’ omission caused the harm does not meet the requisite reasonable medical probability test of proximate cause.” (Bromme v. Pavitt (1 992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1504.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants provided negligent medical care to Laguna while performing a laparoscopic appendectomy and negligently removing Laguna’s right ovary and part of her colon.

Standard of Care

Defendant provided a declaration from Matthew Lublin, M.D., FACS, who is a physician licensed to practice medicine in California. (Declaration of Matthew Lublin, M.D., FACS ¶1.) Based on Laguna’s medical records, Lublin opined that Defendant complied with the standard of care at all times. (Lublin ¶4.) Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s informed written consent. (Lublin ¶6.) The subject surgery was an emergent procedure, meaning the standard of care merely required Plaintiff be advised her appendix needed to be removed to avoid complications; the surgery was performed according to the requisite standard of care. (Id.) The inclusion of excising other tissues was reasonable given the concern that the mass was cancerous. (Id.) Any complications were the known risk of the surgery and are not indicative of improper care. (Lublin ¶7.) There was nothing Defendant could have done to prevent the injury; Laguna would have undergone the same inpatient care if she presented anywhere else. (Id.)

Defendant has met his burden, which shifts to Plaintiff. As the motion is unopposed, the Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Craig M. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.