Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV13212, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13212    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Southern California Healthcare System, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff Cherylon Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Justin Paquette M.D. (“Paquette”), Justing Paquette M.D., Inc. (“Paquette Inc.”) and Southern California Healthcare System, Inc. (“SCHS”) for professional negligence/medical malpractice.

On August 18, 2020, SCHS filed an answer. Paquette and Paquette Inc. filed an answer on September 23, 2020.

On January 31, 2022, SCHS filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on August 24, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

Trial is scheduled for November 15, 2022. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

SCHS requests the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that there are no triable issues of material facts, no proof of causation, and no basis to impose ostensible agency.

Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

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.)

In order for a hospital to be found liable under a theory of ostensible agency, Plaintiff must prove two elements: “(1) conduct by the hospital that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the physician was an agent of the hospital, and (2) reliance on that apparent agency relationship by the plaintiff.” (Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal App. 4^th 1448, 1454.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants negligently performed her lumbar surgery and provided follow-up care.

Standard of Care

SCHS provided a declaration from expert Howard Tung, M.D., who is a physician and neurosurgeon licensed to practice in California. (Declaration of Howard Tung, M.D. ¶1.) based upon Plaintiff’s medical records, Tung opined that the employees of SCHS acted within the standard of care in the community for employees of a hospital while treating Plaintiff. (Tung Decl. ¶ 23.) He specifically stated that employees followed the treating physician’s orders, performed appropriate assessments and charted Plaintiff’s state accurately. (Id.) SCHS has met its burden in showing that staff acted within the standard of care. As Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, the Court grants summary judgment as to this issue.

Ostensible Agency

During the time of Plaintiff’s surgery, Paquette was working as an independent contractor of SCHS (UMF 4.) Plaintiff signed a Condition of Admission for acknowledging as such. (Id.) SCHS has met its burden in showing there is no form of potential ostensible liability.  Given that Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition, the Court grants summary judgment to this issue.

As there is no viable theory of liability against SCHS, as articulated above, the Court grants the motion in full.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Southern California Healthcare System, Inc.’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.