Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV46279, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46279    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Arash A. Horizon, M.D. and Center for Rheumatology Medical Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff Andrew Welch (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Arash A. Horizon, M.D. (“Horizon”) and Center for Rheumatology Medical Corporation (“CRM”) for professional negligence.

Defendants filed their answer on February 26, 2021.

On May 25, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on August 10, 2022.

Trial is scheduled for December 6, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court grant summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on the basis that Defendants always acted within the standard of care and did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries.

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

Overview

Plaintiff alleges that he sustained physical injuries as a result of medical treatment rendered by Horizon in which Horizon prescribed Stelara injections, resulting in debilitating conditions.

Defendants’ Expert

Defendants retained Neal S. Birnbaum, M.D., to review the matter; Birnbaum is a rheumatologist licensed to practice in the state of California (Declaration of Neal S. Birnbaum ¶¶ 4-5.) He reviewed relevant deposition transcripts, medical records and the complaint in forming his opinions. (Birnbaum Decl. ¶ 7.) Based on Birnbaum’s review, he opines that Horizon’s treatment was always within the standard of care and not the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. (Birnbaum Decl. ¶ 10.) At the time Horizon used Stelara to treat Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not have an active infection; as such, he complied with the standard of care for utilizing Stelara injections. (Id.) He obtained a negative urine culture and conferred with Plaintiff’s other specialists before proceeding with any injections. (Id.) In addition, the medical records indicate that Horizon’s actions were not the cause of any of Plaintiff’s injuries; the medical records reflect a consistently decreasing pain score. (Id.) There is also no indication that the dormant chronic infection in Plaintiff’s hip became active as a result of the infections. (Id.). Horizon has met his burden, thus the burden shifts to Plaintiff. As Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, the Court grants the motion as to Horizon.

As CRM appears to be Horizon’s medical corporation, the ruling similar applies to CRM.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Arash A. Horizon, M.D. and Center for Rheumatology Medical Corporation’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.