Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV17687, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17687    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice action on behalf of their deceased son, who died after several MRI scans. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent was improperly exposed to the chemical gadolinium throughout the course of the MRIs, resulting in severe burns, health complications, and eventually death. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent had a history of hypersensitivity to gadolinium and that Defendants were put on notice of Decedent’s condition and should have been aware of the risks of gadolinium exposure in children. The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical malpractice-lack of informed consent, (3) medical battery, and (4) a survival action.

            On December 27, 2023, Defendants Nathan Robinson, MD; Tom Davidson, MD; and Diana Moke, MD filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have not filed an 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.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) 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.) 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

I. Medical Malpractice

“The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.) “The first element, standard of care, is the key issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by expert testimony, unless the circumstances are such that the required conduct is within the layperson's common knowledge.” (Ibid.)

Here, defense expert Brian King, MD avers in his declaration that none of the moving defendants breached the standard of care in ordering an MRI of Decedent. (King Decl. ¶ 13(a).) Dr. King’s uncontested declaration establishes the following facts. Gadolinium MRIs are standard for brain imaging. (Ibid.) “Gadolinium Deposition Disease” is not a recognized condition in pediatrics. (Id., ¶ 13(b).) The duty to provide informed consent lies with the radiology department of the hospital, not with the treating physicians. (Ibid.) Neurooncologists are not trained to detect contraindication involving gadolinium. (Id., ¶ 13(d).) None of the moving defendants administered gadolinium to Decedent, and none of their actions contributed to Decedent’s harm. (Ibid.) Additionally, Decedent’s death certificate indicates the cause of death as malignant brain stem cancer. (Def.’s Ex. C.) There is no mention of gadolinium. (Ibid.)

Defendants have satisfied their initial burden of establishing that they did not breach their duty of care and did not cause Decedent’s injuries. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and has presented no evidence raising a dispute of material fact. Therefore, the medical malpractice claims fail as a matter of law.

II. Battery

            “The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant's conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have been offended by the touching.” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669.) “A medical battery occurs where ‘a doctor obtains consent of the patient to perform one type of treatment and subsequently performs a substantially different treatment for which consent was not obtained.’” (Ibid.)

            The evidence discussed above establishes that the moving defendants did not “touch” Decedent because they did not administer the MRIs. Furthermore, the moving defendants were not the ones responsible for providing informed consent. Therefore, as a matter of law, the defendants could not have committed battery or medical battery.

CONCLUSION

            The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Robinson, Davidson, and Moke is GRANTED.