Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01385, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01385    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion filed: 10/23/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: none.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting the Moving Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This medical malpractice action arises from the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff Marc Manfro (“Plaintiff” or “Marc”) by Defendants Christopher Belfour, M.D. and Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (collectively, “Defendants”).  

On May 9, 2023, Plaintiffs Marc and Theresa Manfro (“Theresa”) filed the Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 50, alleging two causes of action: (1) Medical Malpractice, and (2) Loss of Consortium. Subsequently, Defendants Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and Christopher Belfour, M.D. filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on July 14 and September 8, 2023, respectively.

On October 23, 2024, Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on January 9, 2025, Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. filed a Statement of Plaintiff’s Non-opposition. On the following day, January 10, 2025, Plaintiffs Marc and Theresa filed a Notice of Non-opposition. 

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)

“The 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. In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.(c).) 

“[I]f the moving papers establish a prima facie showing that justifies a [ruling] in the [plaintiff's] favor, the burden then shifts to the [defendant] to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable material factual issue.”' (Citation.)" (See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900, quoting Rehmani v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 950.) “The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) 

A.    Cause of Action – Medical Malpractice

The essential elements to establish a claim of medical malpractice 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 that duty; (3) proximate causal connection between negligent conduct and resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 468 n.2; citing Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606; see CACI 500, et seq.)

Expert testimony is required in establishing the standard of care by which the acts of a physician are to be measured. The California Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the standard of care is “a basic issue in a malpractice action that can only be proved by [expert’s] testimony, unless the conduct required by the particular circumstance is within the common knowledge of the layman.” (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.) 

The proximate causation element hinges on whether the defendant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1053.) Furthermore, the causation “must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.” (Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, et al. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403.)  

 In O’Connor v. Bloomer (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 385 (O’Connor), the Court of Appeal considers a motion for summary judgment based on defendants’ declaration as expert opinions in a medical malpractice action. There, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s granting motion for summary judgment for two assistant surgeons, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for summary judgment because it placed too much emphasis on the declarations of Defendants Dr. Wright and two assistant surgeons. (Id. at 391.)  The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, noting that the “extent of the duties and the responsibilities of assistant surgeons during heart surgery is not a matter that is within the common knowledge of lay people,” (Id. at 387) and that the trial court properly considered these unchallenged expert testimonies. (Ibid.)

Here, Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. presents expert opinions of emergency Medicine Physician, William Park, M.D. (“Park”) who is a license physician in the State of California. (Undisputed Material Fact “UMF,” No. 13, Park Decl. ¶¶ 1-2, Ex. “A.”) Park is board-certified by the American Board of Emergency Medicine, and he is a member of the American College of

Emergency Medicine and the Orange County Medical Association, with the areas of expertise include emergency medicine, critical care medicine, and pre-hospital emergency services. (Ibid.) Moreover, Park’s qualifications have not been contested by Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Court determines that based on Park’s education, training and experience, he is familiar with the standard of care in the community for the field of emergency medicine.

Like the assistant surgeons in O’Connor, Park attests in his declaration that the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff Marc by Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. met the standard of care in the community. The care and treatment that Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. provided to Plaintiff Marc was at all times appropriate, indicated, and within the standard of care. (Park Decl. ¶¶ 4-7, 8.)

Furthermore, expert evidence shows that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no negligent act or omission on behalf of Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. caused or contributed to Plaintiff Marc’s claimed injuries or damages. (UMF No. 23, Park Decl. ¶ 8), establishing that one or more of the elements of the medical malpractice cause of action cannot be established.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that relying on Park’s unopposed declarations, serving as expert testimony, Defendant Christopher Belfour has fulfilled his initial burden, establishing a prima facie showing that justifies a ruling in his favor.

Consequently, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable material factual issue.

However, given the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Non-opposition on the record and the lack of any countervailing evidence to challenge the Park’s expert testimony, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met the burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable material factual issue.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the First Cause of Action for Medical Malpractice against Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D.

B.     Second Cause of Action – Loss of Consortium

The elements for a loss of consortium claim includes: (1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and injured party, at time of injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff's spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by defendant's act. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927; Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 746 fn. 2.)

Significantly, the Supreme Court of California has stated that “[a]s a factual matter, spouse’s claim for loss of consortium is unquestionably derivative of, and dependent on, [the other spouse’s] injuries . . . . A cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse. [Citation omitted.]” (LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012)  55 Cal.4th 275, 285.)

Here, the Second Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium is asserted by Plaintiff Theresa and is dependent on the Cause of Action for Medical Malpractice asserted by her husband, Plaintiff Marc. Since the Court has granted Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Marc’s Medical Malpractice claim against him, Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. cannot be held liable for Teresea’s Loss of Consortium claim, as it is derivative of Marc’s claim.

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to the Second Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium against Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Christopher Belfour, M.D. is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice.