Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV37015, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37015 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: 68
Motion for Summary Judgment
Jilla Ghassemzadeh vs. Bruce J. Crispin, 21STCV37015
Moving Party: Defendant Bruce J. Crispin, D.D.S.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Jilla
Ghassemzadeh
I.
Background
Plaintiff Jilla Ghassemzadeh
(Plaintiff) was first seen by Defendant Dr. Bruce Crispin, D.D.S. (Defendant) at
Esthetic Professionals on February 26, 2020. (UMF 15.) Plaintiff told Defendant
that she was unhappy with the bridge area of her teeth, where she had had work
done previously by other periodontists, and Defendant noted that if Plaintiff
wants him to treat her, she needed to become his patient and start from the
beginning. (UMF 15.) On August 6, 2020, Defendant told Plaintiff that he could
redo the bridge, but Plaintiff indicated that she wanted an implant and not a
new bridge. (UMF 16.) Plaintiff last presented to Esthetic Professionals on
October 9, 2020, when her bridge was removed and replaced with a temporary
bridge, with which Plaintiff indicated satisfaction. (UMF 18.) Plaintiff did
not return to Esthetic Professionals or Defendant for any further treatment.
(UMF 19.)
Plaintiff filed her Fifth Amended
Complaint on April 3, 2023, in which she alleges one cause of action for
Negligence against Defendant. (UMF 20.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was
negligent in his dental treatment of her, including installing Zirconia instead
of porcelain into her teeth without her consent, causing her injuries and
damages. (UMF 21.) Plaintiff also alleges that due to Defendant’s negligence,
she is not a candidate for veneers, and she claims that Defendant negligently
shaved her natural teeth. (UMF 22-23.)
In support of Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment, Defendant filed a declaration from Dr. Curtis E. Jansen,
D.D.S., in which Dr. Jansen indicates that all of Defendant’s recommendations, treatment
planning, and treatment of Plaintiff were appropriate and within the standard
of care. (UMF 25-26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32.) Dr. Jansen further indicates that
there is no evidence in the records that Plaintiff’s natural teeth were
inappropriately shaved down or that inappropriate materials were used on
Plaintiff’s crowns and bridges. (UMF 33.) Zirconia is an appropriate material.
(UMF 34.) Plaintiff appropriately consented to her treatment. (UMF 45, 46, 47.)
Finally, Dr. Jansen indicates that there is a reasonable degree of probably
that Plaintiff’s claimed injuries were due to Plaintiff’s preexisting condition
and were not caused by any act or omission of Defendant or Esthetic
Professionals. (UMF 48-50, 52.)
Plaintiff filed an opposition to
Defendant’s motion, but her opposition did not include a response to
Defendant’s separate statement, nor did her opposition include any declarations
or admissible evidence.
II.
Evidentiary Objections
a.
Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections
i.
Sustained: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31
ii.
Overruled: None
III.
Analysis
a.
Standard for Summary Judgment
The function of a motion for summary judgment 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 Section 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.)¿
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.)¿
When interpreting § 437c, courts have held that a
three-step analysis is required: (1) Identify the issues framed by the
pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by
establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis
for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading;
(2) Determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which
negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor; and (3) Determine
whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material
factual issue. (AARTS Production, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986)
179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064-1065.)¿¿
Summary Judgment may be granted only where all the
supporting and opposition papers show there is no triable issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment “as a matter of
law.” (CCP § 437c(c).)¿¿
As a result, the Plaintiff “must present evidence that
would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact
more likely than not—otherwise, he would not be entitled to judgment as a
matter of law but would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact.” (Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851, fns. omitted; Oldcastle
Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554,
562-563.)¿¿
The Defendant need only show the existence of a triable
issue of material fact. (Union Bank v. Super Ct. (Demetry) (1995)
31 Cal.4th 573, 590; see Lopez v. SuperCt. (Friedman Bros. Invest. Co.) (1996)
45 Cal.4th 705, 713; Leslie G. v. Perfy & Assocs. (1996) 43 Cal.4th 472, 482.) Summary
judgment would not be proper where the facts support a triable issue of fact.¿
b.
Issues for Summary Judgment
Standard of Care
To determine the applicable standard of care
in a dental malpractice action, California law requires that a doctor’s conduct
be measured against the reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care
ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under
the same or similar circumstances. (Mann v. Cracchiolo (1982) 38 Cal.3d
780; see also CACI 500.)
When the allegations are of professional
negligence, whereby the defendant is accused of failing to adhere to accepted
standards of practice, such standards may be established only by qualified
expert testimony. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410; Stephenson
v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 631.) The inherent
nature of a dental malpractice action, along with the applicable standard of
care, is a subject matter that is beyond the competency of laymen to express
and, therefore, must be addressed by a qualified expert. (Landeros, supra,
17 Cal.3d 399; O’Connor v. Bloomer (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 385, 391.) As
stated in Landeros: “The standard of care against which the acts of a
physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of
experts.” (Landeros, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 410.)
In order to establish a claim for
Professional Negligence, plaintiff must show, via competent expert testimony,
that the defendants breached the applicable standard of care. (Dincau v.
Tamayose (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 780, 800; see also CACI 505.) Expert
testimony that defendants adhered to the applicable standard of care is
conclusive unless opposed by competent, contradictory expert medical evidence.
(Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 278, 313.)
Defendant has presented expert testimony
from Dr. Curtis E. Jansen, D.D.S., that Defendant acted within the standard of
care during his treatment of Plaintiff. (Jansen Decl., ¶¶ 7(A), 7(B).)
Plaintiff has not presented any expert declarations to the contrary. Therefore,
there is no triable issue of fact regarding whether Defendant acted within the
standard of care.
Negligent Act or Omission
In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff
must prove the defendant’s negligence was a cause-in-fact of injury. (Bromme
v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1502.) With regard to causation of
damages, plaintiff must prove that “within a reasonable medical probability”
defendants caused her damages.
Dr. Jansen’s declaration indicates that within
a reasonable medical probability, no negligent act or omission on the part of
Defendant and/or Esthetic Professionals caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s
claimed injuries or damages. (Jansen Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has not presented
any expert declarations in her opposition to contradict Dr. Jansen’s expert
opinion. Therefore, no triable issue of material fact exists regarding whether
Defendant’s negligent act or omission caused Plaintiff’s injuries or damages.
Conclusion
Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff’s negligence cause
of action.
IV.
Order
Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.