Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV00986, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00986    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

DEMURRER

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

William Carr (Plaintiff) brings this action against Radnet Management, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by virtue of Defendant’s failure to maintain an imaging table at a facility located at 10101 Riverside Drive, Toluca Lake, California 91602. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) states causes of action for (1) General Negligence, (2) Premises Liability, and (3) Professional Negligence.

Defendant now demurs to the causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability on grounds that they fail to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this demurrer. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer can be treated as an implied concession to the merits of the same. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (C.C.P. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Id.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.  App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.  (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318.)

Pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082.)

II.                 MERITS

Meet and Confer

C.C.P. § 430.41(a) requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer. Upon review the Court finds the meet and confer requirements were met. (McCoy Decl. ¶ 3-10.)

Facts

Plaintiff alleges he sustained serious injuries and incurred damages, in part, as direct result of the negligence of Defendant in assisting, guiding and/or instructing Plaintiff on and off a treatment bed which was negligently maintained and in disrepair. (FAC, p. 4.) Plaintiff also alleges he sustained serious injuries and incurred damages as direct result of the negligence of Defendant in maintaining, inspecting, repairing, managing, supervising, controlling and/or operating the premises, imaging table, stool, footsteps, furniture, etc. located at 10101 Riverside Drive, Toluca Lake, CA 91602. (Id.)

First COA - General Negligence - Sustained With Leave to Amend

The Court finds Plaintiff’s first cause of action is subject to demurrer. In Bellamy v. Appellate Department, the California Court of Appeal held that “a plaintiff cannot, on the same facts, state causes of action for ordinary negligence as well as professional negligence, as a defendant has only one duty that can be measured by one standard of care under any given circumstances.” (Bellamy v. Appellate Department (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 797, 804.) Here, Plaintiff’s cause of action for General Negligence and his cause of action for Professional Negligence are based on identical factual allegations. The holding in Bellamy makes clear that Plaintiff must either state additional facts in support of his general negligence claim or omit that claim should he wish to maintain a claim for Professional Negligence.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Leave to amend is granted in so far as Plaintiff can allege facts separate from those in his Professional Negligence action.

Second COA – Premises Liability – Sustained Without Leave to Amend

Defendant argues that, similar to the cause of action for General Negligence, this cause of action cannot be maintained alongside the Professional Negligence cause of action. The Court finds this argument persuasive. Defendant relies upon the holding in Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital which found:

[W]hether negligence in maintaining hospital equipment or premises qualifies as professional negligence depends on the nature of the relationship between the equipment or premises in question and the provision of medical care to the plaintiff. A hospital's negligent failure to maintain equipment that is necessary or otherwise integrally related to the medical treatment and diagnosis of the patient implicates a duty that the hospital owes to a patient by virtue of being a health care provider. Thus, if the act or omission that led to the plaintiff's injuries was negligence in the maintenance of equipment that, under the prevailing standard of care, was reasonably required to treat or accommodate a physical or mental condition of the patient, the plaintiff's claim is one of professional negligence under section 340.5.

(Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, 88-89.)

The Court agrees with Defendant that the tenants of Flores are applicable to this case. Flores makes clear that “[w]hen a doctor or other health care professional makes a judgment to order that a hospital bed's rails be raised in order to accommodate a patient's physical condition and the patient is injured as a result of the negligent use or maintenance of the rails, the negligence occurs in the rendering of professional services and therefore is professional negligence for purposes of section 340.5, subdivision (2).” (Flores supra, 63 Cal.4th 75 at 89 [internal quotation marks omitted].) Having found the above, the Flores court affirmed the trial Court’s sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. (Id.)

The Second District Court of Appeal concurred with the holding in Flores in Mitchell v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center. In Mitchell, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s allegation that she fell while attempting to mount an examination table sounded in professional negligence and not premises liability. (Mitchell v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 291, 297.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by Defendant’s failure to maintain an imaging table. Nothing is specifically alleged which would allow the Court to determine that the use of the imaging table was anything other than “reasonably required to treat or accommodate a physical or mental condition.” Nor does the Court view it as possible that Plaintiff could allege additional facts that would cure this deficiency. Plaintiff’s current allegations make clear that his purpose in being on the imaging table was for medical treatment. Any allegations that his presence on the imaging table was ancillary to his receipt of professional medical assistance would be inconsistent and subject to the sham pleading doctrine.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Radnet Management, Inc.’s Demurrer came on regularly for hearing on September 20, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

THE DEMURRER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 20, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles