Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 21STCV36088, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV36088, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36088 Hearing Date: October 27, 2023 Dept: 61

Defendant Jonathan Azizzadeh, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED

Defendant to provide notice.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A party may move for summary judgment “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).) “[I]f 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

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. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) The plaintiff may not rely upon the mere 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) 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.)

Defendant Jonathan Azizzadeh, M.D. (Defendant) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs Yoleny de la Paz Torres Cruz and Oscar Rodriguez-Torres’s (Plaintiffs) claims for medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” [Citation.]” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917, emphasis in original.)

In medical malpractice cases, expert testimony is required to prove or disprove compliance with the standard of care. (See Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410; Garibay, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.) On a summary judgment motion, expert testimony may be supplied through expert declarations, and summary judgment is proper if plaintiff fails to submit any opposing expert testimony. (See Curtis v. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 796, 800; Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412.) Expert declarations may be based on hospital and medical records if they are properly authenticated. (Garibay, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at pp. 742–743.)

Defendant points to the declaration of James A. Macer, M.D., an OB/GYN who has been practicing since 1985. (Macer Decl. ¶ 2.) Dr. Macer opines, based on Plaintiffs’ complaint, the parties’ discovery materials, and Plaintiffs’ medical records, that Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff Yoleny de la Paz Torres Cruz complied with the standard of care. He notes that Defendant treated Plaintiff on February 11, 2020, during a regularly scheduled prenatal visit, which was evidently uneventful. (Macer Decl. ¶ 6a.) Plaintiff returned on May 27, 2020, complaining of abdominal pain, and when Defendant was notified of this condition by phone, he ordered various examinations and monitoring to take place, which were reported back to Defendant as normal. (Macer Decl. ¶¶ 6c–6d.) Plaintiff was discharged that day, but returned a day later, complaining of abdominal pain once more. (Macer Decl. ¶ 6e.) About fifty minutes after arriving, Plaintiff delivered the baby in a bathroom without medical assistance, and Defendant was only called after this occurred. (Macer Decl. ¶ 6h.) Macer opines that Defendant was entitled to rely on the reports that the nurses relayed back to him in determining Plaintiff’s care, and that no act or omission on Defendant’s part contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Macer Decl. ¶¶ 12, 15.)

Defendant has satisfied his initial burden to show the absence of a breach of a duty of care and the absence of causation on Defendant’s part. Plaintiffs have submitted a notice of non-opposition to this motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.