Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV11780, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11780    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     August 29, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE:  No date set.

CASE:                         CAROLE PAULAS vs DANIEL LEO MOON, M.D., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV11780

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTIES:           Defendant Methodist Hospital of Southern California

RESPONDING PARTY:     
Plaintiff Carole Paulas

SERVICE:                             Filed March 29, 2024

OPPOSITION:                     None filed.

REPLY:                                 None filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant Methodist Hospital moves for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The Methodist Hospital’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

            This complaint arises out of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against Defendants Daniel Moon, M.D. and Methodist Hospital. The complaint alleges on or about May 12, 2012, Plaintiff consulted Defendants about her medical condition. Specifically, that Defendants negligently and carelessly performed a gall bladder removal (cholecystectomy), allowing a bile leak, failing to properly detect and remedy the leak, which caused sepsis and multiple medical sequalae thereafter.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) “A party may move for summary judgement in an action or proceeding if it is contented that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 473c 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.” (Code of Civil Procedures section 473c subd. (c).)

A three-step analysis is employed in ruling on motions for summary judgment. First, the court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. Next, the court determines, when the moving party is the defendant, whether it has produced evidence showing one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action. If the defendant does so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to that cause of action or defense. (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373.) The court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and accept all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.”  (Ibid.; see also Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 384, 389 [Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”].) 

“A defendant moving for summary judgment must show that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. The defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to establish an essential element. (Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 907, 914.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Methodist Hospital moves for summary judgment based on the declaration of expert Kathryn Biasotti, BSN, who has opined that the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff by Methodist Hospital and its employees did not fall below the standard of care, and that no act or omission on the part of Methodist Hospital or its staff contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.

“The standard of care in a medical malpractice case requires that physicians exercise in diagnosis and treatment that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances. ‘ “The standard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony, unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman.” ’ ” (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 983–984, internal citations omitted.)

Normally, the question of whether a medical professional’s care and treatment of a patient fell within the standard of care or caused the plaintiff’s injuries is a matter that can only be established through expert testimony. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence. (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607, citing Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984–985.)

 “California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.” (Hutchinson v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1988) 838 F.2d 390, 392.)

Here, Defendant’s expert has testified Methodist Hospital and its employees complied with the community standard of care. (Biasotti Decl. ¶ 5.) Nurse Biasotti, who specializes in perioperative nursing, further declared that because Methodist Hospital and its staff met the standard of care, none of the actions or omissions contributed to any injury Plaintiff sustained. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10.) Biasotti based her opinions upon her review of the medical records and her knowledge, training, and experience. (Id. ¶ 5.) Likewise, Biasotti states she is familiar with the standard of care as it existed in 2021 in Southern California for the management of patients and medical conditions such as those presented by Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Biasotti further opined that proper informed consent was obtained. (Id. ¶ 8.) Finally, Biasotti opined that the Methodist Hospital and staff complied with the processes surrounding Plaintiff’s May 12, 2021 surgery and were fully compliant with the standard of care by following Defendant Dr. Moon’s surgical orders and the anesthesia orders. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Defendant Methodist Hospital additional submits that it cannot be held responsible for the acts of Defendant Daniel Moon, M.D., who was not an employee of Methodist Hospital, but an independent contractor. (Chandrasekhar Decl. ¶ 3.)

Based on the above, Defendant Methodist Hospital meets its burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot prevail on her medical negligence claim against Methodist Hospital because she cannot show that Methodist Hospital’s care and treatment of her fell below the standard of care, and because Defendant Daniel Moon, M.D. was not an employee of Methodist Hospital.

The burden shifts to Plaintiff to come forward with conflicting expert evidence.

No opposition has been filed. The Court finds that there are no remaining triable issues of material fact as to Defendant Methodist Hospital for medical malpractice. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendant Methodist Hospital.

VII.     CONCLUSION

Methodist Hospital of Southern California’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Dated:   August 29, 2024                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org