Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: BC612473, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC612473 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: X
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
Tentative Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Nonsuit
Defendants Ronald Woodard MD and Huntington Memorial Hospital made an
oral motion for nonsuit at the close of Plaintiffs’ case and subsequently filed
a written motion which the Court has read and considered. The Court will not consider a Motion for Directed
Verdict at this time as such a motion is premature where all parties
have not yet completed the presentation of their evidence (CCP § 630(a).).
Defendants’ Motion
for Nonsuit has two grounds: (1) Yuto and Amy by and through her Guardian ad
Litem have failed to show how the alleged breaches of the standard of care by
Dr. Woodard caused them to suffer any damages and that, (2) Landy Peraza has
not shown evidence that she suffered any damages.
In their moving
papers, Defendants stated that the Court granted nonsuit for the second cause
of action against both Defendants on March 8, 2023. This is incorrect; however, the Court grants
such motion at this time.
To establish a claim for wrongful death, “plaintiffs must
prove ‘(1) a “wrongful act or neglect” on the part of one or more persons
[(that is, negligence)] that (2) “cause[s]” (3) the “death of [another] person.”
’ [Citation.] A person may be liable
either for (1) his own negligence, in which
case he is directly liable for the
resulting death, or (2) someone else’s negligence,
in which case he is vicariously liable
because—in the eyes of the law—the other person’s negligence is deemed to be
his own. [Citations.] A person acts negligently only if he ‘ “had a duty to use
due care” ’ and ‘ “breached that duty.” ’ ” (Musgrove v. Silver (2022) 82
Cal.App.5th 694, 705.)
In this case, Amy by and through her Guardians ad Litem have
not provided any expert testimony that either of the Defendant’s alleged
negligence caused her death. Therefore, Defendants’
nonsuit motion is granted as to the second cause of action.
Regarding the First and Third causes of action, “one of the
essential elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice is ‘a proximate
causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury.’ [Citation.]
‘The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be
proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert
testimony. Mere possibility alone is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case.’ ” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015)
239 Cal.App.4th 959, 971.)
“A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the
absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than
not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon
which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” (Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th
1487, 1498.) In Bromme, the plaintiff had
alleged that the defendant doctor had caused decedent’s death by failing to
diagnose cancer. (Id. at p. 1492.) The Court held that
causation was not established because the expert witnesses agreed that the decedent’s
chance of surviving colon cancer was less than 50 percent. (Id. at p. 1499.)
The testimony offered by Yuto on the standard of care came
from Dr. Serden. Dr. Serden’s ultimate criticism
of Dr. Woodard was his failure to complete a proper evaluation of Landy Peraza
which could have led to her receiving Betamethasone. Dr. Gabriel then testified that, “if
[Betamethasone] is given during labor, prior to delivery, it would have
provided tremendous benefits to Yuto.”
Although he later testified that he would defer to an Obstetrician as to
how much Betamethasone should be given or when it should be given, this testimony
is sufficient evidence to defeat a motion for nonsuit.
Regarding Huntington
Memorial Hospital, there was expert testimony that Nurse Alma Escusa fell below
the standard of care by not advocating for her patient to receive the aforementioned
steroid. However, there was no testimony
regarding any potential effect this advocacy would have achieved. Therefore, Defendants motion of nonsuit is
granted for Huntington Memorial Hospital as to the first cause of action.
The Court finds
sufficient evidence exists to deny the motion of nonsuit as to the third cause
of action as the evidence is sufficient to support Landy Peraza’s claim of
damages for having been discharged from the hospital in contravention to the standard
to care.
Summary
·
Motion of Nonsuit for
the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION is GRANTED as to Memorial Huntington Hospital and DENIED
as to Dr. Woodard.
·
Motion for Nonsuit for
the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION is GRANTED as to both Defendants
·
Motion for Nonsuit for the
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION is DENIED as to both Defendants