Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00021756-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00021756-CU-NP-CTL RUDO VS SCRIPPS HEALTH [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 10/30/2023

Defendant, SCRIPPS HEALTH dba SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ENCINITAS' Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

This action arises out of allegations of neglect and negligent care and treatment of Plaintiff, Rachel Rudo while she was in the Emergency Department over the course of four days from November 7, 2021 through November 11, 2021. Ms. Rudo claims that she was 'comatose' while at SCRIPPS, and that the staff 'failed to inspect and monitor RUDO's skin for redness or breakdown.' There are also allegations that this violated the patient's care plan, and it resulted in skin breakdown on her buttocks and left heel.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims Negligence and Dependent Adult Abuse against SCRIPPS.

Defendant Scripps moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff's Dependent Adult Abuse cause of action, arguing that SCRIPPS did not neglect Ms. Rudo under the statute and relevant case law, as a matter of law.

Defendant relies exclusively on documents purported to be from the medical record to argue that Plaintiff was consistently evaluated and treated for a risk of skin redness of breakdown. No expert is offered. The Separate Statement provided in support of the motion provides evidence with citations to the medical record that plaintiff was provided care for her basic needs.

Plaintiff 'objects' to evidence based upon lack of foundation and hearsay. While the objections to evidence are not procedurally proper under CRC 3.1354, the objections are well-taken. The Court SUSTAINS the objections. The only authentication for the medical record is an attorney declaration that states that the documents are 'true and correct copies' of the medical record. Defendant relies on Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735 for the proposition that the medical records for Plaintiff which have been submitted are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, for purpose of this motion for Summary Adjudication. Garibay deals with experts relying on medical records.

The Court held that an expert must base opinions on properly authenticated medical records.

The Court states: 'Although hospital and medical records are hearsay, they can be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (In re Troy D. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 889, 902, 263 Cal.Rptr. 869; Evid.Code, § 1271.) Such records, however, must be properly authenticated. (People v. Moore (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 486, 492–493, 85 Cal.Rptr. 194.) Evidence Code section 1271 states the business records exception to the hearsay rule: 'Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove the act, condition, or event if: '(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; '(b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; '(c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and '(d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009630  35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RUDO VS SCRIPPS HEALTH [IMAGED]  37-2022-00021756-CU-NP-CTL There is no evidence before the Court to authenticate the records. Without proper authentication as stated above, the evidence lacks foundation and is hearsay. Based on the lack of evidence, defendant has not met its burden on summary adjudication and the motion is DENIED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009630  35