Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV11202, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from alleged medical malpractice that occurred on March 26, 2019. On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Hugo Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Derek Golden, M.D, West Hills Hospital, and Does 1 to 100, alleging a sole cause of action for medical malpractice.

On June 26, 2020, Defendant West Hills Hospital and Medical Center filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On November 4, 2022, Defendant West Hills Hospital and Medical Center (“Moving Defendant”) filed and served the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion is made on the grounds that: (1) Moving Defendant is not responsible for any alleged negligence of co-Defendant Dr. Derek Golden; and (2) there are no triable issues of material fact regarding Plaintiff’s claim of professional negligence against Moving Defendant.

The Motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if 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.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.)

“As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) Once the defendant has met its 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 v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) “[T]he plaintiff must produce substantial responsive evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact on the merits.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) “A mere scintilla of evidence does not create a conflict for the jury’s resolution.” (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 291.) “An issue of fact . . . is not created by speculation, conjecture, imagination or guess work.” (Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 525.)

Moving Defendant contends that it is not liable for any alleged negligence of co-Defendant Dr. Derek Golden. Moving Defendant contends that Dr. Golden is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of Moving Defendant.

“To succeed in a negligence action, a plaintiff must show the following: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty; (2) the defendant breached the duty; and (3) the breach proximately or legally caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries.” (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.) The elements of a professional negligence claim are the same as those for a negligence claim. (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 611-612.)

“A staff physician treats his patients at the hospital. He has full authority to prescribe the patients’ treatment, he is subject to no supervision during the course of treatment, and he generally bears full responsibility for negligence.” (University of Southern California v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1290 [internal quotations omitted, citations omitted, emphasis in original].) “A hospital is liable for a physician’s malpractice when the physician is actually employed by or is the ostensible agent of the hospital.” (Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 88, 103 [citations omitted].) “A physician is not an agent of a hospital merely because he or she is on the medical staff of the hospital.” (Id. at p. 104 [citation omitted].) A hospital will not be liable for negligence under an ostensible agency theory where “(1) the hospital gave the patient actual notice that the treating physicians are not hospital employees, and (2) there is no reason to believe the patient was unable to understand or act on the information, or (3) the patient was treated by his or her personal physician and knew or should have known the true relationship between the hospital and physician.” (Wicks v. Antelope Valley Healthcare District (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 866, 884.)

The Motion is unopposed and therefore the facts in support of the Motion are all undisputed. On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff presented to West Hills Hospital and Medical Center reportedly due to an injury he sustained at home. (Moving Defendant’s Separate Statement [“Separate Statement”] at No. 2.) Plaintiff was seen by Eric Lyon, PA, who described Plaintiff as alert and oriented. (Separate Statement at No. 3.) Plaintiff was treated in the Emergency Department and was discharged and advised to return if there were any further problems or if he needed additional pain medications/pain control. (Separate Statement at Nos. 4-5.) On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff again presented to West Hills Hospital and Medical Center and was seen by Co-Defendant Dr. Derek Golden. (Separate Statement at Nos. 8-9.) Dr. Golden consulted with orthopedist, Dr. Sumit Rana, who recommended transferring Plaintiff to another facility for a higher level of care. (Separate Statement at No. 10.) Plaintiff was then transferred to Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center. (Separate Statement at No.11.) Plaintiff’s professional negligence allegation extends to physicians only, and Plaintiff received actual notice of the legal relationship between Dr. Golden and Moving Defendant prior to the alleged negligence. (Separate Statement at Nos. 12-13.) Dr. Golden is an independent contractor, and this status was made clear though the Conditions of Admission Form that Plaintiff and his wife read, understood, and signed. (Separate Statement at Nos. 14-16.) Plaintiff acknowledged that the persons in attendance during his surgeries were “not agents, servants, or employees of [Moving Defendant].” (Separate Statement at No. 15.)

Moving Defendant has presented undisputed material facts showing that Plaintiff’s allegations extend to physician negligence only. Moreover, Moving Defendant has presented undisputed material facts indicating that Dr. Golden was not an employee or agent of Moving Defendant. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has failed to oppose the Motion and has therefore failed to show a triable issue of material fact.

Moreover, given that the Motion is unopposed, there is an inference it is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Also, due to the lack of opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has conceded to Moving Defendant’s arguments. (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court