Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00017741-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00017741-CU-PO-CTL ROMERO VS AURORA BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Aurora – San Diego LLC's motion for summary judgment as to the first amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Samuel Romero is DENIED.

Preliminary Matters Romero's evidentiary objections to the declaration of Declaration of Mohair Nair M.D. are overruled.

Aurora's evidentiary objections to the Declaration of David Rudnick Ph.D., M.D. are overruled.

Analysis Romero alleges a single cause of action against Aurora for professional negligence. Aurora moves for summary judgment on the grounds it met the standard of care and did not cause Romero's injuries.

'Whenever the plaintiff claims negligence in the medical context, the plaintiff must present evidence from an expert that the defendant breached his or her duty to the plaintiff and that the breach caused the injury to the plaintiff. 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 [or was not the cause of the plaintiff's injuries], he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.' (Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 123.) In terms of the sufficiency of expert declarations, courts have drawn a distinction between those supporting the motion and those opposing the motion. (See Powell, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at pp.

123–125.) To satisfy the moving party's initial burden, the expert declaration must 'be detailed and with foundation.' (Id. at p. 125, citing Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519.) To satisfy the opposing party's burden of raising a triable issue, the expert declaration does 'not have to be detailed' and is 'entitled to all favorable inferences.' (Powell, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 125, citing Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601.) Here, Aurora supported its motion with a declaration from its psychiatric expert (Mohan Nair M.D.) opining that it met the standard of care and did not cause Romero's injuries. Romero supported his Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3075973  51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ROMERO VS AURORA BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00017741-CU-PO-CTL opposition with a declaration from his psychiatric expert (F. David Rudnick Ph.D., M.D.) opining that Aurora fell below the standard of care and caused his injuries. Both parties characterize the opposing party's expert declaration as conclusory or otherwise lacking any evidentiary value, but as set forth above, the parties' respective evidentiary objections are overruled for purposes of this motion. What remains are conflicting expert opinions and classic triable issues of material fact.

Conclusion There are triable issues as to whether Aurora's actions fell below the standard of care and caused Romero's injuries. The motion for summary judgment is therefore denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3075973  51