Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00014317-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Medical Malpractice Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00014317-CU-MM-CTL CORRAL VS SHARP CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 01/16/2024

Defendant Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center's unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The court deems the lack of opposition to the motion to be a concession as to the merits of the motion.

SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19(B). Moreover, SCVMC has established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).

Specifically, SCVMC has shown that it cannot be liable for the acts of defendant Mauricio Levine-Kogan, M.D. because he has been dismissed. (NOL Ex. E.) 'There can be no vicarious liability in a medical malpractice action without the underlying liability of the medical practitioner.' Lathrop v. HealthCare Partners Medical Group (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.

As for the acts of its nursing staff, SCVMC has submitted the declaration of Carolyn Eoff, a registered nurse. Eoff opines that the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff Claudia Corral at SCVMC was at all times within the standard of care. (Eoff Decl., ¶ 7.) Eoff further opines that 'nothing SHARP did or did not do negligently caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries.' (Id. at ¶ 8.) With this evidence, SCVMC has met its burden of showing that plaintiffs' claims have no merit. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); see also Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1377 ('A claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply.').

The burden shifts to plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).

Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion (ROA 91), and thus have failed to meet their burden.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted. See Borrayo v. Avery (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 304, 310 ('When a defendant health care practitioner moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with an expert declaration that his conduct met the community standard of care, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.').

This ruling is dispositive as to SCVMC. Counsel for SCVMC is directed to prepare and submit a form of judgment consistent with the foregoing.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072717  5