Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2022-00014349-CU-MM-CTL 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00014349-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Medical Malpractice Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00014349-CU-MM-CTL CASTILLO VS. CONCENTRA PRIMARY CARE OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Occupational Health Centers of California, a Medical Corporation ('OHCC')'s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, is DENIED.

Defendant Christian Santizo, M.D.'s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, is GRANTED.

In professional malpractice cases such as this, 'expert opinion testimony is required to prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care [citation], except in cases where the negligence is obvious to laymen.' (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 523; see also Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.) 'When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.' (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607.) Here, Defendants OHCC and Santizo present the expert declarations of Dr. Ryan M. Klein and James Dagostino, DPT, PT, to support their motions. Dr. Klein is a medical doctor with over 25 years of experience and is currently provides primary and pulmonary care at the Hospitals for Affiliated Doctors of Orange County and for the Huntington Beach Internal Medical Group. Mr. Dagostino has been providing physical therapy since 1974, including at Sharp Rehabilitation Center, Bay General Community Hospital, and North County Health Center. For purposes of summary judgment, Dr. Klein and Mr. Dagostino appear qualified to offer expert testimony in relation to Plaintiff's claims.

As a qualified expert, Dr. Klein opines that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Defendant Santizo complied with the standard of care at all times in rendering care to Plaintiff Christopher Castillo.

Dr. Klein opines that Defendant Santizo appropriately treated Plaintiff at the initial February 10, 2021 visit by physically examining his left ankle and right knee and ordering an x-ray, and that the standard of care did not require Defendant Santizo to perform a Thompson test or order an MRI on that date. Dr.

Klein further opines that Defendant Santizo's follow-up treatment on February 12, 2021 and February 18, 2021 was within the standard of care, including ordering an MRI on February 18 to evaluate the potential for an Achilles tear, and the standard of care did not require Defendant Santizo to halt physical therapy after February 18 or after February 26, 2021. Defendant Santizo also met the standard of care by placing a STAT order on March 5, 2021, when the MRI results became available showing that Plaintiff had a ruptured Achilles tendon. Dr. Klein also opines that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Defendant Santizo's care did not cause the injuries claimed by Plaintiff, as he did not cause the Achilles injury, an earlier diagnosis of the injury would not have impacted the successful surgical Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054122 12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CASTILLO VS. CONCENTRA PRIMARY CARE OF CALIFORNIA 37-2022-00014349-CU-MM-CTL correction of the tendon, and the continued physical therapy did not convert the purported tear into a rupture. Similarly, Dr. Klein opines that the physical therapy care provided to Plaintiff by Defendant OHCC's staff did not fall below the standard of care and was not, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, a substantial factor in causing injury to Plaintiff.

In opposition, Plaintiffs Christopher and Anne Castillo present the expert declaration of Dr. William Winternitz. Dr. Winternitz is an experienced, board-certified orthopedic surgeon specializing in orthopedic sports medicine. Dr. Winternitz appears qualified to offer expert testimony in relation to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant OHCC; in that regard, the court denies Defendant OHCC's foundation objections based on his expert qualifications. Dr. Winternitz opines that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Defendant OHCC provided care that fell below the standard of care. More specifically, Dr. Winternitz opines that Defendant Santizo should have performed a Thompson test or other appropriate test on February 10, 2021 to properly diagnose an Achilles tendon tear, and that ordering weight bearing physical therapy while failing to provide a walking boot significantly stressed the tendon, causing it to rupture and require surgery. According to Dr. Winternitz, had Defendant OHCC's employees complied with the standard of care, surgery would not have been needed.

As to Defendant OHCC, the court concludes these competing expert declarations are sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact on Plaintiff's causes of action against Defendant OHCC as to compliance with the standard of care and causation. Accordingly, Defendant OHCC's motion is denied.

However, the court agrees with Defendant Santizo that Dr. Winternitz is not a qualified expert with respect Defendant Santizo's motion and the care Defendant Santizo provided to Plaintiff. First, the court finds it difficult to believe that an expert can render an opinion in opposition to a motion for summary judgment regarding a Defendant doctor's conduct without reviewing that Defendant doctor's motion, which appears to be the case here. The court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an opposition and oppose Defendant Santizo's motion with a qualified and informed expert opinion directed specifically at Defendant Santizo, and it appears Plaintiff has simply refiled its opposition to Defendant OHCC's motion with a different title.

Second, the court is persuaded that by reusing the same expert declaration from Dr. Winternitz (an orthopedic surgeon/sports medicine doctor) to oppose Defendant Santizo's motion, Plaintiff is effectively trying to hold Defendant Santizo (a family/occupational medicine provider) to the higher standard of care applicable to a specialist. Thus, while Dr. Winternitz may be qualified to opine on the standard of care applicable to Defendant OHCC (for example, by arguing that it should have ensured Plaintiff was seen by an orthopedic surgeon or other qualified specialist early on rather than by a more general practitioner like Defendant Santizo), he lacks the experience and qualifications to opine that Defendant Santizo's care, as a non-specialist, fell below the standard of care for a non-specialist.

In medical malpractice cases, the court will generally grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment when the defendant's expert renders an unopposed expert opinion. (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836; see also, Willard v. Hagemeister (1981), 121 Cal. App. 3d 406, 409.) Here, because Dr. Winternitz rendered an unqualified opinion as to Defendant Santizo, the expert opinion rendered by Defendant Santizo's expert is effectively unopposed.

Accordingly, Defendant Santizo's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054122 12