Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV45026, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45026    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Shanne J. Sastiel, D.D.S.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Karen Rodriguez and Oscar Rodriguez

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

            On November 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Karen Rodriguez and Oscar Rodriguez sued Defendants Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort and Spa, Hyatt Corporation, Shanne J. Sastiel D.D.S. and Michael M. Imberman, D.M.D., asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) strict product liability; (3) professional negligence and (4) loss of consortium. Plaintiff alleges that she bit into something rock-like, breaking a tooth, while eating breakfast at the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort and Spa. Plaintiff sought treatment with her dentist, who referred her to periodontist Michael M. Imberman, D.M.D. Imberman referred Plaintiff to Shanne J. Sastiel D.D.S. Sastiel performed surgery on Plaintiff’s tooth, removing it and replacing the area with a bone graft and collagen plug in preparation for a long-term dental implant. Plaintiff allege Sastiel was negligent, leaving a piece of metal from a broken drill point in Plaintiff’s wound. This led to additional complications requiring emergency surgery.

ANALYSIS

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Trial judges are required “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.)

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. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant has met that 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.” (Id.)  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) 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.)

A. Professional Negligence

In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.  [citations.]”  (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.”  (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.”  (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.3d 977, 984-985.) 

Defendant Sastiel moves for summary judgment on the ground that his conduct did not fall below the standard of care. Sastiel provides the declaration of expert Mark B. Lieberman, D.D.S. Lieberman declares that Sastiel’s treatment of Plaintiff did not fall below the standard of care. (Decl. Lieberman ¶¶ 20-31.) This is sufficient to meet Sastiel’s burden on summary judgment. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to provide conflicting expert evidence.

In opposition, Plaintiff provides the declaration Jeffrey T. Miller, D.D.S. Miller declares that Sastiel’s treatment fell below the standard of care. (Decl. Miller ¶¶ 8-21.) This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.