Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV31999, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31999    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 30, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Mehrdad Vosoghi, M.D.

Responding Party: None

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

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 Cconsiders the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Jose Rivera and Carol Rivera sued Defendants Olympia Health Care LLC, et al., for wrongful death due to medical malpractice. Plaintiffs allege their child, Manuel Jose Rivera, died because of Defendants’ negligent failure to promptly diagnose and treat a gastrointestinal bleed.

ANALYSIS

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 Vosoghi moves for summary judgment on the ground that his conduct did not fall below the standard of care. Vosoghi provides the declaration of expert Rudolph Bedford, M.D., who declares that Vosoghi’s treatment of decedent did not fall below the standard of care. (Decl. Bedford ¶ 6.) This is sufficient to meet Vosoghi’s burden on summary judgment. The burden shifts to Plaintiffs to provide conflicting expert evidence.

Plaintiffs have failed to oppose this motion to establish a triable issue of fact. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.