Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Calder v. Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc.", Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc. demurs to the first cause of action for premises liability in plaintiff Maria de la Mora Calder’s complaint.  For the following reasons, defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations.  Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.  Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer.  Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.  Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice.  Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.

Plaintiff alleges two causes of action:  premises liability and general negligence.  Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges defendant “owned, maintained, controlled, entrusted, managed, supervised, occupied, serviced for repair, and/or leased the property or equipment located at 230 S. Main Street, Orange, CA 92868.”  Complaint ¶ L-1.  Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 22, 2020, while plaintiff was an invited guest at the property, “an object fell on Plaintiff’s head resulting in major bodily injury.”  Id.

Defendant argues plaintiff’s claim alleges professional negligence, not premises liability.  The California Supreme Court addressed this issue in Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75:  “[W]e conclude that whether negligence in maintaining hospital equipment or premises qualifies as professional negligence depends on the nature of the relationship between the equipment or premises in question and the provision of medical care to the plaintiff.  A hospital's negligent failure to maintain equipment that is necessary or otherwise integrally related to the medical treatment and diagnosis of the patient implicates a duty that the hospital owes to a patient by virtue of being a health care provider.  Thus, if the act or omission that led to the plaintiff's injuries was negligence in the maintenance of equipment that, under the prevailing standard of care, was reasonably required to treat or accommodate a physical or mental condition of the patient, the plaintiff's claim is one of professional negligence under [Civil Procedure Code] section 340.5.  But section 340.5 does not extend to negligence in the maintenance of equipment and premises that are merely convenient for, or incidental to, the provision of medical care to a patient.”  Id. at 88.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts for defendant or the court to determine whether plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges professional negligence or premises liability.  The distinction can be significant to, e.g., the statute of limitations.  See, e.g., Johnson v. Open Door Community Health Centers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 153, 160.  Defendant’s demurrer for uncertainty is sustained.

Should plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint addressing the issues in this ruling, plaintiff shall file and serve it by October 20, 2022.

Defendant to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The trial is scheduled for March 11, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C13.

Clerk to give notice.