Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV33122, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20STCV33122    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/25/23

Case #20STCV33122

 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Motion filed on 6/17/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Providence Health Systems – Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Mercedes Rodriguez, individually, and as Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Rene Rodriguez

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Providence Health Systems – Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center.

 

RULING: The motion is denied. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the care and treatment provided to Rene Rodriguez (Decedent) by defendants, including Defendant Providence Health Systems – Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (Providence), with regard to colon resection surgery on 5/31/19.

 

On 8/28/20, Plaintiff Mercedes Rodriguez, individually and as Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Rene Rodriguez (Plaintiff) filed this action for medical malpractice and negligence against Dr. Scott Patterson, M.D.; Facey Medical Group and Providence.  Plaintiff alleges that on 5/31/19, she brought Decedent, her husband, to Providence to undergo a colonic mass removal surgery. (Complaint ¶9).  Decedent was discharged from Providence on 6/6/19.  (Complaint ¶¶10-12).   During the weekend of June 8th and 9th, Decedent was at home and experiencing a high fever; shaking, soreness and flu-like symptoms.  (Complaint ¶13).  On 6/10/19, Decedent was taken to a hospital where it was revealed that he was septic.  Id.  Plaintiff alleges that Decedent died on 6/19/19 from septic shock and cardiac arrest.  Id.  Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to meet the standard of care in their care and treatment of Decedent which was a substantial factor in causing Decedent’s death.  (Complaint ¶¶14-17).

 

On 6/17/22, Providence filed and served the instant motion for summary judgment which was originally scheduled for hearing on 5/22/23 when this action was pending in Department 27 in the Spring Street Courthouse.  On 4/28/23, this case was deemed complicated and transferred to Department F47 in the Chatsworth Courthouse.  (See 4/28/23 Minute Order).  Thereafter, Providence’s motion for summary judgment was rescheduled for hearing on 5/25/23.  (See 5/10/23 Notice of Continuance).  Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.  Scalf (2005) 128 CA4th 1510, 1519  Aguilar (2001) 25 C4th 826, 850.  A defendant, such as Providence, moving for summary judgment must show that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense thereto.  Aguilar, supra; CCP 437c(o), (p)(2).   

 

If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.  Aguilar, supra; Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell (2005) 129 CA4th 1076, 1092.  The burden does not shift to the opposing party unless the moving party has met their initial burden.  Consumer Cause, Inc. (2001) 91 CA4th 454, 468; CCP 437c(p)(2).

 

The Court finds that Providence failed to meet its initial burden on this motion.  Therefore, the burden never shifted to Plaintiff.

 

The motion suffers from the following procedural defects.  First, the notice of motion refers to the declaration of Leo Gordon, M.D. offered in support of the motion.  (See Notice of Motion, p.2:10).  However, no such declaration was offered in support of the motion.  Additionally, fact number 16 in Providence’s Separate Statement incorrectly indicates that Plaintiff’s (rather than Decedent’s) temperature was 100.9 degrees on 6/9/19.  Further, all of the exhibits attached to the Index of Exhibits filed by Providence are blank pages (except for p.202 which appears to be one page of medical records).  (See Index of Exhibits filed on 6/17/22).  The electronic bookmarks for the blank exhibits are also not linked to any specific page in the Index of Exhibits.  Id.

 

Even if Providence was given the opportunity to cure the foregoing procedural defects, the motion fails on its substance.  The motion argues that “Defendant adhered to the applicable standard of care” and relies on the declaration of Nurse Constance Paine to establish “Defendant, its nurses and staff, met the applicable standard of care at all times.”  (See Motion, p.3:7-10).  Providence never identifies in the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the motion who is included as “Defendant, its nurses and staff.”  Instead, the motion generically refers to “Defendant” or “Moving Defendant.”  (See Motion, p.6:3-7, p.7:9-10, p.7:21-22, p.7:25-26). 

 

The motion does not argue or establish that as to Providence only the care and treatment of Providence’s nursing staff is at issue in this action.  Plaintiff’s complaint does not limit the claims in this action as against Providence to the care and treatment provided by Providence’s nursing staff.  (See Complaint, generally).  It is not until the reply that Providence specifically argues that only the care and treatment provided by its “nursing staff” is what is at issue in this action and motion.  (See Reply, generally; Providence’s Evidentiary Objections).    

 

Since the motion failed to establish that only the standard of care of its nursing staff is at issue in this action and motion, it did not meet its initial burden on this motion.  Therefore, the burden never shifted to Plaintiff.     

 

Providence’s objections to the declaration of Moses Fallas, M.D. are overruled.  As noted above, Providence has failed to establish that  only the standard of care of its nursing staff is at issue in this action/motion.      

 

The Court notes that in her responsive Separate Statement, Plaintiff has failed to indicate whether each of the facts Providence claims are undisputed are disputed or undisputed as required.  CCP 437c(b)(3); CRC 3.1350(f)(2).  However, since Providence failed to meet its initial burden, this defect in Plaintiff’s separate statement is inconsequential to the ruling on the motion. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is denied.