Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00607, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00607    Hearing Date: May 29, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/29/24

Case #24CHCV00607

 

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 4/17/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jaime D. Hernandez, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Vladimir Angulo Sanchez

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action:

            1.  Professional Negligence

            2.  Breach of Fiduciary Duty

            3.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking allegations regarding and the prayer for punitive damages (Complaint ¶¶39, 46 and Prayer ¶5).

 

RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 45 days leave to amend.  The motion to strike is placed off calendar as moot. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff Vladimir Angulo Sanchez  (Plaintiff) by Defendants Jaime D. Hernandez, M.D. (Dr. Hernandez); Northridge Hospital Medical Center (Northridge Hospital) and Dignity Health (collectively, Defendants) after Plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle on or about 11/24/22.

 

After Plaintiff was admitted to the emergency room at Northridge Hospital, diagnostic studies revealed a comminuted displaced fracture of Plaintiff’s left huermal head and neck.  (Complaint ¶12).  Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Hernandez was consulted on 11/29/22, and recommended that Plaintiff undergo an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the left humeral fracture.  (Complaint ¶13).  Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Hernandez performed the ORIF surgery on 11/29/22.  The procedure involved the placement of hardware and screws.  (Complaint ¶14).  Plaintiff then alleges that he developed pain, discomfort and limitation of range of motion in his left shoulder following the surgery.  (Complaint ¶16).  Plaintiff alleges that he continued to have pain and that on 4/21/23, it was “discovered that the fixation screw projecting into the glenohumeral joint space was the likely cause of his pain, discomfort and limited range of motion in plaintiff’s left shoulder.”  (Complaint ¶20).  Plaintiff alleges that “on October 3, 2023, Plaintiff was scheduled for and underwent a second surgery (hardware removal).  Plaintiff reported significant relief following the October 3, 2023, hardware removal surgery.”  (Complaint ¶23).

 

On 2/27/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants for: (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  After Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to Dr. Hernandez’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts regarding the issues Dr. Hernandez has with the complaint, on 4/17/24, Dr. Hernandez filed and served the instant demurrer to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action and the motion strike which seeks to strike the allegations regarding (Complaint ¶¶39, 46) prayer for (Prayer ¶5) punitive damages.  (See James Decl.).  Plaintiff has opposed the demurrer and motion to strike and Dr. Hernandez has filed replies to the oppositions. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

2nd cause of action – Breach of Fiduciary Duty

 

To support the argument that Plaintiff has properly stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Dr. Hernandez, Plaintiff cites the following case law:

 

The doctor-patient relationship is an archetypal fiduciary relationship. (See Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 748, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527 ["The doctor-patient relationship is a fiduciary one and as a consequence of the physician's 'fiducial' obligations, the physician is prohibited from misrepresenting the nature of the patient's medical condition"]; Mathis v. Morrissey (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 332, 339, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 819 ["a physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all information material to the patient's decision" to consent to treatment]; Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 129, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479.

 

(See Opposition, p.5:5-10).

 

However, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts indicating that Dr. Hernandez misrepresented the nature of Plaintiff’s medical condition and/or failed to disclose all information material to Plaintiff decision to consent to treatment.  (See Complaint, generally).  Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to indicate that in seeking Plaintiff’s consent for treatment, Dr. Hernandez failed to disclose any personal interests unrelated to Plaintiff’s health, whether research or economic, that may have affected Dr. Hernandez’s medical judgment.  See Moore, supra at 129, 131-132.  Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support the conclusion that “the conduct of Dr. Hernandez was intentional and meant to mutilate and injure the plaintiff.”  (See Complaint ¶38).  In fact, in the general allegations of the complaint, Plaintiff refers only to the alleged “negligent conduct” of the defendants, not any intentional misconduct aimed at injuring Plaintiff.  (See Complaint ¶24).     

 

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support a finding that Dr. Hernandez breached the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff which is a necessary element of a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action.  See Stanley (1995) 35 CA4th 1070, 1086; Pellegrini (2008) 165 CA4th 515, 524.  Under Plaintiff’s reasoning, every medical malpractice claim would also constitute a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  (See Opposition, p.5:21-p.6:13 citing the Complaint ¶¶35-37). 

 

3rd cause of action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.  Plotnik (2012) 208 CA4th 1590, 1609; Fisher (1989) 214 CA3d 590, 599.  To support the first element of the claim, the alleged conduct must be “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”  Cochran (1998) 65 CA4th 488, 494; See also Melorich Builders, Inc. (1984) 160 CA3d 931, 936.

 

As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts to support his conclusory allegations that Dr. Hernandez’s actions were intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress and/or that Dr. Hernandez deliberately attempted to mutilate and/or harm Plaintiff emotionally and/or acted maliciously.  (See Complaint ¶¶41, 45; Opposition, p.8:16-19).

 

The facts alleged in the complaint do not support a finding of the type of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original complaint, Plaintiff is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in his 2nd and 3rd causes of action. 

 

The motion to strike is moot as it seeks to strike allegations regarding punitive damages contained in the 2nd and 3rd causes of action and the Prayer for punitive damages which seeks punitive damages for the 3rd and non-existent 4th cause of action. 

 

A First Amended Complaint is due within 45 days.