Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 19STCV30425, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30425    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 04-20-23                                                                                                Trial Date: None set

Case #  19STCV30425

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 1/17/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Providence Health System - Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center

RESPONDING PARTY: None as of 4/17/23

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant Providence Health System - Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center seeks an order granting summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Stefanie Gabler.

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Stefanie Gabler filed this action against multiple defendants, including Moving Defendant Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (“PHCMC”), asserting a cause of action for medical negligence, which arose from an injury she discovered and underwent surgery for on September 5, 2016. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleges that PHCMC was negligent by distributing a defective VP Shunt to Ms. Gabler, failing to properly test, validate, and qualify the device and its appurtenant parts, and by failing to obtain informed consent from Ms. Gabler relative to the VP Shunt.

Defendant PHCMC argues that the negligence cause of action must fail because the undisputed facts show that the (1) complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, (2) PHCMC did not have the duties alleged by plaintiff relative to the implantation of a device by an independent contractor, and (3) PHCMC is not vicariously liable for any negligence of the physicians at the hospital

Defendant presents evidence that by September 5, 2017, Plaintiff knowingly underwent surgery to replace the defective VP Shunt. On September 4, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by neurosurgeon Dr. Avila with concerns, Dr. Avila noted that the VP Shunt was malfunctioning and needed to be replaced. The next day, September 5, 2017, Ms. Gabler signed a form authorizing the performance of the replacement procedure, thereby indicating that her physician fully explained the nature and purpose of the revision surgery, which was to replace the malfunctioning shunt. (UMF Nos. 8-9.)

Defendant also presents evidence that PHCMC had no duties relative to the implantation of the shunt. Defendant presents the expert declaration of Nurse Kyung Jun, RN, MSN, NP, CNOR. Nurse Jun explains that the device was manufactured by Codman & Shurtleff, Inc. and opines that PHCMC met the standard of care as it relates to the shunt issue. PHCMC as a hospital, PHCMC’s duties included providing the facility for the procedure, as well as the nursing and ancillary staff for the procedure. Hospitals such as PHCMC do not have a duty to test, validate, or qualify VP shunts or their parts before implantation. Furthermore, as a hospital, PHCMC, its nurses and staff, are not obligated with the duty to provide informed consent for the implantation of the shunt. It is the duty of the physician to obtain informed consent. (UMF No. 11.)

The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its initial burden to show that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and PHCMC met the standard of care relative to the shunt at issue. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or disputed any material facts in Defendant’s separate statement.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.