Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case Number: 37-2019-00070139-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2019-00070139-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Medical Malpractice Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2019-00070139-CU-MM-CTL JACOBS VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT SHARP HEALTHCARE; SHARP-REES STEALY MEDICAL GROUP, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION is GRANTED.

Defendants SHARP HEALTHCARE and SHARP-REES STEALY MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

('Defendants') seeks summary judgment as to Plaintiff Valori Jacobs' ('Plaintiff') medical negligence and lack of informed consent claims against Defendants.

In ruling on a summary adjudication/judgment motion, the trial court must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved, and the materiality of disputed facts. (Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 289-90; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) The Court then determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor, and if the moving party has carried its initial burden, decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

(Serri, supra, at p. 858.) The Court must 'liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.' (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) Whether the standard of care was met in this case is a matter that must be resolved by expert testimony unless this Court finds the circumstances of this case are not within the common knowledge of the layman. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.) Defendants' expert, James Kent Bredenkamp, M.D. ('Dr. Bredenkamp'), opines Defendants, through James Amsberry, M.D., met the standard of care with regard to the care and treatment of Plaintiff on February 28, 2017, and obtained Plaintiff's informed consent. (Decl. Dr. Bredenkamp, � 7.) Dr. Bredenkamp also opines Plaintiff did not suffer any measurable injuries or damages related to the surgery on February 28, 2017. (Decl. Dr. Bredenkamp, � 7.) '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.App.3d 977, 985 [Citation and quote omitted].) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(e) provides: Except as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(r) and rule 3.1351, the opposition to a motion must consist of the following separate documents, titled as shown: (1) [Opposing party's] memorandum in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072897 71 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: JACOBS VS SHARP HEALTHCARE [E-FILE] 37-2019-00070139-CU-MM-CTL summary adjudication or both; (2) [Opposing party's] separate statement in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both; (3) [Opposing party's] evidence in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both (if appropriate); and (4) [Opposing party's] request for judicial notice in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both (if appropriate).

(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(e).) Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ('SSUMF').

Plaintiff filed three documents: 'JACOB'S RESPONSE TO BREDENCAMP DECLARATION,' 'PLAINTIFF JACOBS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS SHARP HEALTHCARE, ET AL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT/ ADJUDICATION JUDGEMENT,' and 'NOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AJUDICATION.' Plaintiff did not file a proper response to Defendants' SSUMF. This is sufficient grounds to grant the motion.

Plaintiff has failed to provide any qualified expert to raise any triable issue of fact. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate she is a qualified expert who may opine as to the medical issues addressed by Dr.

Bredenkamp. The Court finds Dr. Bredenkamp's declaration is unopposed. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to address the statute of limitations issue. At most, Plaintiff points to the Court of Appeal's opinion, but fails to acknowledge the difference in the standard on a demurrer versus a motion for summary judgment. As such, the motion is granted as to the medical negligence cause of action.

As to informed consent, Plaintiff wholly fails to address the statute of limitations issue and the evidence that James Amsberry, M.D. was an independent contractor who was responsible for providing informed consent. The Court finds Defendants met their burden to demonstrate the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's lack of informed consent cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., �� 335.1, 340.5; SSUMF Nos.

87-89.) Plaintiff failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to the application of the statutes of limitation.

The motion is granted as to informed consent.

The motion is granted in its entirety.

Defendants' Objections to Evidence: Objections 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16: Overruled Objections 4, 8, 12, 14, 17-18, 36-54: Sustained No ruling on Objections 19-35 as the Court does not interpret the material as evidence submitted by Plaintiff, but argument without citation to evidence.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072897 71