Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00906, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00906    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Jae Rhyu and So Young Min

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED with ten (10) days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This is a medical negligence action. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Jae Rhyu and So Young Min filed a complaint against Inland Neurosurgery Institute (INI), Aaron R. Cutler, M.D. (Dr. Cutler), Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (PVHMC), and Does 1-100 alleging medical negligence and loss of consortium.

On June 13, 2023, PVHMC (Defendant) filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on June 2, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiff’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Ozeran Decl., ¶ 3.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for July 20, 2023. A case management conference is also set for August 16.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for medical negligence, arguing it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend.

Legal Standard

Demurrer

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Medical Negligence

To succeed on a cause of action for medical negligence, Plaintiff must establish “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence.” (Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220, 229-230, quoting 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 488 et seq., p. 2749.)

Discussion

In this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is devoid of any specific facts. On March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs allege Defendants were “consulted, retained, and/or employed” for Plaintiffs’ medical needs. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) While this allegation could suffice to establish Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care, Plaintiffs fail to point to any breach of that duty and an injury that was proximately caused by that breach. Instead, Plaintiffs make the conclusory allegation that Defendants were negligent and careless in their treatment and failed to operate within the standard of care. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs also allege they suffered “some severe permanent disability” and were injured in their “health, strength, activity and appearance” because of this unspecified negligence. (Complaint, ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff’s opposition asserts the Complaint “clearly” sets forth the required elements for medical negligence.  (Opp., p. 3:10-14.)  The court disagrees and finds the opposition devoid of specificity regarding how the Complaint adequately pleads a cause of action for medical negligence.

The court finds Plaintiffs first cause of action for medical negligence is vague and conclusory insofar as the pleading fails to describe how Defendants treated Plaintiff, breached the duty of care, and caused Plaintiff damages. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is SUSTAINED with ten (10) days leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED with ten (10) days leave to amend as to the first cause of action.