Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00619, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AVCV00619    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs Angela Thompson, Aaron Thompson, and Jeremy Thompson (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Antelope Valley Hospital, Moneer Eddin, M.D., Pramod Kadambi, M.D., Nicole Wojtal, M.D., Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates, and Loren C. Rauch, M.D. (collectively “Defendants”). Hereinafter Nicole Wojtal, M.D.; Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates; and Loren C. Rauch, M.D. will be referred to as “Moving Defendants.”  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed medical malpractice by failing to admit James Mark Thompson (hereinafter “Decedent”) to Antelope Valley Medical Center (hereinafter “AVMC”), erroneously sued and served as Antelope Valley Hospital. Plaintiffs further allege that such medical malpractice resulted in Decedent’s untimely death.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging one cause of action for General Negligence.

The Court notes that the law always favors substance over form as a general rule in any event. (See Cal. Civ. Code § 3528 [“The law respects form less than substance.”].) Here, the attachment for the General Negligence Cause of Action, which provides the basis for the claim, shows that this is in actuality a claim for Professional Negligence (i.e., medical malpractice.)

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to the Complaint correcting name of Defendant Lauren Rauchi, M.D., to Loren Rauch, M.D.

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint correcting the fictitious name of Doe 1 to Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates.

On October 21, 2022, Defendants Moneer Eddin, M.D., and Pramod Kadambi, M.D., filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On October 24, 2022, Defendant Munif Rahal, M.D., was placed in default.

On December 5, 2022, Defendant Loren C. Rauch, M.D., filed her Answer to the Complaint.

On December 5, 2022, Defendant Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On July 17, 2023, Moving Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgement.

The Court notes that, though the Memorandum of Points and Authorities mentions “summary adjudication,” the Court will not consider such arguments as the notice states clearly that this is a motion for summary judgment, only. (See Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1545-1546 [“It is elemental that a notice of motion must state in writing the 'grounds upon which it will be made.' [Citations.] Only the grounds specified in the notice of motion may be considered by the trial court. [Citations.] This rule has been held to be especially true in the case of motions for summary adjudication of issues. [Citation.] ¶] The language in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (f) makes it clear that a motion for summary adjudication cannot be considered by the court unless the party bringing the motion duly gives notice that summary adjudication is being sought. [Citations.] 'If a party desires adjudication of particular issues or subissues, that party must make its intentions clear in the motion…’ [Citation.] There is a sound reason for this rule: ‘… the opposing party may have decided to raise only one triable issue of fact in order to defeat the motion, without intending to concede the other issues. It would be unfair to grant a summary adjudication order unless the opposing party was on notice that an issue-by-issue adjudication might be ordered if summary judgment was denied.' [Citation.]’ ”]; See also Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 744 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 (b).)

On July 17, 2023, Defendants Nicole Wojtal, M.D., Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates, and Loren C. Rauch, M.D., filed their Ex Parte Application for an order specially setting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement. The Ex Parte Application was granted and the hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment was moved to August 15, 2023.

On July 31, 2023, the Court conducted a non-appearance case review, moving the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment from August 15, 2023 to August 22, 2023.

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiffs dismissed AVMC, only.

No Opposition has been filed to the Motion for Summary Judgment. “An opposition to the motion shall be served and filed not less than 14 days preceding the noticed or continued date of hearing, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(2).) The hearing for this matter is set for August 22, 2023. Accordingly, Oppositions were due by August 8, 2023. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

-----

Analysis

Standard for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication – The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.) 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “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.) 

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) 

-----

Discussion

Application – Defendants Nicole Wojtal, M.D., Antelope Valley Emergency Medical Associates, and Loren C. Rauch, M.D., seek summary judgment of the sole cause of action in this Complaint: Professional Negligence (i.e., Medical Malpractice).  

A. Medical Malpractice

The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: “(1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.) In a medical malpractice case, "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, 984-985.)

Here, Moving Defendants presents the declaration of Fredrick Abrahamian, D.O. (“Dr. Abrahamian”), who is Board Certified in emergency medicine. (See Dr. Abrahamian Declaration ¶ 1.) Dr. Abrahamian has substantial experience in and familiarity with the standards of practice for the evaluation of patients such as Decedent in California in 2021. (See id. at ¶ 5.) According to Dr. Abrahamian, Moving Defendants acted at all times within the applicable standard of care with respect to Decedent. (See id. at ¶ 10.) Both Ds. Rauch and Dr. Wojtal evaluated the Decedent appropriately by reviewing previous notes and ordering the adequate tests during his visit to AVMC. (See id. at ¶ 11.) The Dr. Rauch and Dr. Wojtal reasonably relied on Dr. Eddin’s assessment of Decedent and his determination regarding appropriateness for discharge from the emergency department. (See ibid..) Dr. Abrahamian states that medical notes indicated the preliminary cause of death was cardiorespiratory failure due to cardiac arrest and acute myocardial infarction. (See id. at ¶ 7-n.)

Moving Defendant establishes through the declaration of Dr. Abrahamian that there was neither a breach of duty nor legal causation in this case. Absent any contradictory affidavits, the opinion of Dr. Abrahamian must be taken as true, thus leaving no triable issues of fact. (Starr v. Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal. App. 3d 988, 999.) The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate the duty of care felt below the standard of care.

Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition.

Accordingly, there is no triable issue of material facts with respect to breach of duty and causation, Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment on this claim.

-----

Conclusion