Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV09950, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09950    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-31-22 c/f 7-12-22

Case #20STCV09950

Trial Date: 8-8-23

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Thomas Kurian, M.D., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/ Plaintiffs, Colleen and David McDonald

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Colleen McDonald presented to Henry Mayo Hospital on December 14, 2018 with bilateral leg weakness. While the treating physician ordered a MRI of the lumbar and brain were ordered, Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently failed to order the MRI to also include the thoracic and cervical spine as well. After worsening symptoms, a second MRI was performed, where a 1.8 centimeter hemorrhaging caveroma at T6 was diagnosed. Plaintiff underwent emergency surgery. Plaintiff remains a paraplegic.

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Colleen and David McDonald filed a complaint for professional negligence (medical malpractice), and loss of consortium. The action was transferred from Department 29 (Personal Injury courtroom) to Department 49 on March 25, 2022.

RULING: Granted.

Defendants Thomas Kurian, M.D. and Los Angeles Neurosciences, Inc. moves for summary judgment on the medical malpractice and loss of consortium claim. Dr. Kurian moves on grounds that the care and treatment provided complied with the standard of care, and no act or omission of Dr. Kurian caused or contributed to the injuries of Plaintiff. Dr. Kurian submits an expert declaration from Thomas Ela, M.D., in support.

“‘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.) The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) 

The defense expert declaration of Dr. Ela sets forth expert qualifications, indicates review of Plaintiff’s medical records, details the care and treatment of Plaintiff, and concludes that the care and treatment provided by Dr. Kurian complied with the standard of care, and no act or omission by Dr. Joshi caused or contributed to the development of any injuries. The declaration of Dr. Ela sufficiently meets the moving burden on summary judgment.

Plaintiff submits no opposition or counter declaration. The court therefore finds no triable issues of material fact exist on the issue of the standard of care, and whether the care and treatment provided by Dr. Kurian caused or contributed to the injuries of Plaintiff. The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted as to Dr. Kurian.

As for Los Angeles Neurosciences, Inc. moves for summary judgment on grounds of a lack of a basis of liability against the corporate defendant for the actions of Dr. Kurian. A corporate entity cannot practice medicine. (Conrad v. Medical Bd. of California (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1042.) To the extent Plaintiff lacks evidence of liability against Dr. Kurian, Plaintiff also fails to establish a claim for liability against the corporate entity. (Lathrop v. HealthCare Partners Medical Group (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.) The court therefore grants summary judgment as to Los Angeles Neurosciences, Inc.

Finally, the loss of consortium derivatively fails with the lack of a valid negligence cause of action. (Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 408.)

The unopposed motion for summary judgment is therefore granted as to Thomas Kurian, M.D., and Los Angeles Neurosciences, Inc.

Moving Defendants to give notice to all parties.