Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV33009, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33009    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-7-22

Case #20STCV33009

Trial Date: 8-22-22 c/f 2-25-22

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital

RESPONDING PARTIES: Unopposed/Plaintiffs, Robert Bischel, et al.[1]

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 4, 2019, Sarita Bischel presented to the emergency room of defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital complaining of severe chest pain. After the administration of sublingual nitroglycerin and an examination, Sarita Bischel was discharged from emergency room. Sarita subsequently suffered a heart attack, and was declared dead at the hospital on September 5, 2019.

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Negligence (first and third causes of action), and Intentional Tort (emotional distress). On October 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for Negligence. On June 10, 2021, the parties stipulated for the filing of the second amended complaint. On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed their second amended complaint for Negligence.

On October 26, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer to the second amended complaint. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint for Negligence. On March 2, 2022, the action was transferred from Department 29 to Department 49.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital (Hospital) moves for summary judgment. Hospital moves on grounds that the care and treatment provided by Hospital staff complied with the standard of care, and no act or omission of Hospital staff caused or contributed to the death of Sarita Bischel. Hospital submits an expert declaration from Janet Geier, R.N., B.S.N., 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 Nurse Geier 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 Hospital staff complied with the standard of care, and no act or omission by Hospital staff caused or contributed to the death of Sarita Bischel. Staff complied with all physician orders, monitored the patient and provided the physician with any updates regarding changes in condition. The declaration of Nurse Geier sufficiently meets the moving burden on summary judgment.

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

Two motions for summary judgment, reserved only, set for November 15 and 16, 2022.

Moving Defendant to give notice to all parties.