Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV07493, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 23STCV07493    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   May 31, 2024                                     

CASE NAME:           Stevens v. Adventist Health White Memorial

CASE NO.:                23STCV07493

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Dr. Kim Warner; Dr. Christine Sayegh

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None (Plaintiff Anthony Stevens)

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Warner and Sayegh’s Motions for Summary Judgement are GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Stevens, a minor, by and through his Guardian as Litem Brittany Ford, filed a medical negligence action against Defendants Adventist Health White Memorial (“White Memorial”), Erine Guzman, MD (“Guzman”), Kim Warner, MD (“Warner”), and Christine Evette Sayegh, D.O. (“Sayegh”) (collectively “Defendants”.)

Defendant Guzman filed her Answer to the Complaint on May 15, 2023. Warner and White Memorial separately filed their Answer on May 24, 2023.

On May 1, 2024, Defendants Warner and Sayegh filed the instant motions for summary judgment. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 742- 743.) Thus, “the initial burden is always on the moving party to make prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519 (citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) When a defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence that either one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions, or ‘ultimate’ facts” and the courts must construe the evidence in support of the opposing party, resolving any doubts in favor of the opposing party. (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639; Scalf, 128 Cal.App.4th at 1519; Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162.) Summary judgment must be granted “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.)

ANALYSIS:

Defendants Warner and Sayegh move for summary judgment on the grounds that Minor Plaintiff’s claim for medical negligence fails to raise a triable issue of fact that the care and treatment rendered to Brittany Ford failed to meet the applicable standard of care. The Court notes that since both Moving defendants provide essentially the same argument and evidence in support of the motion, the Court reviews the motions together.

“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.” (Chakalis v. Elevator Solutions, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1571.)

Defendants provide a separate statement which states that on or about April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against multiple healthcare providers, alleging negligent medical care and treatment of Brittany Ford during labor, delivery, and post-natal care by failing to administer antibiotics before and after the plaintiff's birth. (Declaration of Heidi L. Kjar, Esq.; Exh. A.) Ford was presented to White Memorial Medical Center on October 18, 2022, at 1:55 a.m. (Declaration of Dr. Nageotte ¶ 4(a); Kjar Decl. Exh. B.) It was noted that Ford was a cystic fibrosis carrier and declined CVS and amniocentesis. (Nageotte ¶ 4(c); Kjar Decl. Exh. B.) Ford additionally had anemia of pregnancy and two prior vaginal deliveries in 2009 and 2021. Id. Defendants provide evidence of the various steps taken during Ford’s Labor and delivery, including the lab test and studies issued for Ms. Ford. (Nageotte Decl. ¶¶ 4(d)-(g); Kjar Decl. Exh B.) at 2:18 am Plaintiff was born, with a delivery team that included Dr. Warrner as the attending physician. Per Dr. Nageotte’s declaration, the medical care and treatment provided to Ms. Ford by Dr. Warner and the residents she was supervising on October 18, 2022, at White Memorial Medical Center was appropriate and complied with the standard of care specifying that Ms. Ford was timely and appropriately evaluated and that the delivery was performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care. Dr. Nageotte explains that when a mother is Group B Strep positive and time allows, the first dose of antibiotics should be given over the course of an hour or so. (Nageotte Decl. ¶ 6.) To reduce the risk of infection in a newborn, there should be at least a 2-hour gap between the initial antibiotic administration and delivery. (Id.) In the case of Ms. Ford, she arrived at WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER fully dilated and 100% effaced. Id. She delivered shortly after her vaginal exam, without enough time for the antibiotics to be given in a therapeutic manner. (Id.) As a result, the standard of care did not require Dr. Warner or the residents under her supervision to administer antibiotics to Ms. Ford, after Plaintiff’s birth. (Id. ¶ 7.) Dr. Nageotte additionally states that the decision to administer antibiotics to Plaintiff was not within Dr. Warner’s scope of responsibilities or any member of the obstetrical delivery team; rather, it was the decision of the assigned pediatrician. (Id. ¶ 8.) Moreover, based on Dr. Nageotte’s expert opinion, Dr. Sayegh’s involvement in the care and treatment of Ms. Ford on October 19, 2022, complied with the standard of care because she was a resident physician in training with limited involvement sole to post-partum assessment and determination regarding discharge of Ms. Ford which complied with all post-partum milestones related to pain diet and ablation. (Id. ¶¶ 9-11.)

The Court finds that Defendants have met their evidentiary burdens because they provide expert medical simony that shows their conduct in treating both Plaintiff and Ms. Ford complied with the applicable standard of care. Plaintiff does not provide any opposition or any evidence showing that there remains a factual dispute. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants Warner and Sayegh Motions for Summary Judgment.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Defendants Warner and Sayegh’s Motions for Summary Judgement are GRANTED.

Moving parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2024                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court