Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV26696, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV26696    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

On July 31, 2019, plaintiffs Lance Lobdell (“Plaintiff”) and Debra Lobdell (“Lobdell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action for damages for medical negligence and loss of consortium.  In addition to moving defendant Kalpesh Patel, M.D. (“Defendant”), Plaintiffs named: (1) Regal Medical Group, Inc., (2) Lakeside Community Healthcare, (3) Northridge Hospital Medical Center, (4) Michael R. Shapiro, M.D., (5) Michael R. Shapiro, M.D., Inc., (6) Ryan McBirney, PA. (7) Mary Ann H. Trephan, M.D., (8) Hrair Darakjian, M.D., (9) Mission Community Hospital, (10) N’deya Kama, M.D., (11) Ali Ozhand, M.D., (12) Emily Alexiadis, NP, and (13) Aaron M. Shelub, M.D (collectively, with Defendant, “Defendants”). 

On May 20, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the care provided to Plaintiff at all times complied within the applicable standard of care and, (2) no causation can be established.  On July 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition stating that they will not oppose Defendant’s motion in exchange for a waiver of costs and any potential claim for malicious prosecution. 

II.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2018, Mr. Lobdell fell from a 6- foot ladder and was immediately transported to the Emergency Department at Northridge Hospital Medical Center (“Northridge Hospital”).  (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.)  While at Northridge Hospital, Plaintiff was examined by Ryan McBirney, PA (“PA McBirney”), who noted tenderness, 2.5 cm laceration, controlled bleeding and decreased range of motion in the affected areas.  (UMF No. 2.)  Plaintiff underwent radiological imaging examinations which revealed right open comminuted distal intra-articular humerus fracture and a glass-long arm splint was applied by Northridge Hospital’s Emergency Department nursing staff.  (UMF No. 3.)  Dr. Hrair Darakjian, M.D. (“Dr. Darakjian”), the on-call orthopedic specialist at Northridge Hospital, was contacted, but did not examine the Plaintiff since his treatment would not have been covered under Plaintiff’s healthcare insurance plan by Regal Medical Group.  (UMF No. 4.)  Dr. Darakjian indicated that Plaintiff was stable to be transferred to another facility.  (UMF No. 5.)

Following Dr. Darakjian's indication that Plaintiff was stable to be transferred to another facility, Defendant was contacted by the Emergency Department and Defendant’s assessment of Plaintiff’s condition was that he was hemodynamically stable for a transfer.  (UMF No. 6.)  Defendant further noted that Northridge Hospital was "out of network" for Plaintiff’s insurance, and that the Regal/Lakeside case manager would work on transferring Plaintiff to Mission Community Hospital.  (UMF No. 7.)  Defendant indicated to Case Manager Nenia Teodosio that there was no orthopedist available at Northridge Hospital who covered Regal patients (i.e. who was contracted with Regal to provide care for their patients).  (UMF No. 8.)  Due to the absence of any orthopedists at Northridge Hospital, Plaintiff required transfer in order to be provided the necessary orthopedic care and to have that care covered by Regal.  (UMF No. 9.) 

Emergency Physician, Dr. Mary Ann H. Trephan, M.D. (“Dr. Trephan”), supervising PA McBirney, ordered a CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to rule out any other injuries due to Plaintiff’s fall and the imaging results were negative for evidence of traumatic injury.  (UMF No. 10.)  Dr. Trephan subsequently concurred with Dr. Darakjian’s opinion that Plaintiff was stable for transfer from an orthopedic standpoint.  (UMF No. 11.) 

Defendant made two phone calls at 2:39 pm and 3:22 pm to Northridge Hospital to follow up on the anticipated transfer.  (UMF No. 14.)  Defendant was informed that as of 3:22 pm Plaintiff was accepted for transfer by Dr. Kama at Mission Community Hospital.  (UMF No. 15.)  Dr. Michael Shapiro, M.D., an orthopedic specialist at Mission Community Hospital, would further treat Plaintiff for his orthopedic injuries.  The last interaction between Defendant and Plaitiff took place sometime around 5:34 pm on the day of Plaintiff's admission at Northridge Hospital.  (UMF No. 20.) 

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a 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.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence.  (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.)  The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.”  (Ibid.)  The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

IV.     DISCUSSION

In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(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.  [citations.]”  (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.) 

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.”  (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.)  “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.3d 977, 984-985.)

Here, Defendant submits the expert declaration of James Leo, M.D. (“Dr. Leo”), who is a board-certified Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine Specialist.  (Separate Volume of Documentary Evidence, Ex. A (“Leo Decl.”) at ¶ 2.)  Dr. Leo currently serves as Chief Medical Officer for the MemorialCare Healthy System and he is also the System Physician-in-Charge for COVID-19 Pandemic Response for MemorialCare; he additionally has his own practice in internal medicine.  (Ibid.)  Based on his review of Plaintiff’s medical records from Northridge Medical Center, as well as his education, training, knowledge, and familiarity with the standard of care for internal medicine specialists in the Southern California medical community in 2018, Dr. Leo opines that the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff by Defendant was at all times within the standard of care for practicing Internal Medicine Specialists in Southern California in 2018.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Dr. Leo states that given Defendant’s areas of specialty, nephrology and internal medicine, he would not be responsible for determining the specific treatment of Plaintiff’s orthopedic injuries or the appropriateness of transferring the patient for needed orthopedic care.  (Leo Decl., ¶ 7c.)  Dr. Leo notes that Defendant’s sole management role would have consisted of arranging transfer to a facility covered by Plaintiff’s health insurance plan.  (Id., ¶ 7a.)  Plaintiff had already been declared suitable for transfer by Drs. Darakjian and Trephan, and Defendant reasonably relied on their opinions and clinical judgment in deeming the patient hemodynamically stable for transfer to another healthcare facility from an internal medicine standpoint.  (Id., ¶¶ 7b-7c.) 

Plaintiff did not submit a competing expert declaration showing that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Defendant’s conduct complied with the applicable standard of care.  Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for medical malpractice and Lobdell’s loss of consortium claims. 

VI.    CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

          Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.