Motion for Summary Judgment

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 14, 2018

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 08:20:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Vincent O'Neill COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 08/05/2019 DEPT: 41 CLERK: Julie Christie REPORTER/ERM: None CASE NO: 56-2018-00508073-CU-MM-VTA CASE TITLE: Rumsey vs Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Medical Malpractice EVENT TYPE: Motion for Summary Judgment RE Defendant the Regents of the University of California MOVING PARTY: The Regents of the University of California CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment of the Regents of the University of California, 05/17/2019 STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Brooke W. Haber, Counsel, present for defendants The Regents of the University of California Stolo At 9:04 a.m., court convenes in this matter with all parties present as previously indicated. Counsel have received and read the court's written tentative ruling. Matter submitted to the Court without argument. The Court finds/orders: The Court's tentative is adopted as the Court's ruling. Ruling on Defendant The Regents of the University of California's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Eugene Rumsey's Complaint: The court finds, for the purposes of this motion only, that Defendant The Regents of the University of California's ("the Regents") Material Facts Nos. 1-30 are supported by the cited-to evidence and established. The court grants the Regents' request for summary judgment on Plaintiff Eugene Rumsey's sole cause of action for medical negligence. There Is No Triable Issue of Fact as to Whether the Regents Complied With the Applicable Standard of Care The elements of a claim for medical malpractice (i.e., professional negligence) are: "'"(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of its 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." [Citation.]'" (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606.) In a case for medical negligence, a determination of compliance with the standard of care requires specialized knowledge and normally must be proved by VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/05/2019 Page 1 DEPT: 41 CASE TITLE: Rumsey vs Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center CASE NO: 56-2018-00508073-CU-MM-VTA the testimony of medical experts. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410; Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hosp. Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001.) Here, the initial burden is on the Regents as the moving party to demonstrate by means of competent, admissible medical expert testimony that treatment of Plaintiff Rumsey fell within the applicable standard of care. (See Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2).) The Regents satisfy their initial burden by setting forth Material Fact No. 24 in their Moving Separate Statement and citing to Dr. Jeffrey Shapiro's expert declaration indicating that the Regents' employees complied with the relevant standard of care in their care and treatment of Plaintiff. Because the Regents satisfy their initial burden of submitting expert testimony indicating that they complied with the applicable standard of care, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to submit expert testimony sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the Regents breached the standard of care. (See Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2).) In the absence of any opposition to the present motion, Plaintiff fails to satisfy his shifted burden. Accordingly, the Regents are entitled to summary judgment based on the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they breached the applicable standard of care. There Is No Triable Issue of Fact as to Whether the Regents' Acts or Omissions Caused or Contributed to Plaintiff's Injuries The Regents contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on the ground that no act or omission of their employees caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. Medical causation must be established "to a reasonable medical probability," and must normally be established through expert testimony. (See Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403.) Here, the Regents satisfy their initial burden as moving party on the element of medical causation by setting forth Material Fact No. 24 in their Moving Separate Statement and citing to the declaration of Dr. Shapiro for the proposition that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no negligent act or omission by the Regents' employees caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. Because the Regents satisfy their initial burden as to medical causation, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to whether the Regents caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. In the absence of any opposition, Plaintiff fails to satisfy his shifted burden. Accordingly, the Regents are also entitled to summary judgment based on the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries. Order and Judgment signed and returned to counsel for filing. Notice to be given by Ms. Haber. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/05/2019 Page 2 DEPT: 41