On 12/23/2013 Cristobal Arteaga filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against Fresno Community/COMPLEX. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Hamilton, Jeffrey Y, Snauffer, Mark, Simpson, Alan and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
*******3906
12/23/2013
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Fresno County Superior Courts
Bf Sisk Courthouse
Fresno, California
Hamilton, Jeffrey Y
Snauffer, Mark
Simpson, Alan
Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.
Arteaga, Cristobal
Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga
Perez, Silvino
Fresno Community Regional Medical Center
Chaundhry MD, Pervaiz A
Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group
Srivatsa, Sanjay, Medical Doctor
Chaudhry Medical, Inc.
Chaundhry, Pervaiz A, Medical Doctor
Community Regional Medical Center and Community Medical Centers
Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group Inc sued as Doe 6
Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor
Community Hospitals of Central California
Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center
Chaudhry, Pervaiz A, Medical Doctor
MITCHELL, JEFFREY S
473 Jackson St 3Rd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111
GOODMAN, JAMES M
Burns, Frances
White, William M.
McTeer, Devon R.
Opposition; Comment: Plantiff's Opposition to Motion ti Reduce Noneconomic Damages Pursuant to Micra and Application Set Off
Statement filed; Comment: Jury Statement
Appendix of Exhibits; Comment: Plantiffs' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Plantiffs' Motions in Limine & Related Bench Briefs Exhibits 27-36
Motion Exhibits 1-3; Comment: Motion Exhibits 1-3
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: court reporter, Suzanne McKennon
Motion - To Disquaify Shernoff Firm JMG Dec.pdf; Comment: of James M. Goodman, Esq. In Support of Pervaiz A. Chaudhry, M.D., Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group and Chaudhry Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion to Disqualify Shernoff Firm
Objection; Comment: Objection
Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing
Declaration Filed
Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group Inc sued as Doe 6
Brief; Comment: PLAINTIFFS' SUBORNING PERJURY BENCH BRIEF
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT PERV AIZ CHAUDHRY, M.D. AND V; Comment: PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT PERV AIZ CHAUDHRY, M.D. AND VALLEY CARDIAC SURGERY MEDICAL GROUP'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. 9 AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET N0.5
Proposed Order; Comment: Order Re Pltfs' Mtn for Reconsideration Regarding Ruling on Information from Fresno Heart and Surgical Hospital signed and issued. FF to clerks office 09/25/2017. Proposed Order
Objection Part 3 of 4; Comment: Objection Part 3 of 4
perezStip Protective Order re Ostrofe.pdf; Comment: Forwarde to Dept 402 Stipulation for Protective Order Re Records and Testimony of Nora Ostrofe; [Proposed] Order Forwarded to 4th Floor Clerk's office for further processing.
Separate Statement re CRMC's Motion to Compel; Comment: Separate Statement re CRMC's Motion to Compel
Civil Document; Comment: Plaintiffs' separate statement of items in dispute re motion to compel defendant Community Regional Medical Center to respond to request for production,, set no. 20
Civil Document; Comment: to motion to strike of Sanjay Srivatsa, M.D. re the third amended complaint
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Community Hospitals of Central California; Arteaga, Cristobal; Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga; Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center; Chaudhry, Pervaiz A, Medical Doctor; Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group; Perez, Silvino; Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Srivatsa, Sanjay, Medical Doctor; Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group Inc sued as Doe 6; Chaudhry Medical, Inc.; Comment: With Prejudice
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center; Comment: With Prejudice
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Chaudhry, Pervaiz A, Medical Doctor; Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group; Chaudhry Medical, Inc.; Comment: With Prejudice
Disposition: Judgment- Order to Compromise Claim (not entire action); Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Order to Compromise Claim (not entire action); Party Name: Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga
Disposition: Judgment- Order to Compromise Claim (not entire action); Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Order to Compromise Claim (not entire action); Party Name: Perez, Silvino
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Comment: (Complaint as to the Aiding and Abetting cause of action against Defendants Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group and Chaudhry Medical, Inc only)
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group Inc sued as Doe 6
Disposition: Judgment- Summary Judgment Entered; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Summary Judgment Entered; Party Names: Arteaga, Cristobal; Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga; Perez, Silvino; Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Awarded Against:; Arteaga, Cristobal; Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga; Perez, Silvino; Mitchell, Jeffrey S; Amount; Costs: $30,888.69; Total: $30888.69
Disposition: Judgment- Summary Judgment Entered; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Summary Judgment Entered; Party Names: Arteaga, Cristobal; Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga; Perez, Silvino; Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Bhatt, Ashwin, Medical Doctor; Awarded Against:; Arteaga, Cristobal; Alvarez, Maria A Arteaga; Perez, Silvino; Mitchell, Jeffrey S
Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Srivatsa, Sanjay, Medical Doctor; Comment: With Prejudice.
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Transaction Assessment $20.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Counter Payment Receipt # 195560 Arteaga, Cristobal $150.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Transaction Assessment $150.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Counter Payment Receipt # 192970 Arteaga, Cristobal $60.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Transaction Assessment $60.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Counter Payment Receipt # 189131 Arteaga, Cristobal $150.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Transaction Assessment $150.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Counter Payment Receipt # 185392 Arteaga, Cristobal $435.00
Financial info for Arteaga, Cristobal: Transaction Assessment $435.00
Financial: Arteaga, Cristobal; Total Financial Assessment $5,489.81; Total Payments and Credits $5,489.81
oS Jeffrey S. Mitchell, Esq. SBN: 188751 ” fl: E D‘ Rebecca Byrmne, Esq SBN: 139893
2001 Union Street, Suite 397 DEC 29 20
San Francisco, CA 94123 FRESNO SU ' Tel. (415) 692-7540/Fax: (415) 276-9099 PERIOR COURT
Anthony S. Petru, Esq. SBN: 91399 HILDEBRAND, McLEOD & NELSON, LLP 350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4" Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-2006
Tel.: (510) 451-6732/Fax: (510)465-7023
Steven A. Heimberg, Esq. SBN: 127413
Marsha E. Barr-Fernandez, Esq. SBN: 200896
James West, Esq. SBN: 282076 19CECG03508 HEIMBERG BARR LLP Opposition flled
e 1500 Los Angeles, Cahfomla 90017
Tel.: (213) 213-1500/Fax: (213)213-1520
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARIA A. ARTEAGA ALVAREZ, ) CASE NO.: 13CECG03906 individually, and SILVINO PEREZ, by [Assigned to the Hon. Jeff Hamilton] and through his Guardian ad Litem,
Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT BY Vs. ASHWIN BHATT, M.D. AND
MEDICAL CENTER; PERVAIZ Z. ) o CHAUDHRY,M.D.; VALLEY % DATE: January 12, 2016 CARDIAC SURGERY MEDICAL TIME: 3:30 p.m. GROUP; and DOES ONE through ) DEPT: 402 TWENTY-FIVE, Inclusive, % Defendants. )
TO THE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs MARIA A. ARTEAGA ALVAREZ, individually, and SILVINO PEREZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, CRISTOBAL ARTEAGA, hereby oppose Defendants Ashwin Bhatt, M.D. and
DATED: December 29, 2015
INTRODUCTION ..ovvooeeeeeesesseemmssmssssssssssnsessesesas e enessrre 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW ooooooeovevooeesseseeesssssesesssessseessssssesessssssssssssssssssesssssssssssessssens 4
SUFFICIENT CERTAINTY oiiicreiicreereneeniniieisieerininesisesssstesssnsssnnsmnensannassssssssenssesassas 5
COM P L AINT ..o everesitesesteessseessssaersesesresesesssanssesaassassasssesasstesbssasabssasaa s et e sesatsasasnssnnns 6
A ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, AMENDMENTS ARE WARRANTED, PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THEM EARLILER.
PROPERLY EMPLOYED THE DOE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
SHOULD THE COURT SUSTAIN DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER, PLAINTIFFS
REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND....cocccc.0vcercreeeceennees e, 3
CONCLUSION........... et e 9
NN[\)‘I\JMI\)[\)I\)[\J)—*)—JHHHHD—*:HHH oo\IO\M-b-UJN»—‘O\Ooo\IO\u\-P-UJl\J)—O
Adams v. Paul (1995) 11 Cal.dth 583.....ciiiiiiii e 6 Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962 ......ccovvviirerivecviriuennnes e 8 Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596.........cocevvimerinininninnnnnn 8 Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599 e eereeeerreenreaaaenesaesaanenses 5 Cossman v. Daimler Ch;'ysler Corp., et al. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 370.....cccnimmiioricrriricninnnne. 4 Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723..........Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 298 ...coeuvniiniinnsinininininnsnnisensenen: 5 Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal. App.4th D12 eeeeeeeeeeeiieeeaeeeeeaeeesenassecearesssbasaaens 5 Ludgate v Lockeed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592 4,5 McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal. App.4th 937.....ovinenvinniininnnnen. " evnenenes veienndd Mendoza v. Rast Produce Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal. App.4th 1395.......cooiiiiniiiiiiininnnns oo Pena v. Sita World Travel, Inc. (1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 642.......... e e . 41 Pérkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117-Cal. App3d L......covvnnnss e e, e 4 Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal APP.3d 1024...vvoevvsvrssesscnssnssnrssnsne 9 Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp., (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135.....ccccevenine. ceerreeesaeearenaennns 4
Code of Civil Procedure §T:19........ovvviniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii e 6 Code of Civil Procedure Ty g R RCAEREELLLLLS 7,8
California Rules of Court, RUIE 2.112. .. ueuinieeiiniiiiieie et 5 Fresno Cbunty LL0CAl RULE 2.7, 2 e ettt ettt e e e etsan e sanaaa et eaastsnaeesansaa et csanes 7
5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading §1121 .o, 8
- iv -
MNNMMNNMMHH~H~H.H'H,—.H_= O WV 0NN A WD = O
L. FACTUAL INTRODUCTION
This suit arises out of an aortic valve repair and replacement surgery attempted on Plaintiff Silvino Perez at Defendant Community Regional Medical Center on April 2, 2012, leading to permanent brain damage and other catastrophic injuries. Defendant Pervaiz Chaudhry, M.D. was designated as the cardiothoracic surgeon for the surgery. Defendant Aswhin Bhatt, M.D. was the anesthesiologist during the surgery and was acting as an agent or employee of his medical group, Defendant Community Anesthesia Providers, during the surgery.
After filing their Complaint against Dr. Chaudhry and hospital defendants, Plaintiffs became aware during Dr. Chaudhry’s deposition that moving Defendants needed to be named as Defendants. Dr. Chaudhry testified, in essence, that he depended
on Dr. Bhatt to give him information about blood clotting tests and factors that indicate a
| propen51ty for the patient to bleed abnormally, which may lead to the patlent S
detenoratlon This is relevant because Dr. Chaudhry contends that abnormal bleeding factors may have contributed to Mr. Perez s decline and subsequent injuries. If one assumes Dr. Chaudhry’s position is true (which Plaintiffs do not), Dr. Bhatt is implicated for not providing sufficient information to Dr. Chaudhry to help prevent the deterioration. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Dr. Bhatt’s medical group, Community Anesthesia Providers, is also vicariously liable for Dr. Bhatt’s actions. This pleading 1s proper because Plaintiffs are allowed to plead inconsistent and even contradicting theories.
Following Dr. Chaudhry’s testimony, Plaintiffs sought and obtained Court Orders substituting them as Does 5 and 6. Although Plaintiffs amended their Complaint atter making these Doe substitutions, all versions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including the operative Third Amended Complaint, effectively plead theories of wrongdoing against moving Defendants with snfficient certainty. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, including
Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint states causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium that are pled with sufficient certainty against moving Defendants. In the first cause of action for negligence, Plaintiffs explicitly state that the cause of action is pled against “Defendants, and each of them” (TAC 923); that the negligent conduct mentioned pertains to “Defendants, and each of them™ (TAC 924); and that Plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from Ithe conduct of “Defendants, and each of them” (TAC {929, 30, 31, 32.) The Third Amended Complaint also indicates that the group of Defendants to which it is directed include Does One through Twenty-Five, explaining that the true names of those defendants will be substituted once they are realized through the very process Plaintiffs used to add moving Defendants as Does to this action. Plaintiffs have thus
complied with all requirements of Rule 2.112 of the California Rules of Court, and the
hearing. In order to make substantive changes to the Complaint, however, Plaintiffs had to file a motion to amend. Plaintiffs submitted to the Court their Motion for Leave to Amend to add punitive damages on July 31, 2015, but they did not receive the Order adding Defendant Dr. Bhatt as a Doe Defendant until July 30, 2015 and their Order adding Community Anesthesia Providers until even later. The Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend was not issued until October 22, 2015, and Plaintiffs were not authorized to make additional substantive changes based on the Order being limited to the issues raised in the Motion for Leave to Amend. |
Therefore, even if one assumes that the amendments moving Defendafité are requesting are required (which Plaintiffs do not concede), it was impossible for Plaintiffs to seek those amendments in their recent Motion for Leave to Amend. It was also improper for Plaintiffs make any améndments relating to moving Defendants after the Court’s Order was issued because those amendments would go beyond the Cofirt’s Order specifying what amendments were allowed.
B. The Complaint Is Not Subject to a Special Demurrer Based on the Propriety of the Doe Amendment Because Plaintiffs Properly Eniployed the Doe Amendment Process.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 474 states, “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint . . . and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly.” A plaintiff is “ignorant of the name of a defendant” not onlyignorant of the Defendant’s identity but also when he or he is ignorant of the facts giving rise to the case of action against that defendant. (McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 943.) Fresno County Local Rule 2.7.2 provides the proper procedure for Doe amendments by specifying they can be made via an ex parte application without a hearing. A plaintiff is not required to make any additional amendments or changes other