This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/07/2018 at 18:17:07 (UTC).

Lillian Hanevichit vs. Chan's Property, LLC

Case Summary

On 03/11/2014 Lillian Hanevichit filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against Chan's Property, LLC. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Culver Kapetan, Kristi, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y, Snauffer, Mark and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0725

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Culver Kapetan, Kristi

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y

Snauffer, Mark

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Hanevichit, Lillian

Defendants

Chan's Property, LLC

Chan, Wing

Chan, Yu

Cross Plaintiffs

Tomlin, Jason A., Medical Doctor

Wolfe, Mary M., Medical Doctor

Yous, Kosal

Groom, P.A.-C, Tammi E.

Chinnock, Brian F., Medical Doctor

Cross Defendant

Chan's Property LLC

Guardian Ad Litem

Yous, Sokom

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem Attorney

Netzer, Jonathan G.

Netzer & Malmo 720 E Bullard #101

Fresno, CA 93710

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorney

Beebe, John W.

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

Salinas, Richard S

Yous, Kosal

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Hanevichit, Lillian; Awarded Against:; Chan's Property LLC; Status: Granted; Status Date: 08/23/2016; Status Comment: see attached Judgment After Trial

List filed

List filed; Comment: Witness List

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Day 3

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Day 2

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Corrected:

Exhibit List Filed

Exhibit List Filed; Comment: Exhibit List Filed

Trial brief filed

Trial Brief; Comment: Trial Brief

Ex parte Filed

Civil Document; Comment: to continue Trial and Mandatory Settlement conference Dates or in the Alternativae, for order shortening Time for Motion to Continue Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference Dates: Points and Authorities in Support; Declaration of John W Beebe

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Substitution of True Names for Fictitious Names

Judgment

Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Groom, P.A.-C, Tammi E.; Tomlin, Jason A., Medical Doctor; Chinnock, Brian F., Medical Doctor; Wolfe, Mary M., Medical Doctor; Comment: Without Prejudice

Statement filed

Statement filed; Comment: Jury Statement

Exhibit List Filed

List filed

Opposition filed

Opposition to Limine 7; Comment: Opposition to Limine 7

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: Court Reporter, Teresa A. Maciel

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Order filed

Order filed; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: Order on Request for Pretrial Discovery Conference e-filed 04/21/2016

Answer Filed

Civil Document

Proof of Service

Proof of Service

55 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • 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: Hanevichit, Lillian

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Hanevichit, Lillian; Awarded Against:; Chan's Property LLC; Status: Granted; Status Date: 08/23/2016; Status Comment: see attached Judgment After Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: Groom, P.A.-C, Tammi E.; Tomlin, Jason A., Medical Doctor; Chinnock, Brian F., Medical Doctor; Wolfe, Mary M., Medical Doctor; Comment: Without Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice Filed- Receipt and Acknowledgment; Comment: Receipt and Acknowledgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Order filed- Order filed; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: deposit money into blocked account as to Lillian Hanevichit

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Petition Comp Minor's Claim

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2016
  • Petition - Comp Minor's Claim- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Result: Heard; Comment: Richard Salinas

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor- Petition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal Not Entered- Dismissal Not Entered; Comment: Request for dismissal filed. Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reason: Cross Complaint was not filed by Wing and Yu Chan.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Satisfaction of Judgment in Full filed- Ack. Satisfaction of Judgment.pdf

    Read MoreRead Less
146 More Docket Entries
  • 08/28/2015
  • Financial info for Chan, Wing: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2015-00019755 One Legal $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2015
  • Financial info for Chan, Wing: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Chan, Wing: Counter Payment Receipt # 192550 Chan, Wing $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial info for Chan, Wing: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2014
  • Financial: Chan, Wing; Total Financial Assessment $270.00; Total Payments and Credits $270.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2014
  • Financial info for Hanevichit, Lillian: Counter Payment Receipt # 193052 Hanevichit, Lillian $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2014
  • Financial info for Hanevichit, Lillian: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial info for Hanevichit, Lillian: Counter Payment Receipt # 187943 Hanevichit, Lillian $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial info for Hanevichit, Lillian: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial: Hanevichit, Lillian; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Richard S. Salinas #154959

Carol A. O’Neil #71282

WEISS MARTIN SALINAS & HEARST

A Professional Corporation

7108 North Fresno Street, Suite 250 Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559) 438-2080

Facsimile: (559) 438-8363

: J \\_,/

SILED APR 15 66 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

! DEPUTY

Attorneys for Cross-Defendants MARY M. WOLFE, M.D. [ROE 1]; TAMMI E. GROOM, PA- C [ROE 2]; JASON A. TOMLIN, M.D. [ROE 3]; and BRIAN F. CHINNOCK, M.D. [ROE 4]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

LILLIAN HANEVICHIT, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SOKOM YOUS,

Plaintiff,

CHAN’S PROPERTY LLC, and DOES 1 TO 20, |

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.

e’ s e’ et et e i’ e’ et e’

Case No.: 14CECG00725 JYH

CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARY M. WOLFE, M.D., TAMMI E. GROOM, PA- C, JASON A. TOMLIN, M.D., AND BRIAN F. CHINNOCK, M.D.’S

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE

. ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION OF THE CROSS- COMPLAINT OF ERRONEOUSLY NAMED CROSS-DEFENDANT CHAN’S

PROPERTY, LLC, PROPERLY KNOWN

AS CROSS-DEFENDANTS WING CHAN AND YU CHAN

DATE: July 7, 2016 TIME: 3:30 p.m. DEPT: 403

Action filed: March 11, 2014 Trial date: August 8, 2016

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENTOFTHECASE . . ... ............... e 5 II. PLAINTIFF’S PERTINENT MEDICAL COURSE ........... e, 8 III. ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT . . ........... ... .. ... 12 IV. LAWAND ARGUMENT . ................. I 12

A. Summary Judgment Of A Cross-Complaint In Cross-Defendants’ Favor Is Properly Granted Where No Triable Issue Exists As To Any Material Fact, And The Cross- Defendants Are Entitled to Judgment As A MatterOf Law. . . . ............... 12

B. The Declarations Of Dr. Inaba, Dr. Bright and Dr. Chinnock Provide The Requisite Expert Testimony To Support Cross-Defendants’ Joint Motion As To The Third Cause of Action Of The Chans’ Cross-Complaint. ... ............ ... ... 14

C. The Chans’ First And Second Causes of Action Are Without Merit If The Chan’s Third Cause of Action Is Summarily Adjudication In Favor Of The Moving Cross-

Defendants. . ........ ...ttt 18

D. The Chans’ Fourth Cause Of Action Is Improper As A Matter Of Law And Should

Be Summarily Decided In Favor Of The Cross-Defendants. . . . ............... 18

V. CONCLUSION ...ttt it e ettt ittt et ... 19 2

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

AT . ‘ ,/r\

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Alisal Sanitary Dist. v. Kennedy (1960) 180 Cal.APP.2d 69, 75 ....ooveeiieeeieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesenn, 18 California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 16231624 ... 19 Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4® 992, 1001................. 14 Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1153, 11761177 .................... 18 Fritz v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1936) 18 Cal.App.2d 232,235 .....ooovvevveceeerererenn 5,18 Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cai.App.Zd 69, T3, e rereree e e eaeeeaans 18 Luders v. Pummer (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 276, 279-280.......oeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeeeeresseesessensenns 13 Munro v. The Regents ’of the University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 985............. 14 Statutes Code Civ. ProC. §437C(0)(2) cueeureereeeieeeieiiteieteiceeceteeeteetesst et s eessteesse st eeetessaeeseaeseeseseessesssesssessens 13 Code of Ci\}. ProC. § 437C.(D)(2)uieoeiieeieee ettt ettt e e rerreeeeee 13 Code of Civ. Procedure §437c.....ccoeeeeuueeennne.... e Haaeereereresnaneattaceasssnnaesrassrunseraseses 12 Code of Civil Procedure, section 437¢.(£)(1)..eccvvicerceviniiiierereeennee. eresrnereesseresanteeesateessatennnne 13 Code of Civil Procedure, SECtON 437C.(E)(2)u.vvrviveeireeeeeeeereeeeeeeeeeseressessasssesesessssssssssssesssasessssens 13 Other Authorities Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Inst. (2016) CACINO. 3800 ......ceeeeeeeereeesieeeeeeennnn, 18

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Inst. (2015) CACI Nos. 400, 401, 430, 500, 501 .. 13, 14

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

Cross-Defendants MARY M. WOLFE, M.D., TAMMI E. GROOM, PA-C, JASON A. TOMLIN, M.D., and BRIAN F. CHINNOCK, M.D. (collectively "Cross-Defendants") jointly submit the following joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of their joint motion for éummary judgment or in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the Cross Complaint of Wing Chan and Yu Chan (hereinafter “the Chans”), who were incorrectly and erroneously named as Defendant Chan’s Property, LLC, in Plaintiff LILLIAN HANEVICHIT (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SOKUM YOUS’, March 11, 2014 complaint for personal injury with two causes of action for general negligence and for premises liability. On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff, age two, fell from a second-story window in her aunt, Kosal Yous’ leased apartment in an apartment complex owned and operated by the Chans. Plaintiff sued the Chans for general negligence and premises liability. The Chans filed a cross-complaint against Cross- Defendants (four health care providers) who provided medical care and treatment to Plaintiff at Community’ Regional Medical Center-Fresno (“CRMC-Fresno™) from the time of Plaintiff’s arrival by ambulance at the Emergency Department (“ED”) of CRMC-Fresno’s Trauma Unit on May 7, 2008 to the time of her transfer to Children’s Hospital Central California (“CHCC”) on May 12, 2008. [Cross-Defendants’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUMF”) No. 6.]

In this motion, each of the Cross-Defendants jointly moves for summary adjudication as to first, second, third and fourth causes df action in the cross-complaint, which will entirely adjudicate all of the issues raised in the cross-complaint against the moving Cross-Defendants. The fifth cause of action for breach of lease is not brought against any of the moving Cross- Defendants, and is not addressed in this motion. The causes of action that are addressed in Cross-Defendants’ motion are for (1) implied equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) negligence and (4) declaratory relief.

Cross-Defendants’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUMF”) and their Joint Statement of Evidence (“SOE”), filed and served herewith, demonstrate that the Chans’ third cause of action against Cross-Defendants for medical negligence is without merit because it

is undisputed that none of the health care provider Cross-Defendants breached any duty of care

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

owed to Plaintiff. The Chans’ second and third causes of action against Cross-Defendants for implied equitable indemnity and for contribution are dependent on the viability on their negligence cause of action. (California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”*) No. 3800 (2016.) If the negligence cause of action is summarily decided in Cross-Defendants’ favor, the causes of action for implied equitable indemnity and contribution must also be summarily decided in favor of Dr. Wolfe, P.A. Groom, Dr. Tomlin and Dr. Chinnock because to prevail on their first cause of action for implied equitable indemnity and their second cause of action for contribution, the Chans must prove that Cross-Defendants were negligent. (Ibid.) As to the Chans’ fourth cause of action for declaratory relief, this cause of action is without merit as é matter of law because “where the pleaded facts show that a cause of action has already accrued, and the only question for determination is the liability or relief for which the respective parties are charged, the action is not for declaratory relief, but is defined by the subject matter of the accrued cause of action.” (Fritz v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1936) 18 Cal.App.2d 232, 235.) Consequently, the Chans’ fourth cause of action must also be summarily decided in favor of Dr. Wolfe, P.A. Groom, Dr. Tomlin and Dr. Chinnock because the only question for determination is the liability of the Cross-Defendants, if ahy, and this cause of action accrued in the time frame12, 2008. Consequently, it is not a suitable subject for declaratory relief. L.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE -

On May 8, 2014, the Chans filed their cross-complaint with this Court. [SUMF No. 1.] On August 3, 2015, the Chans filed a Substitution of True Names for Fictitious Names that identified the moving Cross-Defendants as Dr. Wolfe (Roe 1), P.A. Groom (Roe 2), Dr. Tomlin (Roe 3) and Dr. Chinnock (Roe 4.) [SUMF No. 2.] On July 23, 2015, Cross-Defendants timely filed their answer to the Chans’ cross-complaint, denying each and every allegation in the Chans’ cross-complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. [SUMF No. 3.] /1 /1 /1

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

In support of their joint motion, Cross-Defendants submit the expert witness Declaration of board certified trauma/critical care surgeon, Kenji Inaba, M.D. (“Dr. Inaba.”) (Cross¥ Defendants’ Joint Statement of Evidence (“SOE”), Tab 1, Attachment One and Exhibit (“Ex.”) A, thereto.!) Based on his education, training and professional experience, coupled with his review and analysis of Plaintiff’s pertinent medical documents, Dr. Inaba is qualified to render expert opinions as to whether Dr. Wolfe, P.A. Groom and Dr. Tomlin each met the applicable standard of care in providing medical services to Plaintiff at CRMC-Fresno. [SUMF No. 4.] Dr. Inaba opifies that Cross-Defendants Dr. Wolfe, P.A. Groom and Dr. Tomlin met the applicable standard of care at all times in providing care and treatment to Plaintiff. [SUMF Nos. 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28.]

Cross-Defendants also submit the expert witness Declaration of board certified emergency physician, Aaron A. Bright, M.D. (“Df. Bright”), and Ex. A thereto. (Cross- Defendants’ SOE, Tab 1, Attachment Two.)‘ Based on his'education, training and professional experience, coupled with his review and analysis of Plaintiff’s pertinent medical documents, Dr. Bright is qualified to render expert opinions as to whether emergency physician, Dr. Chinnock, met the applicable standard of care in providing medical services to Plaintiff at CRMC-Fresno. [SUMF No. 5.] Dr. Bright opines that Cross-Defendant, Dr. Chinnock, met the applicable standard of care at all times in providing care and treatment to Plaintiff. [SUMF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28.]

Based on his education, training and professional experience, coupled with his actual involvement in Plaintiff’s care, Dr. Chinnock is qualified to render both factual testimony and expert opinion testimony in this case. Dr. Chinnock has rendered the opinion that he met the standard of care at all times in his emergency care and treatment of Plaintiff. [SUMF Nos. 6, 8,

16, 17,22, 27 and 28.] Given the opinion testimony of Dr. Inaba, Dr. Bright and Dr. Chihnock, |

in their respective Declarations (SOE, Tab 1, Attachment One; Tab 1, Attachment Two and Tab

1 Attachment Three, unless the Chans submit expert opinion testimony to the contrary, Cross-

1 Ex. A to Dr. Inaba’s Declaration is a copy of Dr. Inaba’s Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) which in its totality consists of 111 pages. For brevity, only the first 29 pages of Dr. Inaba’s CV are attached as Ex. A. Should the court or opposing counsel require Dr. Inaba’s CV in its entirety, the additional 82 pages will be provided upon request to Cross-Defendants’ counsel.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor as a matter of law. In the event that this Court ldoes not grant summary judgment as to the Chans’ entire cross-complaint in favor bf all the moving Cross-Defendants, then the Cross-Defendants move in the alternative, for summary adjudication as to the first, second, third and fourth causes of action in the Chans’ croés-complaint as to each individual Cross-Defendant.

As to Dr. Wolfe, P.A. Groom and Dr. Tomlin the facts are undisputed that these health care providers breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiff as to the insertion of Plaintiff’s endotracheal-_tube on May 7, 2008, as to Plaintiff’s extubation on May 10, 2008 or as to Plaintiff’s re-intubation on May 11, 2008 at CRMC-Fresno. [SUMF Nos. Nos. 21, 22, and 24.] Dr. Chinnock did not participate in Plaintiff’s extubation on May 10, 2008, nor did Dr. Chinnock participate in Plaintiff’s reintubation on May 11, 2008. [SUMF Nos. 21 and 22.] Dr. Bright has | rendered the opinion that there is no way to determine if Plaintiff’s subglottic stenosis was caused by the 5.0 endotracheal tube inserted by Dr. Chinnock or by the 4.5 endotracheal tube inserted by a physician other than any of the Cross-Defendants. [SUMF No. 15.] The subglottic sfenosis that the Plain.tiff sustained is a recognized risk of any intubation and can and does occur in the absence of negligence or any preventable action. [SUMF No. 15.] Post-intubation complications are known to occur, but there would have been no appropriate way to avoid intubation in this case, and, indeed, it rnay have saved Plaintiff’s young life. [SUMF No. 15.]

It is well known that complicationé such as those experienced by Plaintiff are recognized risks of tracheal intubation. Such known risks include, but are not limited to, oropharyngeal, laryngeal and tracheal edema, subglottic stenosis and scarring in the subglottic area. In my opinion, the benefits of establishing a maintainable airway in trauma care in order to obtain adequate oxygenation outweigh the known risks of endotracheal intubation, which is a life- saving procedure in emergency medicine. [SUMF No. 16.]

The factual and medical bases for Dr. Bright’s and Dr. Inaba’s opinions are set forth in detail in their Declarations. (SOE Tab 1, Attachment One and Attachment Two.) The factual and medical bases for Dr. Chinnock’s opinions are set forth in his Declaration. (SOE, Tab 1,

Attachment Three.) The pertinent pages of Plaintiff’s medical records from American

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

Ambulance and CRMC-Fresno, reviewed by Dr. Bright and Dr. Inaba, along with the respective Custodian of Records Declarations are attached as Exs.Declaration of Carol A. O’Neil (“O’Neil Dec.”) at SOE Tab 3. These medical records support the pertinent niedical chronology as determined by Dr. Inaba and Dr. Bright and further support Dr. Inaba’s and Dr. Bright’s opinions in this case, which are discussed below. II.

PLAINTIFE’S PERTINENT MEDICAL COURSE

Based on their education, training and experience and on their individual reviews of Plaintiff’s relevant medical records and reports, Dr. Inaba and Dr. Bright have determined the pertinent factual chronology as it pertains to Plaintiff’s medical course at CRMC-Fresno and Cross-Defendants’ provision of medical care and treatment to Plaintiff to be as follows (Bright Dec. at § 12, subparagraphs (a)-(lrn), inclusive; Inaba Dec. at § 11, subparagraphs (a)-(m), inclusive): |

(a) On May 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m., Central California Emergency Medical Services Agency received a 911 call and immediately dispatched American Ambulance to an épartment complex owned and operated by the Chans. It was report to EMS personnel that Plaintiff had from a second story window in her aunt’s apartment in the Chans’ apartment building. At the time of her fall, Plaintiff, age 2, was reportedly under the child care of her aunt and her grandmother. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. D, American Ambulance Records at Bates Nos. 53 through 55.)

(b) American Ambulance was on-scene at 9:26 a.m. Plaintiff was non-responsive upon EMS’ arrival. She was assessed at approximately 9:28 a.m. Plaintiff was “extremely difficult to arouse.” She was noted to move her upper and lower extremities. She had an abrasion on her left forehead. Plaintiff’s lung sounds were equal and clear. EMS providers documented her initial Glascow Coma Score (“GCS”) as a 3. Plaintiff’s jaw was clenched, and the attending paramedic was unable to secure a basic life support airway. At 9:33 a.m., Plaintiff was transported STAT in c-spine protection to CRMC-Fresno’s Trauma Center. CRMC’s

| Trauma Service was activated prior to Plaintiff’s arrival. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. D,

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

American Ambulance Records at Bates Nos. 53, 54 and 55 and SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec, Ex. E, CRMC-Records at Bates Nos. 64 through 69.)

(c) At 9:39 a.m., Plaintiff arrived at CRMC. An IV was placed at 9:40 a.m. Plaintiff was assessed by emergency physician, Dr. Chinnock, at 9:45 a.m. At that time, Plaintiff was crying and opening her eyes and moving all four extremities. Her GCS was assessed as a 10. She was breathing spontaneously.' She had normal pulses throughout. Her chest, abdomen and pelvis demonstrated no obvious deformities or injury. There was no external bleeding. At 9:50 a.m., a chest x-ray was taken at the order of Dr. Chinnock, which revealed no acute injuries. Blood was present in the Plaintiff’s left middle ear. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E, CRMC- Records at Bates Nos. 56 through 63.)

(d) At 10:10 a.m., Plaintiff was transported to the CT scanner for a head CT scan. While at the CT scanner, Plaintiff vomited, which raised a concern for aspiration of vomitus into her lungs. Consequently, Plaintiff was returned to Dr. Chinnock in the emergency department, where, at approximately 10:37 a.m., Dr. Chinnock intubated Plaintiff on the first attempt without complications. To facilitate the i’ntubatioAn, Dr. Chinnock administered a muscle relaxant (succinylcholine) and a sedative (Versed) prior to the procedure. Dr. Chinnock intubated Plaintiff with a 5-0 French cuffless endotracheal tube. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E, CRMC- Records at Bates Nos. 56 through 58.)

(e) Plaintiff underwent a CT head scan without contrast that revealed a moderate to large right lateral subdural hematoma with active bleeding present and associated sulcal effacement and midline shift towards the left of approximately 1.1 cm. A CT of Plaintiff’s spine | was negative for fractures, and CT scans with contrast of Plaintiff’s abdomen and pelvis were negativé for any solid organ injuries. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E, CRMC-Records at Bates Nos. 76 and 77.)

() Plaintiff’s chart confirms that Dr. Wolfe, Dr. Tomlin and P.A. Groom were all present during the entire resuscitation process. PA Groom drafted the History and Physical Report. Dr. Wolfe drafted a Trauma Stabilization Report in which she stated that the plan was

for neurosurgery to take Plaintiff to the operating room for an emergent craniotomy. After the

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR

— T T

mother’s arms, and thereafter was noted to be “resting.” On Mdy 10, 2008, critical care physician, William J. Dominic, M.D., of CRMC’s Trauma ICU Service examined Plaintiff. Dr. Dominic noted that Plaintiff had been extubated that morning gnd was “doing reasonably well.” Blood cultures, drawn on May 8, 2008, indicated the presence of the bacteria Moraxella. Dr. Dominic stopped Plaintiff’s vancomycin and continued Plaintiff on the antibiotic Cefepime to target the Moraxella. Dr. Dominic noted that Plaintiff’s Dilantin level would be checked. Plaintiff was to be monitored for signs of respiratory distress. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E, CRMC-Records at Bates Nos. 185, 300 and 365)

| ) On May 11, 2008, critical care physician, Cathleen Ligman, M.D.., evaluated Plaintiff. Dr. Ligman noted that Plaintiff had developed Moraxella ventilator-associated pneumonia. Plaintiff’s GCS was normal at 15, and she was breathing on her own. On May 11, 2008, CRMC-Fresno’s Neurosurgery Service signed off on Plaintiff’s case. At that time, Plaintiff was neurologically stable. She was conversant, and her motor and sensory skills were intact. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E,-CRMC-Records at Bates No. 188.)

(k) Later in the evening of May 11, 2008, Plaintiff developéd a croup-like cough with stridor and became tachycardic and tachypenic. A Code Blue was called at 6:30 p.m. on May 11, 2008. Dr. Wolfe, Dr. Tomlin, Dr. Chinnock and PA Groom were not involved in the resuscitation. An emergency physician other than Dr. Chinnock responded to the Code Blue and intubated Plaintiff with an endotracheal tube. Following Plaintiff’s reintubation, Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Tomlin monitored the position of Plaintiff’s endotracheal tube through the use of radiographs. The radiographs showed persistent partial atelectasis of the right upper lqbe, but otherwise, Plaintiff’s lungs were clear. (SOE, Tab 3, O’Neil Dec. Ex. E, CRMC-Records at Bates Nos. 44 and 166.)

(D On May 12, 2008, John F. Bilello, M.D., of CRMC’s Trauma/Surgery Service and Chief of Pediatric Trauma at CRMC-Fresno examined Plaintiff. Dr. Bilello reported that Plaintiff had been extubated, but had to be reintubéted due to severe stridor that did not fespond to racemic epinephrine. Dr. Bilello commented that Plaintiff had breath sounds with some

squeaks down at the right lower lobe. Dr. Bilello noted that if Plaintiff’s white count did not

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR