This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:00:26 (UTC).

BECKY LEVEQUE ET AL VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL

Case Summary

On 08/25/2017 BECKY LEVEQUE filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3885

  • Filing Date:

    08/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

LEVEQUE TIMOTHY

LEVEQUE CHRISTOPHER

LEVEQUE BECKY

LEVEQUE MICHAEL

Defendants and Respondents

BACK NICHOLAS N. M.D.

CSJ PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER

KURAISHI MANZAR S. M.D.

BURBANK EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP INC.

BUENA VISTA ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP

RAFIDI FAUD FARAH M.D.

TEITELBAUM GEORGE P. M.D.

LIEBMAN WAYNE P. M.D.

SINGHAL ANU M.D.

NASSOURA ZAHI ELIAS M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BUNCH BRUCE M. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

CARROLL RICHARD DOUGLAS

OZERAN DAVID J.

REBACK ROBERT C

SCHAFER TERRENCE J.

WEND CHRISTOPHER P

LAW YUK

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service

2/26/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Declaration

3/7/2019: Declaration

Declaration

3/14/2019: Declaration

Answer

3/25/2019: Answer

Case Management Statement

3/25/2019: Case Management Statement

Answer

4/10/2019: Answer

Unknown

4/10/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

4/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Order

5/15/2019: Order

Declaration

6/7/2019: Declaration

Notice

6/12/2019: Notice

Answer

6/12/2019: Answer

Motion to Compel Discovery

6/17/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

6/17/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

6/17/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

6/17/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

6/17/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

SUMMONS

8/25/2017: SUMMONS

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • Answer (to First Amended Complaint); Filed by George P. Teitelbaum, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Amended); Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER Erroneously Sued As CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 02/28/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Becky Leveque (Plaintiff); Christopher Leveque (Plaintiff); Michael Leveque (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Becky Leveque (Plaintiff); Christopher Leveque (Plaintiff); Michael Leveque (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Becky Leveque (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Becky Leveque (Plaintiff); Christopher Leveque (Plaintiff); Michael Leveque (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Becky Leveque (Plaintiff); Christopher Leveque (Plaintiff); Michael Leveque (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL DEATH)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC673885    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BECKY LEVEQUE, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CSJ PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC673885

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 9, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Becky, Christopher, Timothy, and Michael Leveque  filed this action against Defendants, CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, et al. for medical malpractice.  Plaintiffs allege Defendants were negligent in connection with the care and treatment of Decedent, David Leveque. 

2. Motion for Summary Judgment

a. Moving Argument

At this time, Dr. George P. Teitelbaum, M.D. moves for summary judgment, contending he complied with the standard of care at all times, and nothing he did caused or contributed to Decedent’s death.  Defendant supports his motion with the expert declaration of William Mack, M.D.  Dr. Mack sets forth his expert credentials, states what records he reviewed, detail Defendant’s care and treatment of Decedent, and ultimately conclude that Defendant’s care and treatment of Decedent complied with the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to Decedent’s death.

b. Standard of Care

The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts.  Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.  Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony.  Id.  If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded.  Id. 

A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he chooses one medically acceptable method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice.  CACI 506.  Likewise, a medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances.  CACI 505.

Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons.  See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844. “‘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.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

c. Causation

In order to establish that defendant's negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury or death, the plaintiff must prove the negligence was of itself sufficient to bring about that harm.  “The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony.  Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.  [Citations.]  That there is a distinction between a reasonable medical ‘probability’ and a medical 'possibility' needs little discussion.  There can be many possible ‘causes,’ indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action.  This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; citing Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 403.

d. Moving Burden

The Expert Declaration of Dr. Mack is sufficient to meet Defendant’s moving burden to establish he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard. 

e. Opposing Burden

Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 12/26/19.  The Court has not received any opposition to the motion.  On the contrary, on 12/30/19, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.  Plaintiffs therefore necessarily failed to meet the shifted burden, and the motion is granted.

f. Notice

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.