DAVID WHITE ET AL VS PROVIDENCE ST JOHNS HEALTH CENTER ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700830    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 2

White, et al. v. Providence St. John's Health Center, et al.

The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Providence Health System -Southern California dba Providence Saint John’s Health Center (erroneously sued herein as Providence Saint John’s Health Center) (“Providence”) filed on 5/16/2019 is GRANTED. Defendant has established that it is entitled to judgment in its favor based on the undisputed material facts asserted. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2)

In April 2017, Plaintiff David White underwent surgery for cervical disc issues. The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured as a result of medical negligence during that procedure. Among the defendants is Providence, the health care facility where Mr. White had the surgery. Providence moves for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed evidence establishes that the treatment provided by Providence and its employees complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission by Providence employees caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injury. Providence also argues that none of physicians or surgeons providing care to Mr. White were employed by providence

To make out a claim for medical negligence, 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.'” Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–607.

The required standard of care owed by a medical professional is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. Hanson at 606–607. The element of causation must also be proven with expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

Here, Providence presents evidence sufficient to meet its initial burden that Providence’s agents and employees acted within the applicable standard of care during the surgery. Providence presents the declaration of Kyung Jun, R.N. who is qualified to testify as an expert in this matter as to whether Providence’s nursing and non-physician staff met the relevant standard of care. Ms. Jun has reviewed the relevant medical records and other relevant documents, and based on that review, Ms. Jun opines that the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff by Providence’s staff complied with the prevailing standard of care at all times.

Ms. Jun’s declaration is sufficient to shift the burden to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and has not presented any controverting evidence. Thus, there is no basis for liability against Providence based on the acts of its staff.

Nor can Providence be held liable for any acts or omissions by any physician or surgeon who cared for Mr. White, since the physicians were not agents or employees of the hospital and Mr. White had reason to know that they were not agents or employees. Mr. White signed Providence’s Conditions of Admission that expressly disclosed that all physicians, physician assistants and surgeons furnishing service to the patient are independent contractors and are not agents or employees of the hospital. Given that there is no controverting evidence, that evidence is sufficient to establish that Providence is not liable for any acts or omissions of such doctors under an ostensible agency theory. Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1448; Markow v. Rosner (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 1027.

Providence is thus entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff David White.

Plaintiff Lynn White is Mr. White’s spouse who has asserted a loss of consortium claim. Since her claim is derivative of Mr. White’s, the Court also grants summary judgment in favor of Providence on that claim as well.

The Court thus GRANTS the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant Providence and against Plaintiffs David and Lynn White.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC700830    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 2

White v. Providence St. Johns Health Center et al.

Application by Defendant, John Regan, M.D. for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to Release Defendants, John Regan, M.D. and Spine Group Beverly Hills, Inc. filed on 10/18/19, is GRANTED.

Where the motion is not contested, a “barebones” motion and declaration setting forth the background of the case and grounds for good faith is sufficient to grant the motion. The burden of showing bad faith falls on the opposing party. No opposition has been filed. City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262. The Court grants the application.

Motion by Defendant, John J. Regan, M.D. to Seal Settlement Agreements Entered into with Plaintiffs filed on 10/18/19 is also GRANTED. 

The court finds that (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” Cal Rules of Court 2.550(d).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC700830    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 2

White, et al. v. Providence St. John's Health Center, et al.

The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Marcia Weintraub, M.D., filed on 7/24/2019 is GRANTED. Plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact that preclude entry of summary judgment.

In April 2017, Plaintiff David White underwent surgery for cervical disc issues. The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured as a result of medical negligence during that procedure. Among the defendants is Marcia Weintraub, M.D., who was the anesthesiologist during the procedure. Dr. Weintraub moves for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed evidence establishes that her treatment complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission by her caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injury.

To make out a claim for medical negligence, 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.'” Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–607.

The required standard of care owed by a medical professional is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. Hanson at 606–607. The element of causation must also be proven with expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

Here, Dr. Weintraub presents evidence sufficient to meet her initial burden that she acted within the applicable standard of care during the surgery. She presents the declaration of William J. Mazzei, M.D., an anesthesiologist who is qualified to testify as an expert in this matter. Dr. Mazzei has reviewed the relevant medical records, Dr. Weintraub’s deposition, and other relevant documents, and based on that review, Dr. Mazzei opines that the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff by Dr. Weintraub complied with the prevailing standard of care at all times. 

Dr. Mazzei’s declaration is sufficient to shift the burden to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and has not presented any controverting evidence. Dr. Weintraub is thus entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff David White.

Plaintiff Lynn White is Mr. White’s spouse who has asserted a loss of consortium claim. Since her claim is derivative of Mr. White’s, the Court also grants summary judgment in favor of Dr. Weintraub on that claim.

The Court thus GRANTS the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant Marcia Weintraub, M.D. and against Plaintiffs David and Lynn White.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.