ELIZABETH ELLIOTT, ET AL. VS CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, ET AL.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving and non-opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Elliott and Thomas Elliott (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Health System, Cedars-Sinai Health System dba Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital, Jesse Sanchez, N.P., Betty Ahn, M.D., Patricia Wong, M.D., Silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc. (“Defendant SBMC”), and Casper T. Glenn, M.D. (“Defendant Glenn”).  Plaintiffs allege medical malpractice in the complaint arising from deficient medical treatment that caused the death of Plaintiffs’ son, Decedent Zachary Elliott (“Decedent”).

On May 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint to rename Doe 21 as Defendant Envision Physical Services, LLC.

On May 19, 2020, Defendants SBMC and Glenn filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

On May 20, 2020, the Court scheduled Defendants SBMC’s and Glenn’s motion for summary judgment to be heard on November 12, 2020.

Trial is set for February 3, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendants SBMC and Glenn ask the Court to enter summary judgment against Plaintiff and in Defendants SBMC’s and Glenn’s favor.  Defendants SBMC and Glenn submit an expert’s declaration that opines Defendants SBMC and Glenn complied with the relevant standards of care and did not cause Decedent’s harm.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The elements of medical malpractice are: “(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.” (Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 696, 701-702 [citations omitted].)  “Both the standard of care and defendants’ breach must normally be established by expert testimony in a medical malpractice case.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467.)

Thus, in a medical malpractice case, “[w]hen 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 [citations omitted].)  An expert declaration, if uncontradicted, is conclusive proof as to the prevailing standard of care and the propriety of the particular conduct of the health care provider. (Starr v. Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 999.)

Defendants SBMC and Glenn submit the declaration of Roy S. Antelyes, M.D., a board-certified emergency physician.  Dr. Antelyes submitted his qualifications.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, CV Exh.)  Dr. Antelyes reviewed Decedent’s medical records from Defendant SBMC, including a chest x-ray taken on March 14, 2018; Decedent’s records from Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital; and Decedent’s death certificate.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Dr. Antelyes recited the relevant medical facts and, subsequently, opined as to the following.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 4-13.)

Defendants SBMC and Glenn complied with their relevant standards of care.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 5.)  Decedent described the reasons for his visit at Defendant SBMC’s facility on March 14, 2018 as chest and throat pain, which were appropriately assessed and vital signs were documented.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 4(a), 6.)  Defendant Glenn documented Decedent’s history of sharp anterior neck pain radiating to the anterior aspect of Decedent’s chest for three days, but not at the time of presentation.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 6)  Decedent’s additional history included mild cough and aches, which had improved.  (Ibid.)  Defendant Glenn performed an appropriate physical exam because there was nothing about the presentation that would have required Defendant Glenn to evaluate Decedent further.  (Ibid.)

The results of a strep test, EKG, and chest x-ray were available on the same day as Decedent’s visit.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 7.)  The strep test was negative.  (Ibid.)  Defendant Glenn and read the EKG as normal and noted the x-ray was negative.  (Ibid.)  Dr. Antelyes concurs with Defendant Glenn that the EKG is normal, the x-ray does not show evidence that the mediastinum was widened, and there is no apparent pleural effusion present.  (Ibid.)  Ordered blood work that was available the next day did not show anything significant that required a follow-up.  (Ibid.)

A D-Dimer test is a blood test that can indicate whether blood clots are being formed within a person’s vascular system and is most often helpful in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, or other conditions in which blood clots are of concern.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 8.)  Results of an ordered D-Dimer test were available on March 19, 2018, which was three days after Decedent died.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 4(j), 8.)  The results showed Decedent had a 0.6 valve, which the lab noted was just slightly elevated.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 8.)  However, a positive D-Dimer test is not diagnostic of aortic dissection.  (Ibid.)

Defendant Glenn appropriately provided written discharge instructions to Decedent on March 14, 2018.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶ 9.)  These instructions included a follow-up in one day with Defendant SBMC and to seek immediate emergency care if severe or sustained pain occurs.  (Ibid.)  Decedent presented to the emergency department of Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital on the evening of March 14, 2018 and was discharged on March 15, 2018.  (Ibid.)  Defendant SBMC followed-up with Decedent on March 15, 2018 and Decedent reported having been diagnosed with a herniated disc.  (Ibid.)  This evidence shows Defendants SBMC and Glenn complied with their standards of care and did not cause or contribute to Decedent’s death.  (Antelyes Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.)

The Court finds Defendants SBMC and Glenn have satisfied their burdens.  The evidence shows Defendants SBMC and Glenn had appropriately treated and discharged Decedent on March 14, 2018.  The only documentation of Decedent’s irregularities was provided to Defendants SBMC and Glenn after Decedent died.  The burden shifts to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs do not submit an opposition or opposing expert declaration.  Accordingly, summary judgment is properly granted in Defendants SBMC’s and Glenn’s favor and against Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendants SBMC and Glenn are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendants SBMC and Glenn are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: *******7200    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 28

Case Number: 19STCV07817    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 28

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

---

Latest cases where SILICON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER INC. is a litigant

MIKHAIL GOLDMAN VS ORION WEST GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Contract | 20BBCV00797 | 2020-11-09

---

KOTTLER & KOTTLER, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ADVANCED HEALTH CENTER OF INGLEWOOD, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Other | 20STCV12007 | 2020-03-25

---

ERIC SMUCKLER VS PLAYA ADVANCE SURGICAL INSTITUTE, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 19STCV07713 | 2019-03-06

Latest cases where ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES LLC is a litigant

Envision Healthcare Corp., et al Plaintiff vs. United HealthCare Insurance Co., et al Defendant

Broward County Circuit Courts | Contract | CACE22006403 | 2022-05-02

---

STEIN v. ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES et al

U.S. District Courts | Civil Right | 5:22-CV-01168 | 2022-03-28

---

Ketteline Fleurizard, et al Plaintiff vs. Envision Healthcare Corporation, et al Defendant

Broward County Circuit Courts | Personal Injury | CACE22003884 | 2022-03-15

Latest cases where CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS is a litigant

LAUREN BLACK VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Labor | 21STCV40105 | 2021-11-01

---

SIMONE TONDREAU VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 21STCV38059 | 2021-10-15

---

Farshid John Fakourfar v. Cedars-Sinai Health System et al

U.S. District Courts | Finance | 2:21-CV-07237 | 2021-09-09

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MAXWELL KELSEY

DAWN RICHMOND VS MITSUBISHI ELECTRICUS HOLDINGS

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 20STCV40669 | 2020-10-23

---

VIOLET VENEGAS VS JYJ ENTERPRISE, INC.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 20STCV25121 | 2020-07-02

---

BRANDON SONNIER, ET AL. VS CLAY DONAHUE FONTENOT ENTERPRISES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Los Angeles County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 20STCV15896 | 2020-04-27