On 03/01/2018 ESTHER FELDMAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against SURGERY CENTER OF THE PACIFIC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
SANTA MONICA ORTHOPEDIC & SPORTS MEDICINE
SURGERY CENTER OF THE PACIFIC
O'NEILL GEOFFERY A. M.D.
DOES 1 TO 50
BAYSIDE ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP
ROSENZWEIG SCOTT L. M.D.
CONTOS JOHN R. ESQ.
CONTOS JOHN R.
SCHMID & VOILES
DOYLE SCHAFER MCMAHON LLP
QUILLIGAN BRUCE JAMES
TAGGART DEBORAH S.
MARTINEZ SYDNEY JUSTINE
5/27/2020: Request for Refund / Order
6/17/2020: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER FOR BINDING ARBITRATION AND STAY OF ACTION
7/30/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: BINDING ARBITRATION) OF 07/30/2020
7/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: BINDING ARBITRATION)
1/29/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTINUE TRIAL
1/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)
11/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT GEOFFREY A. O'NEILL, M.D.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG...)
9/26/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)
6/27/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO
5/17/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NTC OF LODGING
5/17/2019: Separate Statement
8/9/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMLAINT BY DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. 0'NEILL, M.D.
8/9/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
8/9/2018: DECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. O'NEILL, M.D.
8/9/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. O'NEILL, M.D.
3/1/2018: SUMMONS -
Hearing01/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Binding ArbitrationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:58 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Binding Arbitration)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Binding Arbitration) of 07/30/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation For Binding Arbitration and Stay of Action; and [Proposed] Order Thereon); Filed by SANTA MONICA SURGICAL PARTNERS, LLC dba SURGERY CENTER OF THE PACIFIC Erroneously Sued As Surgery Center Of The Pacific (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation - No Order (for Binding Arbitration and Stay of Action); Filed by SANTA MONICA SURGICAL PARTNERS, LLC dba SURGERY CENTER OF THE PACIFIC Erroneously Sued As Surgery Center Of The Pacific (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by SANTA MONICA SURGICAL PARTNERS, LLC dba SURGERY CENTER OF THE PACIFIC Erroneously Sued As Surgery Center Of The Pacific (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Geoffery A. M.D. O'Neill (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Geoffery A. M.D. O'Neill (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by Geoffery A. M.D. O'Neill (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. O'NEILL, M.D.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMLAINT BY DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. 0'NEILL, M.D.Read MoreRead Less
DocketDECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, GEOFFERY A. O'NEILL, M.D.Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Esther Feldman (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC696289 Hearing Date: November 08, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers were filed.
On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff Esther Feldman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Surgery Center of the Pacific, Scott L. Rosenzweig, M.D., Geoffery A. O’Neill, M.D., Bayside Anesthesia Medical group, Santa Monica Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Group, and Sovereign Healthcare (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges medical malpractice for deficient treatment provided on December 15, 2016.
On May 17, 2019, Defendant Geoffrey A. O’Neill, M.D. filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Trial is set for February 18, 2020.
Defendant Geoffrey A. O’Neill, M.D. (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to enter summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiff based on Moving Defendant’s expert declaration opining that Moving Defendant did not breach a duty of care or cause Plaintiff’s injuries.
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 v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 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).)
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.)
Moving Defendant has submitted the declaration of anesthesiologist Todd Newman, M.D. in support of Moving Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dr. Newman provided his qualifications. (Newman Decl., ¶ 2.) Dr. Newman then stated he reviewed Plaintiff’s medical chart from Surgery Center of the Pacific and Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. (Newman Decl., ¶ 4.) Dr. Newman next listed the relevant medical facts. (Newman Decl., ¶¶ 5.a.-5.g.)
Dr. Newman opined that Moving Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.a..) In doing so, Dr. Newman opined on several discrete points listed below.
The surgical prep, including the use of Chloraprep, was done by the nurses in the operating room. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.a.) The anesthesiologist would not be responsible for the application of the Chloroprep on a patient. (Ibid.) Moving Defendant confirmed with Plaintiff prior to the operation that Plaintiff had not taken anything by mouth and that Plaintiff wished to proceed with the explained anesthesia procedure. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.b.) The standard of care calls for the attention of the anesthesiologist to be directed to monitoring the vital signs of the patient and insuring that the anesthesia equipment is functioning properly during the procedure. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.d.) The anesthesia records clearly indicate Moving Defendant complied with this standard of care. (Ibid.) There was a bulky sterile dressing applied to Plaintiff’s left shoulder, which would obstruct the view of Plaintiff’s left shoulder when Moving Defendant saw Plaintiff in the Post Anesthesia Recovery Unit. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.e.) The Discharge Report did not include any notation of blistering of the skin in the area of Plaintiff’s left shoulder. (Newman Decl., ¶ 6.f.)
The Court finds Moving Defendant’s expert declaration is sufficient to satisfy Moving Defendant’s burden of proof. The burden shifts to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion or submit a sufficiently contradictory expert declaration. Accordingly, the motion is properly granted.
The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.