This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/01/2021 at 22:14:09 (UTC).

JACKIE LAW ET AL VS SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/30/2018 JACKIE LAW filed an Other lawsuit against SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, MALCOLM MACKEY, MEL RED RECANA and FREDERICK C. SHALLER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0044

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MALCOLM MACKEY

MEL RED RECANA

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

LAW JACKIE

LA KEN

LAW JACKIE (SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ESTATE

LAW JACKIE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ESTATE

Respondents and Defendants

TAG-2 MEDICAL INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER

DOES 1-100

MATHEWS CHARLES T.

POCRASS JAMES L.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

THE MATHEWS LAW GROUP

MATHEWS CHARLES THEODORE

POCRASS JAMES LOUIS

Defendant Attorneys

WASHINGTON CHRISTOPHER G.

WASHINGTON CHRISTOPHER G

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service

10/27/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

10/27/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

10/18/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS OPINION TESTIMONY BASED ON IMPROPER MATTER

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS OPINION TESTIMONY BASED ON IMPROPER MATTER

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF AND OTHER LAY PERSONS STATEMENTS REGARDING CRITICISM OF MEDICAL CARE AND/OR OPINIONS

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF AND OTHER LAY PERSONS STATEMENTS REGARDING CRITICISM OF MEDICAL CARE AND/OR OPINIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF EXPERT WITNESSES PERSON PRACTICES

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF EXPERT WITNESSES PERSON PRACTICES

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY PERTAINING TO CONVERSATIONS WITH MOUI LAMS ROOMMATE AND HEARSAY STATEMENTS GENERATED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ALICE LA REGARDING

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY PERTAINING TO CONVERSATIONS WITH MOUI LAMS ROOMMATE AND HEARSAY STATEMENTS GENERATED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ALICE LA REGARDING

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM REFERRING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES DURING VOIR DIRE

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM REFERRING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES DURING VOIR DIRE

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING JURORS AND TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS USE OF IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT AT TRIAL C

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING JURORS AND TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS USE OF IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT AT TRIAL C

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT AS TO WHETHER CONDUCT IS MALICIOUS, OPPRESSIVE OR FRAUDULENT AS DEFINED IN CAL. CIV. CODE 3294

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS EXPERT AS TO WHETHER CONDUCT IS MALICIOUS, OPPRESSIVE OR FRAUDULENT AS DEFINED IN CAL. CIV. CODE 3294

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE WITNESSES AT TRIAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE WITNESSES AT TRIAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PRECLUDE PRE-CONDITIONING JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE HYPOTHETICAL OR DOLLAR FIGURES SPECIFIC TO THE CASE

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PRECLUDE PRE-CONDITIONING JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE HYPOTHETICAL OR DOLLAR FIGURES SPECIFIC TO THE CASE

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE REFERNCE TO MICRA AND TO REGARDING ECONOMIC DAMAGES

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE REFERNCE TO MICRA AND TO REGARDING ECONOMIC DAMAGES

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL REFERENCE TO OTHER CLAIMS INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL REFERENCE TO OTHER CLAIMS INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERTS OPINION TESTIMONY BASED ON IMPROPER MATTER; DECLARATION OF JUDITH M. TISHKOFF; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

10/12/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERTS OPINION TESTIMONY BASED ON IMPROPER MATTER; DECLARATION OF JUDITH M. TISHKOFF; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUDITH M. TISHKOFF REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE

10/12/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUDITH M. TISHKOFF REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

105 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2022
  • Hearing05/09/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2022
  • Hearing04/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2022
  • Hearing04/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Settlement Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER Erroneously Sued As Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER Erroneously Sued As Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (RE DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL); Filed by SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER Erroneously Sued As Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Post-Settlement Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC dba Sunny View Care Center's Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike); Filed by Ken La (Plaintiff); Jackie Law (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Charles T. Mathews Re: Demurrer and Motion to strike); Filed by Ken La (Plaintiff); Jackie Law (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (to the Complaint; Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Declaration of Christopher G. Washington, Esq.); Filed by SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER Erroneously Sued As Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • DocketMotion re: (to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points & Authorities); Filed by SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER Erroneously Sued As Tag-2 Medical Investment Group, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2018
  • DocketDeclaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension; Filed by Sunny View Care Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • DocketNOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ken La (Plaintiff); Jackie Law (Plaintiff); Law, Jackie (Special Administrator Estate (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC720044 Hearing Date: October 18, 2021 Dept: 55

LAW\r\nv. SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER BC720044

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: 10/18/21,\r\n Dept. 55

\r\n\r\n

#9: MOTION TO\r\nBIFURCATE TRIAL PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE §§ 3294, 3295(d) AND CODE OF CIVIL\r\nPROCEDURE §1048(b).

\r\n\r\n

Notice: Okay

\r\n\r\n

No\r\nOpposition

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP:\r\n Defendant DEFENDANT TAG-2 MEDICAL\r\nINVESTMENT GROUP, LLC dba SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER

\r\n\r\n

RP:\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Summary

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 8/30/18, plaintiffs JACKIE LAW, individually and as\r\nSpecial Administrator for the ESTATE OF MOUI LAM, and KEN LA, filed a Complaint\r\nalleging: Mrs. Lam “was found barely conscious and in\r\npain on the floor of the Defendant’s patient care facility, suffering from\r\nblunt head trauma,” due to defendant’s negligent acts. Complaint, 4:18-19. Another patient heard Mrs. Lam fall, and\r\nrepeatedly called for Sunny View staff for 15 minutes, before anyone responded.\r\n“[T]hat staff member failed to immediately call 911, family members, or the\r\nstaff doctor, despite Mrs. Lam’s obvious head trauma and physical pain.”\r\nComplaint, 4:27-28. Instead, Sunny View staff lifted Mrs. Lam into her bed, and\r\npretended nothing had happened, as Mrs. Lam was suffering in pain, and deprived\r\nof oxygen, because a Sunny View staff member forgot to connect her oxygen tube\r\nto the oxygen respirator that Mrs. Lam was dependent upon.

\r\n\r\n

The causes of action are:

\r\n\r\n

1. VIOLATION OF PATIENT’S\r\nRIGHTS

\r\n\r\n

2. NEGLIGENCE

\r\n\r\n

3. ELDER ABUSE

\r\n\r\n

4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION\r\nOF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

\r\n\r\n

5. WRONGFUL DEATH.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP\r\nPositions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party requests the Court to bifurcate trial, such\r\nthat the issue of punitive damages is tried following the trial of liability\r\nand compensatory damages, and allowed only after a finding of malice,\r\noppression or fraud, and ratification, on grounds including the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. The mandatory right to bifurcate\r\nany right to recover punitive damages to be tried

\r\n\r\n

first pursuant to Civil Code §§3294,\r\n3295(d).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. The power of the Court to order\r\nseverance of the punitive damages aspect pursuant

\r\n\r\n

to Civil Code §1048(b).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

3. The legislative intent behind\r\nenactment of California Code of Civil Procedure

\r\n\r\n

section 598 which serves the salutary\r\npurpose of avoiding the waste of the Court's resources in both time and money;\r\nand prevents possible prejudice to any defendant where a jury might look past\r\nliability to compensate the plaintiff through sympathy for his or her damages.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Motion, p. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The unopposed motion is granted.

\r\n\r\n

Civil\r\nCode Section 3295 states in pertinent part, the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(d)\r\nThe court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of\r\nevidence of that defendant's profits or financial condition until after the\r\ntrier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds\r\nthat a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with\r\nSection 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible\r\nonly as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and\r\nto be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial\r\ncondition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the\r\nplaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or\r\nfraud.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Civ.\r\nCode. §3295(d).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As\r\nto punitive damages issues, defendants may request exclusion of evidence as to\r\ntheir financial condition, until after any actual damages are awarded, and they\r\nare found guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal. App.\r\n4th 62, 90.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

"b"

Case Number: BC720044 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 55

LAW\r\nv. SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER BC720044

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: 8/3/21,\r\n Dept. 55

\r\n\r\n

#9: MOTION FOR\r\nSUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

\r\n\r\n

Notice: Okay

\r\n\r\n

Opposition

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP:\r\n Defendant DEFENDANT TAG-2 MEDICAL\r\nINVESTMENT GROUP, LLC dba SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER

\r\n\r\n

RP:\r\n Plaintiffs

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Summary

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 8/30/18, plaintiffs JACKIE LAW, individually and as\r\nSpecial Administrator for the ESTATE OF MOUI LAM, and KEN LA, filed a Complaint\r\nalleging: Mrs. Lam “was found barely conscious and in\r\npain on the floor of the Defendant’s patient care facility, suffering from\r\nblunt head trauma,” due to defendant’s negligent acts. Complaint, 4:18-19. Another patient heard Mrs. Lam fall, and\r\nrepeatedly called for Sunny View staff for 15 minutes, before anyone responded.\r\n“[T]hat staff member failed to immediately call 911, family members, or the\r\nstaff doctor, despite Mrs. Lam’s obvious head trauma and physical pain.”\r\nComplaint, 4:27-28. Instead, Sunny View staff lifted Mrs. Lam into her bed, and\r\npretended nothing had happened, as Mrs. Lam was suffering in pain, and deprived\r\nof oxygen, because a Sunny View staff member forgot to connect her oxygen tube\r\nto the oxygen respirator that Mrs. Lam was dependent upon.

\r\n\r\n

The causes of action are:

\r\n\r\n

1. VIOLATION OF PATIENT’S\r\nRIGHTS

\r\n\r\n

2. NEGLIGENCE

\r\n\r\n

3. ELDER ABUSE

\r\n\r\n

4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION\r\nOF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

\r\n\r\n

5. WRONGFUL DEATH.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP\r\nPositions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party requests the Court to grant summary\r\njudgment as to the Complaint, or summary adjudication of specified causes of\r\naction, on grounds including the following:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nDefendant complied with the standard of\r\ncare in the care and services provided to decedent Moui Lam.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nNo act or failure to act on their part was\r\na substantial factor in causing the death of Ms. Lam or plaintiffs’ injuries.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nDefendant did not neglect decedent Moui\r\nLam, nor did they violate her rights.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RP Positions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons\r\nincluding the following:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThere are triable issues of fact related\r\nto the elements of each cause of action alleged.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe separate statement of disputed facts\r\nidentifies seventy-five disputed facts-- 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,\r\n17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,\r\n37, 40, 47, 48, 49-90.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nOn October 2, 2017, Ms. Lam was\r\ntransferred from Alhambra Hospital to Sunny View care center.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nShe needed assistance with activities of\r\ndaily living and was wheelchair-bound.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nShe was there less than a few hours before\r\nher family arrived and found her in pain, and not properly connected to oxygen\r\nwhich she was required and ordered by a doctor.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe family brought these problems to the\r\nstaffs’ attention, and eventually they transported Ms. Lam back to a hospital –\r\nLAC USC.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThere it was discovered Ms. Lam had\r\nintracranial hemorrhage after she sustained a fall while at Sunny View Care\r\nCenter.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nSunny View Care Center’s neglect caused\r\nMs. Lam to die from a traumatic brain bleed, due to a fall that occurred, which\r\nwas not properly treated.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nSunny View Care Center did not notify the\r\nfamily of the fall until after they had arrived at the facility.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThere is a dispute whether the nurse on\r\nduty had contacted a doctor at all after Ms. Lam’s fall and before the family\r\narrived.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nNurse Remedios Way testified that she had\r\na left a message with the on-call doctor but did tell the doctor that Ms. Lam\r\nhad fallen while standing up and struck her head.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nIt was not until a family member, Jackie\r\nLaw, came to visit his mother that he saw the oxygen was disconnected, which\r\ncan also cause serious injury.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nWhen the Department of Health conducted an\r\ninvestigation regarding the incident, Sunny View Care Center claimed to have no\r\nrecords of Ms. Lam. The defendants then produced records months later, claiming\r\nthat the fall was actually witnessed by Nurse Remedios Way. This is not\r\ncredible because Ms. Lam was wheelchair-bound and not capable of getting up and\r\nwalking around as they claim.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion and alternative motion are denied entirely.

\r\n\r\n

The Court determines that there are triable issues of\r\nmaterial fact, as to each issue raised, including whether Sunny View Care\r\nCenter was neglectful, or within the standard of care, in providing fall risk\r\nprotection and oxygen, and whether it contributed to causation of death (e.g.,\r\nsep. stmnts., fact numbers 24-27, 32-34; \r\nand Declaration of Ghasan Tabel, M.D.).

\r\n\r\n

Summary judgment must be denied if an opposing expert\r\ndeclaration raises a triable issue as to whether a physician deviated from the\r\nstandard of care, thereby causing an injury and actual loss or damage. Tortorella v. Castro (2006) 140\r\nCal.App.4th 1, 12-13.

\r\n\r\n

Conversely, summary judgment must be granted where\r\nhealth care providers file a supportive expert declaration establishing conduct\r\nfalling within the community standard of care, and opposing parties file no\r\nconflicting expert declaration. Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151\r\nCal.App.4th 112, 123; Munro\r\nv. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-85 (“‘The\r\nstandard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a\r\nmatter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue\r\nin a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony …, unless the\r\nconduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge\r\nof the layman.’”). “When the moving\r\nparty produces a competent expert declaration showing there is no triable issue\r\nof fact on an essential element of the opposing party's claims, the opposing\r\nparty's burden is to produce a competent expert declaration to the\r\ncontrary.” Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 761-62.

\r\n\r\n

Regarding negligence of medical practitioners, the\r\nstandard of care must be proved by an expert, except where the alleged\r\nnegligence is within the common knowledge of laypeople. Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding\r\n(2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 690, 695.

\r\n\r\n

"

Case Number: BC720044    Hearing Date: April 1, 2021    Dept: 55

LAW v. SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER BC720044

Hearing Date: 4/1/21, Dept. 55

#11: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

Notice: Okay

No Opposition

MP: Defendant DEFENDANT TAG-2 MEDICAL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC dba SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER

RP:

Summary

On 8/30/18, plaintiffs JACKIE LAW, individually and as Special Administrator for the ESTATE OF MOUI LAM, and KEN LA, filed a Complaint alleging: Mrs. Lam “was found barely conscious and in pain on the floor of the Defendant’s patient care facility, suffering from blunt head trauma,” due to defendant’s negligent acts. Complaint, 4:18-19. Another patient heard Mrs. Lam fall, and repeatedly called for Sunny View staff for 15 minutes, before anyone responded. “[T]hat staff member failed to immediately call 911, family members, or the staff doctor, despite Mrs. Lam’s obvious head trauma and physical pain.” Complaint, 4:27-28. Instead, Sunny View staff lifted Mrs. Lam into her bed, and pretended nothing had happened, as Mrs. Lam was suffering in pain, and deprived of oxygen, because a Sunny View staff member forgot to connect her oxygen tube to the oxygen respirator that Mrs. Lam was dependent upon.

The causes of action are:

1. VIOLATION OF PATIENT’S RIGHTS

2. NEGLIGENCE

3. ELDER ABUSE

4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

5. WRONGFUL DEATH.

MP Positions

Moving party requests the Court to grant summary judgment as to the Complaint, or summary adjudication of specified causes of action, on grounds including the following:

· Defendant complied with the standard of care in the care and services provided to decedent Moui Lam.

· No act or failure to act on their part was a substantial factor in causing the death of Ms. Lam or plaintiffs’ injuries.

· Defendant did not neglect decedent Moui Lam, nor did they violate her rights.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted.

“[I]f all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the ‘moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)), the court must grant the motion for summary judgment.” Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1320. Accord Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.

Summary judgment must be granted where health care providers file a supportive expert declaration establishing conduct falling within the community standard of care, and opposing parties file no conflicting expert declaration. Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 123; Munro v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-85 (“‘The standard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony …, unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman.’”). “When the moving party produces a competent expert declaration showing there is no triable issue of fact on an essential element of the opposing party's claims, the opposing party's burden is to produce a competent expert declaration to the contrary.” Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 761-62.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SUNNY VIEW CARE CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WASHINGTON CHRISTOPHER G.