This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:10:53 (UTC).

JAMES DAVIDSON ET AL VS PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER

Case Summary

On 10/25/2017 JAMES DAVIDSON filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0947

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DAVIDSON JAMES

MAGARGAL MICHAEL RYAN

Defendants and Respondents

CHERN CATHERINE M.D.

PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER

KISHINEFF STEPHEN EDWARD M.D.

DOES 1 TO 100

SCHRECK DOUGLAS M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BUNCH BRUCE M. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

DEANE RYAN PATRICK

TOMLINSON RODNEY G.

CARROLL RICHARD DOUGLAS

LAW YUK

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

6/18/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice

7/15/2019: Notice

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/22/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/22/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/22/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/28/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

2/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/28/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Demand for Jury Trial

3/22/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

3/22/2019: Answer

Answer

3/25/2019: Answer

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

4/4/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

Notice

4/5/2019: Notice

Notice of Deposit - Jury

5/2/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Answer

5/2/2019: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

5/6/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

SUMMONS

10/25/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL DEATH)

10/25/2017: COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL DEATH)

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/26/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketAnswer (of Douglas Schreck, MD's Answer to Complaint); Filed by DOUGLAS, M.D. SCHRECK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by CATHERINE, M.D. CHERN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by JAMES DAVIDSON (Plaintiff); MICHAEL RYAN MAGARGAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by JAMES DAVIDSON (Plaintiff); MICHAEL RYAN MAGARGAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by JAMES DAVIDSON (Plaintiff); MICHAEL RYAN MAGARGAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JAMES DAVIDSON (Plaintiff); MICHAEL RYAN MAGARGAL (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (WRONGFUL DEATH)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680947    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 5

james davidson, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC680947

Hearing Date: December 16, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiffs James Davidson and Michael Ryan Magargal (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Providence Health System-Southern California (“Defendant”) for medical negligence following the death of Leah Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to treat Leah Davidson properly after she sought treatment for chest pain. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . .  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim for professional negligence against a medical professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a medical professional had a duty to use the skill, prudence and diligence that members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury that resulted from the breach of that duty; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the breach of that duty. (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612.) Expert testimony is the only admissible evidence on breach of the standard of care. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

Defendant relies on the declaration of Constance Paine, R.N. (“Paine”), a registered nurse who reviewed Ms. Davidson’s medical records. Paine states that Defendant’s non-physician and nursing staff acted within the standard of care at all times, and that no act or failure to act by a nurse contributed to any of Decedent’ injuries or death. (Declaration of Constance Paine, R.N., ¶¶ 6-9.) Defendant also proffers evidence that the doctors who treated Ms. Davidson were independent contractors, meaning that Defendant is not liable for their care. (Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1454.) Specifically, Ms. Davidson executed Defendant’s “Conditions of Admission” form at the time Defendant admitted Decedent to the hospital, which states that the physicians and surgeons at Defendant’s hospital are not employees of Defendant. (Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit R.)

Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to satisfy its prima facie burden. Plaintiff proffers no evidence to rebut this showing, and there is no evidence in the record that gives rise to a triable issue. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 16, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court