JESSICA STIEFLER VS JAY M. GOLDBERG, M.D., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******8525 Hearing Date: September 8, 2021 Dept: 28

Goldberg’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having reviewed the motion, notice of joinder, declaration, exhibits, separate statement, Opposition, declarations opposed, and separate statement in opposition, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff Jessica Steifler (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Jay M. Goldberg, M.D.; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, alleging 1 cause of action arising from medical treatment received on May 21, 2019.

On April 6, 2021, Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) filed this instant motion for summary judgment.

On April 9, 2021, Defendant Jay M. Goldberg (“Goldberg”) filed Joinder to the motion.

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed documents in Opposition of Defendant Goldberg’s motion.

Trial is set for November 12, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant Goldberg joins Defendant CSMC’s motion alleging that Plaintiff’s cause of action must fail as it lacks merit and does not raise a triable issue of material fact.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary Judgment

A summary judgment may be granted where it is shown that the “action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c(a) (emphasis added).) The court must determine from the evidence presented 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 …” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c(c).)

CCP Section 437c(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.

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP ; 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

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 that cause of action or a defense thereto.

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Requirements of a Motion for Summary Judgment

California Code of Civil Procedure, section 437(b)(1), provides:

The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denial of the motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges she was injured by Dr. Goldberg’s failure to properly close an incision after a cesarean section. This cervical incision caused severe blood loss and other life-threatening injuries. A hysterectomy was performed to save Plaintiff’s life.

In any medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish ‘(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.’ [Citation omitted.]” (Gami v. Mulliken Medical Center (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 877.) A defendant does not need to disprove every element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Rather, the defendant only needs to present evidence that one or more of the elements of the cause of action for negligence cannot be established. (Union Bank v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.)

In support of his argument that he did not breach the duty of care, Defendant Goldberg submits the declaration of Stephen Hebert, M.D. Dr. Hebert is a board-certified OB/GYN who is familiar with the standard of care for physicians, residents, nursing staff, and non-physician staff who attend cesarean sections and hysterectomies. Having reviewed the medical records from Cedars-Sinai, the depositions of Plaintiff and of Zachary Stiefler, the declaration of Robin Y. Solmayor, Esq., and the evidence in support of the motion, Dr. Hebert first opines that the decision to proceed to a cesarean section was appropriate and within the standard of care. Dr. Hebert further notes that lacerations like that which Plaintiff sustained can occur during a cesarean section even where there is no negligence. Dr. Hebert opines that the examination of the uterus for bleeding several times during the surgery and prior to closing Plaintiff’s abdomen was appropriate and within the standard of care. Defendant Goldberg alleges that based upon this opinion, he cannot be found to have been negligent or to have caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

In Opposition, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Dr. Gary D. Blake, M.D. Dr. Blake is board-certified in Obstetrics/Gynecology and Maternal/Fetal Medicine. Dr. Blake has reviewed the medical records from Cedars-Sinai, the deposition testimony of Plaintiff, and the declaration of Dr. Hebert. Dr. Blake opines that Defendant Goldberg should have recognized much earlier in the process that a cesarean section was necessary. Specifically, Dr. Blake contends that Defendant Goldberg, upon seeing that Plaintiff had only dilated 0.5cm in 4 hours (allegedly 1/8^th the normal speed of dilation) and that the baby was not tolerating the Pitocin (synthetic form of oxytocin), should have recognized that a cesarean section was needed at 7:50 a.m. Instead, Defendant Goldberg did not make this determination until 12:15 p.m. Dr. Blake opines that this significant delay resulted in thinning and friability of Plaintiff’s uterus, rendering it more susceptible to laceration, atony, injury, and hemorrhage both during and after the cesarean section. Dr. Blake further opines that if the cesarean section had been performed on time, as the standard of care required, Plaintiff would have had less or no uterine atony and would not have had hemorrhaging that resulted in her requiring the emergency hysterectomy.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff argues that there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Defendant Goldberg met the standard of care during his treatment of Plaintiff.

Defendant Goldberg does not file a Reply.

The Court finds that there is a dispute of material fact as it relates to Defendant Goldberg’s role in Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court does not find that Defendant Goldberg has met his burden.

Therefore, Defendant Goldberg’s motion for summary judgment made via joinder is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Goldberg’s Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED.

Defendant Goldberg is ordered to give notice.

_________________________________________________________________

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having reviewed the motion, declaration, separate statement, and exhibits, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff Jessica Steifler (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Jay M. Goldberg, M.D.; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, alleging 1 cause of action arising from medical treatment received on May 21, 2019.

On April 6, 2021, Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) filed this instant motion for summary judgment.

On April 9, 2021, Defendant Jay M. Goldberg (“Goldberg”) filed Joinder to the motion.

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed documents in Opposition of Defendant Goldberg’s motion.

Also on August 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to CSMC’s motion.

Trial is set for November 12, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant CSMC requests the Court grant the motion on the basis that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks merit and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate material facts in dispute.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary Judgment

A summary judgment may be granted where it is shown that the “action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c(a) (emphasis added).) The court must determine from the evidence presented 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 …” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437c(c).)

CCP Section 437c(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.

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP ; 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

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 that cause of action or a defense thereto.

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Requirements of a Motion for Summary Judgment

California Code of Civil Procedure, section 437(b)(1), provides:

The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denial of the motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant CSMC’s staff did negligently, carelessly, and recklessly examine, diagnose, operate on, suture, and care for Plaintiff so as to proximately cause the need for an emergency hysterectomy. Defendant CSMC argues that the expert testimony provided by Dr. Stephen Hebert, M.D. establishes that the residents, nursing staff, and non-physician staff at Defendant’s facility all acted within the standard of care, and also that nothing these individuals did caused or contributed to the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiff files a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion brought by Defendant CSMC.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant CSMC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant CSMC is ordered to give notice.

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