On 09/22/2017 KEVIN MANNING filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against FACEY MEDICAL GROUP. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
FACEY MEDICAL GROUP
ROTH ROBERT M.D.
DOES 1 TO 100
LYNN DAVID ESQ.
LAW YUK K.
3/8/2019: Minute Order
4/4/2019: Proof of Personal Service
4/8/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
4/26/2019: Demand for Jury Trial
6/7/2019: Minute Order
9/22/2017: ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (and Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...) of 06/07/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (Declaration of David Lynn in Opposition and Reply to Order to Show Cause re: Failure to File POS); Filed by KEVIN MANNING (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by FACEY MEDICAL GROUP (Defendant); ROBERT M.D. ROTH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by FACEY MEDICAL GROUP (Defendant); ROBERT M.D. ROTH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by FACEY MEDICAL GROUP (Defendant); ROBERT M.D. ROTH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by KEVIN MANNING (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by KEVIN MANNING (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference) of 03/08/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by KEVIN MANNING (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC676770 Hearing Date: September 01, 2020 Dept: 32
FACEY MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,
Case No.: BC676770
Hearing Date: September 1, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Kevin Manning (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendants Facey Medical Group and Robert Roth, M.D. (“Dr. Roth”) (collectively “Defendants”). Now, Defendants move for summary judgment, which Plaintiff does not oppose. The motion is granted.
“[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.)
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, 701-02 (citations omitted).) “Both the standard of care and defendants’ breach must normally be established by expert testimony in a medical malpractice case.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 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 rely upon a declaration from Ronald Kvitne, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon. (Kvitne Decl., ¶ 3.) Dr. Kvitne opines that, based on a review of Plaintiff’s medical records and his education, training, and experience, Dr. Roth complied with the applicable standard of care and treatment of Plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 4-6, 23.) Dr. Kvitne further opines that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Dr. Roth did not cause or contribute to any of Plaintiff’s postoperative complications and alleged injuries. (Id., ¶ 28.)
Defendants have satisfied their burden on summary judgment, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff filed no opposition, and there is nothing in the record giving rise to a triable issue. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: September 1, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases