This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 05:19:58 (UTC).

KIMBERLY B FRIEDMAN VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET

Case Summary

On 11/13/2017 KIMBERLY B FRIEDMAN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3168

  • Filing Date:

    11/13/2017

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FRIEDMAN KIMBERLY B.

Defendants and Respondents

EINZIGER JERALD M.D.

KIM SEONG-CHEON PAUL M.D.

LUFTMAN GALLIT D.O.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GR

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.

PROVIDENCE TARZANA MEDICAL CENTER

CHAWLA PRASHANT M.D.

CASHDAN D.O. DONNA

SHERMAN OAKS FAMILY MEDICINE INC.

DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC

KIM SEONG-CHEON PAUL M.D

LUFTMAN GALLIT D.O

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

RABINEAU LARRY ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

CARROLL RICHARD D. ESQ.

LYNCH GREGORY G. ESQ.

BURKWITZ AVI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/9/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

2/9/2018: Unknown

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2/9/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

3/2/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

7/13/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

7/23/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

9/4/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF: (1) COURT'S APPROVAL OF STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND SUBMIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION; (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION; (3) VACATED FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE (FSC) DATE; (4) VACATED TRIAL DATE; AND (5) S

9/19/2018: NOTICE OF: (1) COURT'S APPROVAL OF STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND SUBMIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION; (2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION; (3) VACATED FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE (FSC) DATE; (4) VACATED TRIAL DATE; AND (5) S

Other -

11/7/2018: Other -

Request for Judicial Notice

11/7/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

3/14/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

3/14/2019: Minute Order

Notice

3/28/2019: Notice

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/27/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/9/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

11/13/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

11/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication (on Behalf of Providence Health System-Southern California) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Notice (OF RESCHEDULING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION); Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Post-Arbitration Status Conference) of 03/14/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Defendant Providence Health System-Southern California DBA Providence Tarzana Medical Center's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Separate Statement (of Undisputed Material Facts); Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 01/09/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Kimberly B. Friedman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683168    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: 2

Friedman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.

The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Providence Health System – Southern California dba Providence Tarzana Medical Center (“Providence”) is GRANTED. Providence has established that it is entitled to judgment in its favor based on the undisputed material facts asserted. Cal Code Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2).

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Providence negligently and carelessly failed to diagnose Plaintiff’s breast cancer and negligently failed to determine the need for and secure the immediate care and treatment that Plaintiff required before her breast cancer advanced.

Providence moves for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed evidence establishes that its treatment complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission by Providence or its agents or employees caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a notice of non-opposition. No other party has opposed the motion.

To make out a claim for medical negligence, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “’(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.'” Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–607.

The required standard of care owed by a medical professional is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. Hanson, 76 Cal. App. 4th at 606–607. The element of causation must also be proven with expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

Here, Providence presented evidence sufficient to meet its initial burden that Providence complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission of Providence caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, Providence presented the declaration of Freddie J. Coombs, M.D., who reviewed the medical records and other relevant documents and opined that Providence and its agents and employees (including the nurses, radiology technicians and non-physician staff) met the applicable standard of care at all times during the care and treatment of decedent and that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no act or failure to act on the part of Providence or its staff was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. There was no objection to this declaration, and it (along with the underlying records) is sufficient to satisfy Providence’s initial burden.

The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff or any other party to present controverting evidence. As previously noted, no opposition was filed. Accordingly, Providence is entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

The Court thus GRANTS the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant Providence Health System – Southern California dba Providence Tarzana Medical Center and against Plaintiff.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC683168    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 2

BC683168 Friedman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment set for 12/4/19 is continued to 1/10/2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due date for the opposition and reply is based on the original hearing date.