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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
FRIEDMAN KIMBERLY B.
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
RABINEAU LARRY ESQ.
CARROLL RICHARD D. ESQ.
LYNCH GREGORY G. ESQ.
BURKWITZ AVI ESQ.
2/9/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
2/9/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3/2/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
7/13/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
7/23/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
9/4/2018: Minute Order
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
11/7/2018: Other -
11/7/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
3/14/2019: Minute Order
12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
12/27/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1/9/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
11/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)
at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
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 PartyRead MoreRead Less
Notice (OF RESCHEDULING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION); Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Post-Arbitration Status Conference) of 03/14/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
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
Separate Statement (of Undisputed Material Facts); Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Providence Tarzana Medical Center (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Kimberly B. Friedman (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
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.