KJERSTI FLAA VS ALEXANDER KOTLARENKO, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6943 Hearing Date: March 23, 2022 Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., et al. v. Olympia Medical Center, et al.

20STCV36943

1. HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, et al.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

   TENTATIVE RULING

   HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, et al.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

   Background

   Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 28, 2020. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was submitted on January 19, 2021, but never officially filed. On August 24, 2021, the parties stipulated that the First Amended Complaint was deemed filed on January 19, 2021. Plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action in relation to the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent Alejandro Alers, Sr. The Plaintiffs in this action were the Estate of Alejandro Alers, Sr., Alejandro Alers, Jr., and Hazel Alers. Each of the Plaintiffs brought this action in pro per. On November 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. On December 10, 2021, claims brought on behalf of the Estate were dismissed. The only cause of action that remains as to Plaintiff Hazel Alers against moving Defendants is the cause of action for Wrongful Death.

   Motion for Summary Judgment

   The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)

   “On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP 437c(p)(2). “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

   “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., 437c(p)(1).

   “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP 437c(c).)

   Defendants HealthCare Partners Affiliates Medical Group, Mary Jean Lockard, N.P., N. Isabel Kiefer, M.D., Hagop Sarkissian, M.D., and Kelly Winer, S.W. move for an order granting summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Hazel Alers. The motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint has no merit and fails to present any triable issues of material fact because (1) Plaintiff has admitted that the care and treatment rendered to decedent by moving Defendants was at all times appropriate; and (2) Plaintiff has admitted that no act or omission to act on the part of moving Defendants caused decedent's death.

Defendants have met their initial burden to show that Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of her causes of action. The same elements of negligence are encompassed within the first cause of action for wrongful death. “The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968. The standard of care with respect to acts of medical professionals is exclusively within the knowledge of experts, and, thus, whether the medical professional met or breached the standard of care can only be established by expert testimony. See, Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.

Here, on December 16, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted. (Defendants’ Ex. C.) The requests for admission requested that Plaintiff Hazel Alers admit that the care and treatment rendered to decedent by moving Defendants were appropriate and no act or omission on the part of Defendants caused decedent’s injuries and death. (Defendants’ Ex. D.) Thus, Plaintiff has admitted that she cannot establish the elements of her only cause of action for Wrongful Death. Defendants submitted competent evidence to establish a complete defense to the cause of action. CCP 437c(b) authorizes the use of admissions to support a motion for summary judgment. See, D’Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22. Plaintiff has not met her burden to provide competent evidence to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to her cause of action.

Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.