This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 06:51:37 (UTC).

KYLE SCHLEICHER VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA E

Case Summary

On 05/11/2018 KYLE SCHLEICHER filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA E. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5439

  • Filing Date:

    05/11/2018

  • 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 Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SCHLEICHER KYLE

Defendants and Respondents

HALEM LARRY T. M.D.

HOSSEINI MERSEDEH BAHR M.D.

KARNEZIS STELLIOS M.D.

BLANCO MANUEL M. BUITRAGO M.D.

CEKIC MILOS M.D.

CHEN YIHAN M.D.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

CHELLAPPA VIVEK R. M.D.

MILIN ALEXANDER C. M.D.

WINDSOR CYNTHIA R.N.

QUANG VU RICHARD

YOUNG JONATHAN R. M.D.

POPE WHITNEY B. M.D.

SAVER JEFFREY L. M.D.

VORA ROSHNI

LINETSKY MICHAEL M.D.

KLEINMAN JONATHAN T. M.D.

MACIEL JESUS

VESPA PAUL M. M.D.

13 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CRAWFORD DANIEL A.

Defendant Attorneys

CYNOWIEC JESSICA

CYNOWIEC JESSICA E.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

10/16/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

10/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/31/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

7/31/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Separate Statement

5/29/2020: Separate Statement

Request for Dismissal

2/13/2020: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

11/5/2019: Request for Dismissal

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

12/6/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE)

12/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

9/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

Notice of Ruling

9/18/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, OFF CALENDAR

7/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, OFF CALENDAR

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS OFF CALENDAR

7/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS OFF CALENDAR

Declaration - Declaration DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS

2/7/2019: Declaration - Declaration DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

6/19/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

6/19/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

SUMMONS -

5/11/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

5/11/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/11/2021
  • Hearing05/11/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • Hearing02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • Hearing02/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS); Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kyle Schleicher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705439    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KYLE SCHLEICHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.BC705439

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept27

1:30 p.m.

October 14, 2020

I.INTRODUCTION

On Plaintiff onica UCLA emergency department on February 14, 2017 with symptoms consistent with a history of stroke.  (Compl., ¶ 8.)  He also alleges he was not treated promptly and the delay caused permanent brain damage.  See generallyCompl., ¶¶ 9-17.) it did not breach the standard of care and Plaintiff cannot prove causation.  

II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff presented to the emergency department on February 14, 2017 at 11:17 a.m. (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.)  He was triaged by 11:26 a.m. (Id.)  A neurological exam was performed showing no sensory deficit, normal coordination, chronic right-sided facial droop, normal finger to nose test.  (UMF No. 2.)  The exam also revealed sensory intact, motor 5/5, and Plaintiff was moving all four extremities.  (UMF No. 2.)  Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 160/108, he received sodium chloride and the neurology service was paged at 11:40 a.m.  (UMF No. 3.)  An MRI was ordered at 11:41 a.m.  (UMF No. 3.)  Dr. Halem Doojin documented that Dr. Kim was at bedside to examine Plaintiff.  (UMF No. 7.)  

Plaintiff was admitted for monitoring and treatment with antiplatelet therapy, with aspirin and Plavix.  (UMF No. 10.)  At 2:44 p.m., his NHSS score was 0.  (UMF No. 11.)  He then underwent a CTA of the brain, which revealed dissection and complete occlusion.  (UMF No. 12.)  He was then transported to the floor for further monitoring at 8:04 p.m.  (UMF NO. 13.)  At 10:22, pm., nursing notes reflect that Plaintiff’s communication was clear, cognition appropriate, oriented x4, and level of consciousness – alert.  (UMF No. 13.)  On February 15, 2017, nursing notes reflected that he appeared normal at 3:55 a.m. and had mild to moderate aphasia at 7:40 a.m.  (UMF Nos. 14-15.)   At 8:14, a.m., Dr. Yihan Chen was assessing Plaintiff.  He reported that Plaintiff had increased difficulty finding words, increased right arm weakness, and numbness and slight drift on the right arm.  (UMF No. 16.)  An order was placed for a STAT MRI.  (UMF NO. 17.)  performed 18-21.) 

Plaintiff underwent interventional radiology clot retrieval on February 162017.  

III.LEGAL STANDARDS

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley Oakshade , App. 4th 289, 294 .)

The initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf , 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.”  (Cal. (p)(2).)  A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 4th 826, 854 .)

To meet this burden , a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, 4th at 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence.  (Gaggero v. Yura, App. 4th 884, 891 (2003).)  The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.”  (Id.)¿ The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.  (Aguilar, 25 Cal. 4th at 855.)

“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.”  (Cal. Id.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi Urgente , 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467 (2008).)

IV.EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion or submit evidentiary objections. 

V.DISCUSSION

In a medical malpractice action, 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.  [citations.]” Galvez v. Frields, App. 4th 1410, 1420 (2001).)  

A defendant Johnson v. Superior Court, App. 4th 297, 305 .)  “When 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, 3d 977, 984-985 .)

Defendant submits the expert declarationof Raymond Ricci, M.D. and Stanley Tuhrim, M.D. in support of its Motion. 

Dr. Tuhrim with Tuhrim is certified in Neurology and Vascular Neurology and is the Director of the Division of Vascular Neurology and Vice Chair for Clinical Affairs in the Department of Neurology at Mount Sinai.  (Tuhrim Decl., ¶ 1.)  He is also the Director of the Mount Sinai Stroke Center.  (Tuhrim Decl., ¶ 1.)  Dr. Tuhrim states that the appropriate imaging studies were ordered and Plaintiff was timely consulted by Dr. Kim when he arrived at the emergency department.  (Tuhrim Decl., ¶  27a.)  Dr. Tuhrim also states that Plaintiff presented to the hospital outside the window for tissue pasminogen activator (tPA), a treatment for stroke Tuhrim Decl, ¶ c-f.)  Therefore, Dr. Tuhrim concludes that Defendant did not do anything or fail to do anything that caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.  

Similarly, Dr. Ricci is board certified in emergency medicine and is the Chief of Service and Vice Chairman of the Emergency Department at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.  (Ricci Decl., 1.)  He also works there as a emergency room physician.  (Id.)  Dr. Ricci opines that Plaintiff was timely triaged and monitored, and because his last known well time was greater than 4.5 hours than from his evaluation, and because he was symptomatic, he was not a candidate for tPA.  (Ricci Decl., ¶ a-c.)  An MRI and MRA were timely ordered and it was appropriate and within the applicable standard of care to defer to Dr. Kim as the neurologist for further management and treatment.  (Ricci Decl., ¶11d.)  Accordingly, no act or omission by Defendant, or its nursing and ancillary staff, caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.  (Ricci Decl., ¶ 12.)  

Defendant has met its moving burden to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment.  However, Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion and did not submit the necessary competing expert declaration to create a triable issue of fact.  Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. 

VI.CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is  .

Moving party to give notice.  

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send n email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention submit

Dated this th day of October, 2020