CASE NAME: McCUAN? vs.? EPIC CARE
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED BY SUTTER DELTA MEDICAL CENTER
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendant Sutter Delta Medical Center?s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
?The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.? Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ? 437c(c).? The party moving for summary judgment carries both the burden of persuasion and the burden of production of evidence.? Evid. Code ?500; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action.? Cal. Code of Civil Procedure ?437c(p)(2).
The elements of a professional negligence action 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)?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 negligence [citations].?? Bucquet v. Livingston?(1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 914, 920-921.
Defendant met its burden of making a prima facie showing there are no triable issues of material fact and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Defendant has submitted evidence showing that Plaintiffs cannot establish the breach of duty element in their medical negligence cause of action.
The standard of care in a medical malpractice case requires that physicians exercise in diagnosis and treatment that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances. Munro v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 983-984.
Defendant, through expert medical testimony of Steven Fugaro, M.D. establishes that the care and treatment rendered to Mr. McCuan by Defendant Sutter Delta, its agents and employees fell within the standard of care. Specifically, in his opinion, the hospitalists who treated Mr. McCuan complied with the standard of care. Mr. McCuan was properly diagnosed with DVT based on the pain, swelling, and redness in the left leg and the Doppler ultrasound that revealed partial thrombosis of the left popliteal vein.? Anticoagulants were properly administered, a hematology/oncology consultation was properly obtained, and Mr. McCuan was discharged at an appropriate time.
Dr. Fugaro further opined that during both of Mr. McCuan?s hospitalizations, all of the nursing care met and exceeded the applicable standard of care.? The nurses followed physicians? orders, administered medications at appropriate times and in proper dosages, made observations and recorded their findings, and gave discharge instructions in compliance with the standard of care.
Finally, Dr. Fugaro opined that spindle cell sarcoma is a rare form of malignancy, which some physicians may never see in the course of their careers, and that Mr. McCuan?s symptoms were readily explained by DVT and thrombophlebitis with an evolving hematoma, which are much more common than sarcoma.? The standard of care did not require additional diagnostic studies before Mr. McCuan?s discharge because the diagnosis of DVT had been established.? The in-patient work-up was reasonably thorough and complied the standard of care.? The standard of care did not require that an MRI scan, CT scan, or any other testing for a possible malignancy because the index of suspicion was very low.
Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material by coming forward with conflicting medical expert evidence.? Munro v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.?(1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985. In fact, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition on April 10, 2015.
Plaintiff Amy McCuan?s cause of action for loss of consortium falls as the spouse?s underlying claim has no merit against this defendant.? Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 928.
Defendant has met both the burden of production and burden of persuasion.? Defendant established it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.