Case Number: BC586899??? Hearing Date: November 07, 2016??? Dept: 98
CLARA STOKES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC586899
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT ALBERT G. GRABB, M.D.?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
November 7, 2016
On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Clara Stokes (?Ms. Stokes?) and Vaughn Stokes (?Mr. Stokes?) (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) filed this action for medical negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Stokes presented to Defendant Torrance Memorial Medical Center (?Torrance Memorial?) on May 25, 2014 for emergency treatment and, during an evaluation and workup, Defendant Ellen M. Baker, M.D. (?Dr. Baker?) negligently failed to identify, diagnose, and treat an intraventricular and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Albert G. Grabb, M.D. (?Dr. Grabb?) failed to properly detect evidence of the hemorrhage in a CT scan of Ms. Stokes? brain. Dr. Grabb now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a Non-Opposition to Dr. Grabb?s Motion on October 20, 2016.
In analyzing motions 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 v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294. Generally, ?the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.? Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.
A moving defendant in a medical malpractice action must submit a qualified expert declaration in support of his or her motion. Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 297, 305. An expert?s opinion, even if uncontradicted, may be rejected if the reasons given for it are unsound. Kastner v. Los Angeles Metro. Transit Auth. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 52, 58.
?[W]here the conduct required of a medical professional is not within the common knowledge of laymen, a plaintiff must present expert witness testimony to prove a breach of the standard of care.? Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 509. ?Plaintiff also must show that defendants? breach of the standard of care was the cause, within a reasonable medical probability, of his injury.? Id. ?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 (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-85 (citing Hutchinson v. United States (1988) 838 F.2d 390, 392).
Dr. Grabb moves for summary judgment on the ground that his care and treatment of Ms. Stokes complied with the applicable standard of care. In support of his Motion, Dr. Grabb submits the declaration of Richard Kaplan, M.D., a licensed physician and board certified radiologist. Dr. Kaplan has reviewed the subject CT scan and the corresponding report prepared by Dr. Grabb. Declaration of Richard Kaplan, M.D., ? 2. He asserts that, upon his comprehensive review of the CT scan, he would have given the same interpretation as Dr. Grabb that the CT scan was negative and without abnormalities. Id., ? 3. He concludes that Dr. Grabb?s interpretation of Ms. Stokes? CT scan was accurate, appropriate, and complied with the requisite standard of practice. Id., ? 4. In his opinion, no repeat CT scans were warranted and Dr. Grabb?s treatment of Ms. Stokes therefore complied with the standard of care. Id, ?? 5-7.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Dr. Grabb has carried his burden as the moving party to show that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Grabb?s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court