2016-00204210-CU-MM

Paul Currie vs. Sutter Health

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Young, Preston R.

Defendant Lolita V. Palmer M.D.’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication is GRANTED.

This is a medical malpractice action by pro per Plaintiff Paul Currie. Defendant moves for summary judgment/adjudication on the grounds that Defendant’s care and treatment complied with the standard of care and the Elam v. College Park Hospital (1982) 132 CaI.App.3d 332 cause of action is inappropriate.

In support of the motion, Defendant proffers the declaration of Eric D. Morse. Dr.

Morse opines that the care rendered by Defendant was appropriate and within the standard of care. (UMFs 9-10.) The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate at triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff filed a “motion in objection” to the motion for summary judgment, which the Court construes as an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden. Plaintiff did not file a separate statement in response to Defendant’s separate statement, as required by CRC Rule 3.1350(e), (f). Thus, none of Defendant’s UMFs are disputed. Importantly, Plaintiff did not file an opposing expert declaration to show a triable issue as to Defendant’s breach of standard of care. Plaintiff attempts to act as his own expert and provides medical articles to support his opposition. Plaintiff lays no foundation showing that he may proffer an expert medical opinion.

Plaintiff’s second cause of action is based on Elam v. College Park Hospital (1982) 132 CaI.App.3d 332. Pursuant to Elam, a hospital may be directly liable to a patient for negligence of a physician who is an independent contractor but has privileges and avails himself of hospital privileges. Here, Defendant is not a hospital, but an individual. Thus, Elam does not apply.