2016-00195901-CU-PO

Christine McCall vs. Dignity Health

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

Filed By: Leonard, Nicholas J.

Defendant Hamidreza Aliabadi, M.D.’s (“Dr. Aliabadi”) motion for summary judgment is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

This case concerns the alleged medical negligence of health care providers relating to the medical care and treatment provided to decedent James McCall between November of 2014 and March of 2015. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single cause of action for wrongful death. Plaintiff amended her complaint on November 9, 2016, to substitute Dr. Aliabadi for doe defendant twenty-six.

Dr. Aliabadi has established by admissible evidence that his care and treatment of decedent was at all times reasonable and within the standard of care. (See UMFs 1-19; Declaration of Duncan McBride, M.D.) Dr. Aliabadi’s expert opines that Dr. Aliabadi’s treatment of decedent met the applicable standard of care to a reasonable degree of medical probability and did not cause or contribute to decedent’s death. (Declaration of Duncan McBride, M.D. at ¶¶ 9-10.)

Once the moving party meets the burden of production, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) Here, the evidence is sufficient to shift to Plaintiff the burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

To rebut Dr. Aliabadi’s showing by its expert, Plaintiff was required to submit evidence of a prima facie case of medical malpractice in the form of expert witness testimony to prove a breach of the standard of care by the health care professional and that the defendant’s breach of the standard of care was the cause of the patient’s injury, and this must be established by testimony from a competent medical expert. (See Alef v. Alta Bates Hospital (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 208, 216.) Given that Dr. Aliabadi supported the motion with an expert declaration that the care and treatment he provided to Plaintiff met the applicable standard of care and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s injuries, he is “entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.” (Munro v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1989)

215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.) The standard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony. (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001.) In other words, once the moving party meets this burden of production, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 849; Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) Such opposition generally must be established by testimony from a competent medical expert. (See Alef, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at 216.)

Having failed to file an opposition, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden. Dr. Aliabadi is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The motion for summary judgment as to Dr. Aliabadi is GRANTED.