Case Number: BC663987 Hearing Date: March 01, 2019 Dept: A

White v Holmes

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Calendar: 3

Case No: BC663987

Hearing Date: 3/1/19

Action Filed: 6/5/17

Trial: Not set

MP: Defendant Daniel Alan Woodward, D.C.

RP: Plaintiff Helen Dorroh White

ALLEGATIONS:

In this action, Plaintiff Helen Dorroh White alleges that various Defendants undertook the care of Plaintiff and performed unnecessary and excessive chiropractic services. The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed October 10, 2018, alleges causes of action for:

(1) Professional negligence against each of: (a) Bruce W.S. Holmes, D.C. and Holmes Chiropractic; (b) Daniel Alan Woodard, D.C.; and (c) Molly Elizabeth Casey, D.C.

(2) Battery against Molly Elizabeth Casey, D.C.;

(3) [Omitted]

(4) Fraud for unnecessary chiropractic care against Bruce W.S. Holmes, D.C.;

(5) Fraud for “Collection-Attorney Fees” against Bruce W.S. Holmes, D.C.;

(6) Breach of contract against Bruce W.S. Holmes, D.C.;

(7) General negligence against Lee Ann Holmes; and

(8) Conversion against each of: (a) Lee Ann Holmes and (b) Bruce W.S. Holmes, D.C.

On November 27, 2018, the parties stipulated to strike all punitive damages from the SAC. The stipulation provides that Plaintiff may still seek punitive damages upon the Court’s order allowing such a filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

Defendant Daniel Alan Woodward, D.C. (“Dr. Woodward”) moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff by Dr. Woodward did not cause any injuries to her, and there are no triable issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Dr. Woodward as alleged in the SAC.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff’s sole cause of action alleged against Dr. Woodward in the SAC is the 1st cause of action for professional negligence.

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to a cause of action. In a medical malpractice action, the elements 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 omitted).” (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612, emphasis in original.) Additionally, the standard of care against which doctors are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. Breach of the standard of care may only be proven by expert testimony. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

Dr. Woodward provides the following facts in support of his motion. The sole cause of action alleged against him in the SAC is for professional negligence. (Fact 1.) Plaintiff first presented to Holmes Chiropractic on June 4, 2014 with a 40-year history of pain at her right foot and heel and x-rays revealed torsion/un-leveling across the sacroiliac joints with a subluxation at L3 and a diminished disc space at L4-5 and L5-S1 of her lumbar spine. (Fact 2.) On January 7, 2015, Dr. Holmes noted that Plaintiff was showing signs of improvement with treatment (such as in her foot, ankle, and hips), but that she still experienced left sciatic pain with weakness at the right lower extremity and foot. (Fact 3.) On April 10, 2015, x-rays of her cervical spine revealed degenerative arthritis and moderate degenerative disc disease, x-rays of her lumbar spine revealed severe degenerative disc disease, and x-rays of her feet revealed calcaneal spurs and hallux valgus deformities. (Fact 4.) On July 27, 2015, x-rays of the cervical spine revealed subluxations at C4-5 and C5-6, and other issues. (Fact 5.)

In total, Plaintiff presented to Holms Chiropractic for treatment on hundreds of occasions between 2014 and 2016, during which she was treated by Dr. Woodward on dozens of occasions. (Fact 6.) She subsequently presented to Michael Mendoza, D.C., who opined that she suffered from neck pain for approximately 40 years and that her spinal range of motion was within normal limits considering her age, but Dr. Mendoza made no conclusions about whether she had been injured by previous chiropractic treatment. (Fact 7.) On May 1, 2017, an MRI of the cervical spine revealed that the vertebral and carotid arteries had a normal appearance, which was confirmed by CT angiogram on May 30 and June 1, 2017. (Fact 8.) Plaintiff was reimbursed her out-of-pocket medical expenses for chiropractic treatment at Holmes Chiropractic with a cashier’s check in the amount of $7,302, dated August 27, 2015. (Fact 10.)

In support of his initial burden, Dr. Woodward provides the declaration of Wayne Waylen, D.C., a chiropractor licensed to practice in California, to provide his opinions that Dr. Woodward complied with the standard of care. He states that based on his review of the medical records, films, and deposition transcripts, as well as his education, training, and experience, it is his opinion that the care and treatment received from Plaintiff from Dr. Woodward, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, did not cause any alleged injury sustained by Plaintiff. (Fact 11; Whalen Decl., ¶3.) He states that his opinion is based on the fact that no other medical provider has stated that Plaintiff was injured by chiropractic treatment provided by Dr. Woodward; the chiropractic and medical records make no reference to physical injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of chiropractic treatment; subsequent imaging studies revealed that plaintiff’s vertebral arteries and carotid arteries had a normal appearance; and Dr. Mendoza had testified at his deposition that following treatment with Dr. Woodward, Plaintiff’s spinal range was normal and he made no conclusions that she had been injured by previous chiropractic treatment. (Whalen Decl., ¶3(A), (C), (D), (E).) He also concludes that Plaintiff’s alleged dehydration and vision problems were in no way caused by Dr. Woodward’s chiropractic treatment. (Id., ¶3(B).)

Where an expert declaration does not provide the facts upon which its conclusions are based and a reasoned explanation of how such facts led to the conclusions, it does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for trial, as required for summary judgment. (Doe v. Good Samaritan Hospital (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 653, 656.) “The law is clear that moving party’s burden to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact cannot be satisfied by an expert declaration consisting of ultimate facts and conclusions that are unsupported by factual detail and reasoned explanation, even if it is admitted and unopposed.” (Id. at 657.) Here, the opinions of Dr. Waylen are conclusory at best and are not supported by facts upon which he reached his conclusions. For example, he does not discuss the standard of care owed by chiropractors practicing in the state of California and whether Dr. Woodward’s treatments of Plaintiff—which could have potentially been in the hundreds over a period of 2 years—met that standard. Dr. Waylen’s declaration also fails to provide facts showing why Dr. Woodward’s actions did not cause Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, other than conclusory statements that other medical providers did not blame Dr. Woodward for Plaintiff’s injuries. However, there is no discussion based on Dr. Waylen’s expert experience and knowledge that Dr. Woodward’s treatment of Plaintiff could not have caused her injuries for certain medical reasons, or that her injuries were caused by other factors. “[A]n expert’s opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more than the reasons and facts on which it is based.” (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 510.)

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the Court does not find that Dr. Woodward upheld his initial burden in summary judgment. Accordingly, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact.

In opposition, Plaintiff provided the declaration of Dr. Randy Martin, Ph.D., Lac, O.M.D., an acupuncturist. Based upon the failure of moving party to shift the burden, it is not necessary to discuss the weight or logic of the opposing declaration.

RULING:

Deny Dr. Woodward’s motion for summary judgment.