Case Number: BC707650 Hearing Date: August 28, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Spring Street Courthouse, Department 5

julian sosa,

Plaintiff,

v.

healthpointe Medical Group, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC707650

Hearing Date: August 28, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Julian Sosa (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendants Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc. (“Healthpointe”) and its employee, Amit J. Shah, P.A. (“Shah,” collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Shah failed to diagnose an injury to his tendon when he sought treatment for a laceration to his finger. Defendants move for summary judgment, which Plaintiff does not oppose. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . . There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “[T]he 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.” (Ibid.) In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff’s evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Id. at 856.) However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.” (Ibid., emphasis original.)

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim for professional negligence against a medical professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a medical professional had a duty to use the skill, prudence and diligence that members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury that resulted from the breach of that duty; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the breach of that duty. (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612.) Expert testimony is the only admissible evidence on breach of the standard of care. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

Defendant relies on the declaration of Luis Abrishamian, M.D. (“Abrishamian”), who is a physician specializing in emergency medicine. Abrishamian opines that Shah likely erred in failing to diagnose Plaintiff’s flexor tendon injury, but that Shah’s treatment was within the appropriate standard of care because Shah referred Plaintiff for re-evaluation with a physician within 24 hours. (Declaration of Luis Abrishamian, ¶ 12.) This evidence satisfies Defendants’ prima facie burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Therefore, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 28, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court