Case Number: BC641637 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: E

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Date: 2/14/20

Case: Dee Ann Abelar, et al. v. John R. Dingilian, M.D., et al. (BC641637)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Juong H. Lee M.D.’s UNOPPOSED Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant’s expert, Jon Yu, M.D., explains that Dr. Lee correctly recommended a craniotomy for removal of plaintiff’s meningoma tumor because plaintiff was losing her vision. (UMF 76 and evidence cited.) Prior to the October 6, 2015 craniotomy, Dr. Lee complied with the standard of care in deciding to perform the surgery, as plaintiff’s slightly elevated white blood count was the natural result of the already existing meningoma tumor, and plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Dingilian, had cleared plaintiff for surgery. (UMF 87-88 and evidence cited.)

Dr. Lee did not breach the standard of care during the October 6, 2015 craniotomy because seizures and infection experienced by plaintiff commonly occur absent negligence. (UMF 83 and evidence cited.) Infections, strokes, headaches, seizures, nausea, and vomiting are accepted risks and complications with a craniotomy. (UMF 77-78 and evidence cited.) Dr. Lee correctly detailed the risks of infection after the craniotomy to plaintiff. (UMF 81-83 and evidence cited.) Dr. Lee had no reason to suspect plaintiff had an infection prior to December 14, 2015, when plaintiff was already admitted to USC Keck Hospital. (UMF 86, 89-97 and evidence cited.) In addition, use of foreign objects was required after a craniotomy to place plaintiff’s skull back into place. (UMF 79-80 and evidence cited.)

Based on the foregoing, Dr. Yu concludes that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Dr. Lee’s care and treatment of plaintiff conformed with the operable standard of care for a neurosurgeon and that nothing Dr. Lee did or failed to do caused plaintiff to suffer an infection, injury from infection, or seizures. (UMF 98-101 and evidence cited.)

The declaration of Dr. Yu sufficiently establishes that the conduct of Dr. Lee fell within the applicable standard of care, and the burden shifts to plaintiffs to raise triable issues of material fact. Because plaintiffs do not submit an expert declaration to dispute Dr. Yu, plaintiffs do not present any triable issues of material fact as to whether Dr. Lee breached the standard of care. (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 985 [“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 plaintiff comes forward with conflict expert evidence”].)

As to the loss of consortium claim, because the professional negligence claim fails, so too must plaintiff Brian Abelar’s claim based thereon. (Blain v. Doctor’s Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067.)