Case Name:   Elizabeth J. Robinson, Ph.D. v. Peter Naruns, M.D., et al.

Case No.:       1-13-CV-249369

Motion by Defendant Howard Rice, M.D., for Summary Judgment, or [sic] in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication on the Complaint of Plaintiff Elizabeth J. Robinson

Although Plaintiff argues that there are material issues of fact, she has failed to raise any such issues by failing to present expert testimony.  “Because the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter ‘peculiarly within the knowledge of experts’ [Citation], expert testimony is required to ‘prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the standard prevailing of care’ unless the negligence is obvious to a layperson.’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305; emphasis added.)

Instead of raising an issue of fact, Plaintiff’s argument is essentially that Rice has failed to meet his initial burden because the Declaration of Rice’s standard of care expert, Dr. Kemper, does not address the allegations of informed consent, of alleged failure by Rice to use appropriate diagnostic techniques to identify the type of infection Plaintiff had, and Rice’s continued prescription of antibiotics that precluded the identification of the infection through laboratory testing.

This assertion is incorrect.  Rice has met his initial burden of showing that plaintiff cannot establish the elements of breach and causation.  (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendant Howard Rice, M.D.’s Motion, Fact Nos. 19 – 21.)

Rice’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.