Case Number: BC673885 Hearing Date: May 15, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

BECKY LEVEQUE, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CSJ PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC673885

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

May 15, 2019

Plaintiffs, Becky, Christopher, Timothy, and Michael Leveque filed this action against Defendants, CSJ Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, et al. for wrongful death/medical malpractice. Plaintiffs allege Defendants were negligent in their care and treatment of Decedent, David Leveque, who died as a result of their negligence on 5/28/16.

At this time Defendants, Zahi Elias Nassoura, M.D. and Faud Farah Faridi, M.D. demur to the complaint, contending it fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against them and is uncertain. Plaintiff argues a complaint for medical malpractice can be pled in general terms, and the complaint is sufficient. The issue before the Court, therefore, is: what amount of detail must be pled in a medical malpractice action in order to state a claim against a defendant?

Defendants, in their moving papers, rely on Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 and Derrick v. Ontario Community Hospital (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 145, 153 to support their position that something more than mere conclusions of negligence must be pled to state a cause of action. They also reference Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527. Plaintiffs rely on Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 742-744 to support their position that general allegations of negligence are sufficient in a medical malpractice case. Defendants, in reply, contend specific facts were pled in Hahn, and rely on Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410 to support their position.

Perkins stands for the general proposition that complaints must contain facts to apprise defendants of the basis upon which the plaintiffs seek relief. Derrick was decided in the context of an alleged breach, by a hospital, of a specific statutory requirement; the trial court held the plaintiff had not pled the elements of the statutory violation and sustained the hospital’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court should have permitted leave to amend to add facts to establish each element of the statutory violation. The analysis is not on point here, as the violation at issue was statutory in nature.

Berkley was decided in the medical malpractice context, and is helpful in determining the issues presented. The court therein held (citations omitted), “Moreover, regardless of whether the facts are sufficient to plead duty, we are unable to find any factual allegations amounting to the remaining elements of negligence. Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are “limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and … the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.” (Citations.) The FACC failed to describe Herron’s injury in any manner, other than to allege that he was deprived of the “possibility of receiving proper rehabilitation therapies,” and concluding that he suffered a personal injury. The first cause of action was incorporated by reference into the sixth cause of action, for wrongful death, in which it was alleged that as a result of the “foregoing conduct,” Herron died. However, there is no description of any particular negligent acts or omissions which were allegedly the proximate cause of the unnamed injury or death. Indeed, appellant’s counsel acknowledged at the hearing on the demurrers that there was no denial of lifesaving care and that “[w]e know [Herron] was receiving adequate support from the doctor.

Plaintiffs’ citation to Hahn is curious, as the portion of the case upon which Plaintiffs rely is an incredibly detailed statement of facts supporting the plaintiff’s complaint against the doctors.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ complaint fails, under the standard set forth in Berkley, to state a cause of action against the moving defendants. The demurrer is therefore sustained. Plaintiffs must amend their complaint to add facts showing what acts or omissions Defendants committed and that those acts or omissions caused Decedent’s death.

Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty days. Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within the statutory time thereafter. Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.