Case Number: BC535457    Hearing Date: September 08, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

PLAINTIFF CARINA SALAS, an incapacitated person, by and through her Conservator, CARMEN PRADO,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DEVADATT M. MISHAL, M.D., et al.,

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC535457

Hearing Date: September 8, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT DOWNEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant Downey Regional Medical Center’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

Legal Standard

“’In this state negligence may be pleaded in general terms, and that is as true of malpractice cases as it is of other types of negligence cases.”’ (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 408 (citing Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 774).) This is also true when the medical malpractice is alleged against a hospital. (Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 101.)

Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth the following relevant allegations against DRMC:

On or about October 9, 2013, and thereafter, Plaintiff CARINA SALAS, employed Defendants, and each of them, to diagnose and treat and care for her medical condition and to do all things necessary for her care and treatment including, but not limited to labor and delivery of her child and for other post partum care and medical treatment.

While Plaintiff CARINA SALAS was under the sole and exclusive care and control of the Defendants, and each of them, Defendants, and each of them negligently, carelessly and unskillfully selected various hospitals and physicians and other health care providers, and further negligently examined, treated, cared for, diagnosed, operated upon, anesthetized, resuscitated, attended, consulted, and otherwise handled and controlled the Plaintiff herein, thereby proximately causing injuries and damages to the Plaintiff, such that she is unresponsive and in a coma, from and after said date.

Defendants DOWNEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER-HOSPITAL INC., DOWNEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 101 through 150, and, and DOES 151-200, failed and neglected to adequately select a competent medical staff and to periodically review the competency of its medical staff, and failed to adequately monitor its staff such that the Plaintiff was caused to, and did suffer injuries and damages as herein alleged.

(Complaint ¶¶14-16 (emphasis added).)

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured as a result of this negligence. (Complaint ¶17.) These allegations state that Defendants, included DRMC failed to properly examine, treat, care for, diagnose, operate, anesthetize, resuscitate, attend, consult and otherwise handle and control Plaintiff, thereby causing her injuries. The Complaint goes on to allege that these breaches caused her injuries. (Complaint ¶17.)

As is discussed below, for a negligence claim, these general allegations sufficiently allege a breach of the duty of care owed to Plaintiff by Defendants, including DRMC.

Discussion

The gravamen of DRMC’s demurrer is that it is impossible to tell from these allegations which acts it allegedly negligently performed, given that the action is brought against 13 defendants and there are nine negligent acts alleged. Defendant, however, cites to no authority to demonstrate that this is improper or that Plaintiff must set forth for which negligent acts each Defendant is responsible. Indeed, in Stafford v. Schultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 774, cited by Defendant, the Court held: “in a malpractice case, it is sufficient, at least as far as a general demurrer is concerned, to aver that certain treatment was negligently administered by defendant to plaintiff’s damage without alleging in what respect the treatment may have been deficient.”

Similarly, in Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, in which the plaintiff alleged that he was under the defendants’ care and during that time suffered a broken rib due to their negligence, the California Supreme Court held that this was sufficient to allege a claim of medical malpractice. (Id. at 100-01.) The Court held: “it is established that a cause of action may be stated in which negligence is alleged in general terms, without detailing the specific manner in which the injury occurred.” (Id. at 101.)

The allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint are comparable in specificity to the allegations in Stafford and Guilliams. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in their examination, treatment, operation, attending, and other forms of handling of her medical care, resulting in her being unresponsive and in a coma following delivery of her child. (Complaint ¶15.) Plaintiff also specifically alleges that DRMC “failed and neglected to adequately select a competent medical staff and to periodically review the competency of its medical staff, and failed to adequately monitor its staff,” resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries. (Complaint ¶15.) DRMC’s demurrer does not address these specific allegations.

In light of the fact that negligence may be pled in general terms and Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately states a number of different breaches by Defendants, including DRMC, that gave rise to her injuries, the demurrer is overruled.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 8, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court