Case Number: BC647206 Hearing Date: February 06, 2020 Dept: SEC

QUINONES v. NARAYANAN, M.D.

CASE NO.: BC647206

HEARING: 02/06/2020

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – WHITTIER’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. CCP § 437c.

II. Defendant KRISHNA NARAYANAN’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. CCP § 437c.

Moving Party(s) to give notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of February 3, 2020. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s former counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was GRANTED on September 19, 2019. As of February 3, 2020, no Substitution of Attorney has been filed.

This action for medical malpractice was filed by Plaintiff on January 17, 2017.

Defendants PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – WHITTER (“PIH”) and KRISHNA NARAYANAN, M.D. (“Narayanan”) (collectively “Defendants”) separately move for summary judgment pursuant to CCP §437c.

“[I]n any medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish: ‘(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence.’ [Citation Omitted.]” (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Center (1993) Cal.App.4th 870, 877.)

The standard of care in a medical malpractice case requires that physicians exercise in diagnosis and treatment that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances. (Mann. v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 36.) “The standard of care against which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their testimony [citations], unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman.’ [Citations.]” (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.) Therefore, when a defendant moves for summary judgment/adjudication of a medical malpractice cause of action, and supports the motion with expert declarations that the defendant’s conduct fell within the community standard of care, that defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.” (Munro v. Regents of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

PIH proffers the declaration of Robert E. Cole, M.D. in support of its instant motion for summary judgment. Dr. Cole is board-certified in General Surgery and, licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. (Cole Decl., ¶¶1-3.). Dr. Cole opines that the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff by PIH was within the applicable standard of care. (Cole Decl., ¶¶33-45.)

Narayanan proffers the declaration of Frank C. Candela, M.D. in support of his instant motion for summary judgment. Dr. Candela is board-certified in General Surgery and, licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. (Candela Decl., ¶¶1-5.). Dr. Candela opines that the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff by Naryanan was within the applicable standard of care. (Candela Decl., ¶¶25-37.)

As the motions are unopposed, Plaintiff submits no evidence to refute Defendants’ arguments.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendants PIH and Narayanan breached the standard of care. The motions for summary judgment are granted.