Case Number: BC586951 Hearing Date: July 24, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

KAthleen Abraham,

Plaintiff,

v.

Susan Good learner, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC586951

Hearing Date: July 24, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT Susan Goodlerner M.D.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kathleen Abraham (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendant Susan Goodlerner, M.D. (“Defendant”) based on allegations of medical negligence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently provided care and treatment to Plaintiff, causing injury. Plaintiff is pursuing a claim of professional negligence.

Defendant moves for summary judgment against the complaint. The Court is not in receipt of any opposition papers filed by Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

In a medical malpractice action, the elements are: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) 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 negligence (citations omitted).” (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612, emphasis in original.) The standard of care against which doctors are measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. Breach of the standard of care may only be proven by expert testimony. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to a cause of action.

Discussion

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff presented to Defendant and requested evaluation of a spot on her nose. (Fact 2.) Defendant’s initial evaluation found that the mass was a 5mm Basal Cell Carcinoma at the right corner of Plaintiff’s nose. (Fact 3.) On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff signed a consent form to provide a shave biopsy of the area containing the mass, and the biopsy was performed. (Fact 4.) The pathology report stated that the biopsy indicated a clinical diagnosis of Basal Cell Carcinoma. (Fact 5.) On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff underwent excision of the mass with Defendant. (Fact 6.) Plaintiff was informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure and the consequences of refusing treatment. (Fact 7.) On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff underwent the procedure, and Defendant removed a lesion measuring 7mm by enbloc sharp dissection. (Fact 8.) Plaintiff went to her follow up appointments with Defendant on April 11, 2014 and April 25, 2014, where Defendant noted that the swelling had decreased, and Plaintiff was advised to apply scar gel and concealer on the healed incision site. (Moy Decl., at ¶¶ 11-13.)

To support her motion for summary judgment, Defendant provides the declaration of Ronald Moy, M.D. (“Dr. Moy”), who is a physician certified in dermatology with experience in conditions relating to skin cancer and removal of cancerous facial lesions. Dr. Moy opines that the care provided at Defendant conformed to the applicable standard of care. (Moy Decl., at ¶ 14.) Dr. Moy states that Defendant appropriately evaluated Plaintiff’s condition through inspection and biopsy. (Id. ¶ 16.) Dr. Moy states that Defendant appropriately removed the lesion by enbloc sharp dissection and that Defendant provided appropriate post-operative care. (Fact 18.) Dr. Moy concludes that to a degree of reasonable medical certainty, no actions or omissions of Defendant caused or contributed to any of plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at ¶ 25.)

The Court finds that this offer of evidence satisfies Defendant’s burden of proof, and thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact. As Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, she has failed to produce evidence and failed to meet her burden to show a triable issue of material fact.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant is ordered to lodge with the Court and serve on Plaintiff a proposed judgment within twenty (20) days of this order.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future court dates will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: July 24, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court