Nyla Dee Simmons vs Sansum Clinic et al
Case No: 17CV03860
Hearing Date: Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: The court grants defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment

Background: This is a medical malpractice action that plaintiffs Nyla Dee Simmons and Charles Anthony Simmons filed against Sansum Clinic, Marc Zerey, M.D., and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Inc. (“SBCH”) (erroneously sued as Cottage Health dba Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Inc.). The causes of action are medical negligence, medical battery (against Dr. Zerey only), and loss of consortium.

Motion: SBCH moves for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.

1. Facts: The following facts are from SBCH’s unopposed separate statement of undisputed material facts.

In February 2014, Ms. Simmons presented to SBCH for a laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure with Dr. Zerey. The patient subsequently developed ulcers and required a revision procedure in the form of a partial gastrectomy in January 2016 along with a hiatal hernia repair and conversion to sleeve gastrectomy with a Jtube placed intraoperatively. Since this procedure, Ms. Simmons has suffered from both solid and liquid intolerance as well as constant upper abdominal pain and intermittent vomiting. As a result, Ms. Simmons has had multiple admissions to SBCH for dehydration. She was seen at UCLA Medical Center in March of 2016. It was determined that she had severe narrowing at the level of gastro-gastric anastomosis and underwent multiple EGD procedures and unsuccessful stent placements. It was thereafter felt that the patient would be best managed with outpatient dilations.

SBCH submitted the declaration of Stanley Klein, M.D., a licensed physician with over 40 years of experience. He is a professor in the Department of Surgery at UCLA. Dr. Klein reviewed Ms. Simmons’s medical records from SBCH and Sansum. Based on his review of the records, which are attached to his declaration, he made the following findings and conclusions:

The care SBCH provided at all times complied with the standard of care in this case. The nursing staff at all times properly monitored this patient during both of her surgeries with Dr. Zerey and her subsequent recoveries. The records indicate that the nursing staff at all times appropriately executed physician orders. The indications for surgery and type of revision performed in this case were decisions that ultimately rested with the surgeon, Dr. Zerey. SBCH was at all times equipped to handle the revision surgery at issue. There was nothing SBCH did or failed to do that caused this patient any injury.

2. Summary Judgment Standard: Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CCP § 437c(c). “The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (2001). “A defendant bears the burden of persuasion that ‘one or more elements of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question ‘cannot be established,’ or that ‘there is a complete defense’ thereto. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).)” Id.

3. Medical Malpractice: “[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.” Elcome v. Chin, 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317 (2003). “[T]he general rule applicable in negligence cases arising out of the rendering of professional services: ‘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.’” Flowers v. Torrance Mem’l Hosp. Medical Ctr., 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001 (1994). There is no suggestion that the standard of care here is within the common knowledge of lay people. Therefore, “expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded.” Id.

The same requirements apply to malpractice actions against nurses and their employers. Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, 180 Cal.App.4th 690, 694 (2009). “When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.” Powell v. Kleinman, 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 123 (2007).

SBCH supports its motion with an expert declaration that its conduct fell within the community standard of care. There is no conflicting evidence. SBCH is entitled to summary adjudication of the medical negligence cause of action.

3. Loss of Consortium: “A cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse.” Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 746 (2007). The loss of consortium claim is “dependent, legally as well as causally” on the injured spouse’s claim. Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 991, 999 (1997). “[A]n unsuccessful personal injury suit by the physically injured spouse acts as an estoppel that bars the spouse who would claim damages for loss of consortium. Meighan v. Shore, 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034–35 (1995).

Because the medical negligence claim fails, so, too, does Charles Anthony Simmons’s cause of action for loss of consortium. SBCH is entitled to summary adjudication of the loss of consortium cause of action.

4. Conclusion: SBCH has sustained its initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs have indicated their non-opposition to the motion. Having determined that SBCH is entitled to summary adjudication of the two causes of action asserted against it, the court grants defendant Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.