Case Name: Ghaderiyan v. O’Connor Hospital, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-239254

Defendant O’Connor Hospital (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment as to the complaint filed by plaintiff Narges Ghaderiyan (“Plaintiff”).

California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. 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.

(Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985, quoting Hutchison v. United States (9th Cir. 1988) 838 F.2d 390, 392.)

After full consideration of the evidence, separate statements and authorities submitted by each party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact with regard to whether the treatment provided by O’Connor nursing personnel/employees to Fatemah Tajzadeh-Noughabi on January 2, 2012 fell below the applicable standard of care and whether such conduct was a substantial factor in causing her death. (See Declaration of Raquel Arlene D. Samson in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to O’Connor’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶¶ 5-7.) Accordingly, O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The Court did not consider any of the additional evidence filed by O’Connor with its (untimely) reply papers that purportedly demonstrates the flaws in the declaration of Plaintiff’s expert. “Where a remedy as drastic as summary judgment is involved, due process requires a party to be fully advised of the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail.” (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) Plaintiff has not been provided with an opportunity to address the specific evidence and issues cited by O’Connor in its reply that were not discussed in its opening brief.