Case Number: BC649053 Hearing Date: January 08, 2019 Dept: SEC

PARRA v. SUAREZ, M.D.

CASE NO.: BC649053

HEARING: 01/08/19

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant MIN SOO SHIN, M.D.’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. CCP § 437c.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 3, 2019. The Court received Plaintiffs’ Non-Opposition to Defendant Dr. Min Soo Shin’s Motion for Summary Judgment on November 27, 2018.

This action for medical malpractice was filed by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017.

Defendant SHIN (“Defendant”) moves 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.)

Here, Defendant proffers the declaration of Warren D. Johnston, M.D. in support of the instant motion for summary judgment. Dr. Johnston is a board-certified cardiologist licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. (Johnston Decl., ¶¶1-2.). Dr. Johnston opines that the care and treatment provided to Decedent was within the applicable standard of care. (Johnston Decl., ¶¶20-21.)

As this motion is unopposed, Plaintiffs submit no evidence to refute Defendant’s arguments.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant SHIN breached the standard of care. The motion for summary judgment is granted.