2017-00206271-CU-MM

Serina Anderson vs. Sutter Health

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Hale, Adam P.

Defendant Sutter Health’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication is unopposed and is granted.

Plaintiff Serina Anderson asserts a total of two causes of action in her First Amended Complaint naming as defendants three corporations, one physician, and this defendant, Sutter Health. Ms. Anderson’s sole cause of action against defendant Sutter Health is for alleged medical malpractice. Ms. Anderson contends that Sutter Health failed to provide adequate care and treatment to her during a spinal fusion procedure and post-operative hospitalization at Sutter Memorial Hospital. Ms. Anderson underwent the spinal fusion procedure at Sutter Memorial Hospital performed by codefendant Dr. Roy Rubin on February 12, 2008. She remained hospitalized following the procedure until she was discharged on February 20, 2008.

Sutter Health has submitted admissible evidence that it did not fall below the standard of care in its treatment of plaintiff. Stephanie Iseri, defendant’s expert, states that the care and treatment by nursing staff following the surgery was appropriate and within the standard of care. Declaration of Stephanie Iseri, ¶ 12. Plaintiff has filed no opposition containing expert evidence to dispute this material fact. The standard of care against which the acts of a physician or nurse 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, unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman. Landeros v Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 409; See, e.g., Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 309; Flowers v. Torrance Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 996-999.)

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the court engages in a three step process. The Court first identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991)

231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382). Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. An issue that is “within the general area of issues framed by the pleadings” is properly before the court on a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion. (Lennar Northeast Partners v. Buice (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1576, 1582-1583.)

Second, the Court is required to determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiffs cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal 4th 826, 850, quoting CCP §437c(p)
(2)). A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiffs cause of action; (Saelzer v Advance, Group 400 (2001) 25 C4th 763, 780-781). Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is only required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. Aguilar v Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal 4th at pp. 853-855).

Finally, once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. CCP 437c(p). (see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327). In ruling on the motion, the court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

(Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.)

As plaintiff has filed no opposition to raise an issue of material fact, the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is granted.