Case Number: BC652962 Hearing Date: October 17, 2018 Dept: 2

Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant, Elham Ghadishah, M.D., filed on 8/1/18, is DENIED. Defendant has not established that she is entitled to judgment on the entire complaint based on the undisputed material facts proffered. Cal. Code Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2).

Defendant’s objections to the Declaration of Dr. Goodstein.

Preliminarily, both of Plaintiff’s experts’ declarations are sufficiently based on reasoned explanation and on particular misconduct that the experts describe as having fallen below the standard of care. Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 297, 308; Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519.”

The declaration need not set forth the factual basis for the opinion in “excruciating detail.”Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 601, 608.

“Although the style of the Reynolds [expert] declaration is at times a bit obtuse, Hanson is entitled to all favorable inferences that may reasonably be derived from that declaration.” Hanson at 608.

All objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant was negligent in examining, diagnosing, caring for, treating, monitoring and medicating Plaintiffs’ decedent. UF 3. Specifically, among other things, Defendant failed to timely recognize, diagnose and treat Decedent’s signs and symptoms that included, but were not limited to, severe shortness of breath, chest pain, tachycardia, and other heart abnormalities. UF 3.

Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses contended that Defendant failed to order a “stat” cardiology consultation, failed to timely and properly respond to the nursing staff, and failed to timely reconcile Decedent’s medications. UF 4.

In a medical negligence action, proof of the standard of care requires expert testimony. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. Causation must also be proven with expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

Plaintiffs’ experts dispute that Defendant’s conduct complied with the standard of care in that Defendant delayed her visit to Mr. Jimenez and did not call Dr. Stan, Decedent’s cardiologist, which did not comply with the standard of care, given Decedent’s history of coronary artery disease, triple bypass surgery, and a suspicious EKG. Declaration of Gelsey Goodstein, M.D. ¶¶ 31.

Plaintiff’s expert, Jonathan M. Tobis, M.D., also opines that if Defendant and the nursing staff had contacted Dr. Stan, then to a reasonable medical probability, appropriate cardiac assessment and care would have been provided that would have prevented the Decedent’s cardiac arrest on 12/20/15. Tobis Declaration ¶ 29.

Accordingly, Facts 5 – 8 remain in dispute.

Defendant’s arguments in Reply do not change the analysis. Defendant argues that Defendant did order a cardiology consult, which Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Goodstein acknowledged. Goodstein Declaration 9:18-20. However, the conduct that fell below the standard of care was the failure to actually call a cardiologist on 12/18/15, among numerous other instances of misconduct including delay that fell below the standard of care identified by Dr. Goodstein.

Defendant argues that a physician’s assistant and a cardiologist did evaluate Decedent on 12/19/15 but that was after the Decedent had already arrested and a Code Blue was called. Goodstein Declaration, ¶ 31F and G.

Defendant’s Reply refers to a social worker’s note that a cardiologist was contacted “five times.” Reply, Ex. A. This was in response to a code blue on 12/19/15, after decedent arrested.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff Wendy Jimenez testified that the nursing staff also contacted the cardiologist. The issue is Defendant Dr. Ghadishah’s conduct.

Contrary to Defendant’s Reply, Plaintiff’s second expert, Jonathan Tobis, M.D. does not provide a complete causation defense for Defendant. Defendant again points to the fact that Defendant included a cardiology consult in her “plan” but the standard of care required that she personally call one, that she immediately assess Decedent’s condition on the morning of 12/15/18, and not that afternoon, among other things. Again Decedent’s first consult with a cardiologist and physician’s assistant was on 12/19/15 after Decedent had arrested.

The fact that decedent was not taken to a catheterization lab as recommended on 12/19/15, does not diminish Defendant’s involvement (or lack thereof) on 12/18/15 leading up to the first arrest, all as particularly described by Dr. Goodstein.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.