 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stolar v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group12/28/2001
Plaintiff Marc Stolar (Stolar) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser), Joanne Witkowski (Witkowski), Barbara Gilkerson (Gilkerson), Valerie Rausch, and Michael Neri (Neri, collectively Defendants) after their motion for summary judgment was granted. Stolar alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment because he had a disabling back condition, that he was defamed and that his privacy was invaded. He claims that the trial court erred because he demonstrated the existence of triable issues of material fact that require consideration by a jury. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
Stolar began working as a physician in the psychiatry department at Kaiser's Riverside facility on September 15, 1997. He began a vacation on January 5, 1998. On January 9, 1998, he obtained documentation of medical impairment as the result of a diagnosis of lower back pain. That document, signed by Dr. Catherine Potyondy, indicated that he would be temporarily unable to return to work for 10 days. On January 16, 1998, Stolar obtained a second document from Dr. Potyondy indicating that he was temporarily unable to return to work for 14 additional days. Dr. Potyondy returned him to work on a part-time schedule beginning February 2, 1998. Stolar returned to work as authorized, at which time Witkowski and Gilkerson notified him that he was being discharged from his employment as a result of his failure to meet performance standards during his probationary period.
On January 11, 1999, Stolar filed a complaint alleging seven causes of action against some or all Defendants, claiming that he had been discriminated against, wrongfully terminated, defamed, and that his privacy had been invaded. Defendants answered the complaint and thereafter, on September 29, 2000, filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. After a hearing on October 31, 2000, the trial court granted Defendants' motion in its entirety. Judgment was entered for Defendants on November 22, 2000. This appeal followed.
Discussion
A. Evidentiary Objections
In his opening brief, Stolar indicates that in the trial court he asserted an objection to a statement made by Witkowski in a declaration submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment. The declaration indicated that " eginning very early on in Dr. Stolar's probationary period, I [Witkowski] received multiple written and oral complaints about his performance and attitude." Stolar objected to this statement on the ground that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Although he does not explicitly state that the trial court improperly overruled his objection, such could be inferred from his argument. However, our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court sustained the objection to that portion of the statement wherein Witkowski asserted that she received complaints. Thus, we are at a loss in determining the basis for Stolar's criticism.
For the first time in his reply brief, Stolar has raised additional challenges to the trial court's rulings on his evidentiary objections, including additional grounds for excluding Witkowski's declaration. "Issues raised for the first time on appeal in a reply brief, denying respondent an opportunity to respond to the issue, will not be addressed on appeal. [Citation.]" (Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1390, fn. 7, disapproved on other grounds in Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1245.)
In addition, there are numerous objections in Stolar's briefs that appear to be raised for the first time on appeal because he does no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|