 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Duke10/31/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
The heirs of Gladys Hall brought this action against respondents, Lawrence Duke, M.D. and Lydia Schraeder, M.D., alleging medical malpractice. The trial court granted respondents' summary judgment motions and entered judgments in their favor. On appeal, the heirs contend the trial court erred in denying their request for a continuance of the hearing on the summary judgment motions and in denying their motion to vacate the orders granting judgment against them. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' request for a continuance under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). We further conclude that appellants were not entitled to discretionary or mandatory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), and we affirm the judgments.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2000, appellants filed a complaint in Marin County Superior Court for damages against Lawrence Duke, M.D. (Dr. Duke), Lydia Schraeder, M.D. (Dr. Schraeder) (respondents), and Marin General Hospital (Hospital). The complaint alleged medical malpractice in the treatment of Gladys Hall, appellants' mother, who died on March 31, 1999. By late 1998, Mrs. Hall was suffering from several serious medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease secondary to diabetic nephropathy, diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension and anemia. She was admitted to the Hospital several times for various reasons from December 1998 until her death on March 31, 1999. The underlying facts regarding respondents' care and treatment of Mrs. Hall are not relevant to these proceedings.
Dr. Duke filed his answer on May 22, 2000. Dr. Schraeder filed her answer on June 14, 2000.
On November 13, 2000, Dr. Duke filed a motion for summary judgment with a hearing date of December 15, 2000. On November 20, 2000, appellants filed opposition indicating they had not yet taken any discovery and requested a continuance to obtain decedent's medical records and obtain expert review. The opposition did not address the merits of the motion. The trial court continued the hearing to April 13, 2001, "to allow plaintiff to conduct discovery and obtain an expert."
On November 20, 2000, appellants served notices to produce decedent's medical records on respondents and the Hospital, with a production date of January 8, 2001. Both Drs. Duke and Schraeder indicated in their responses that they were not in possession of decedent's original medical records. Appellants received the medical records from the Hospital on March 15, 2001.
In the meantime, Dr. Schraeder filed her motion for summary judgment on March 2, 2001, which was also set for hearing on April 13, 2001.
On March 22, 2001, appellants filed further opposition to Dr. Duke's summary judgment motion. Appellants requested another continuance of between 90 and 120 days, stating that they had received the medical records on March 15 but they needed more time to analyze the records and, if necessary, to send them for expert review. Appellants also indicated that they had not yet determined whether depositions of Drs. Duke and Schraeder would be necessary. The opposition did not address the merits of the motion.
Appellants supported their request for continuance with the declaration of their coun
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.
|
|