 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Levitin v. Brown4/21/2005
d "there was no act or omission on the part of [defendants] that was a substantial factor causing the alleged injuries of [Mrs. Levitin]."
Thereafter, plaintiffs sought a new trial, asserting the trial court had misconstrued the circumstances under which California law permits a medical malpractice claim to be predicated on delayed diagnosis and treatment resulting in diminished chances of survival. The trial court denied the new trial request but reversed its prior evidentiary ruling, indicating it was receiving the declarations of plaintiffs' experts in evidence and had considered them in ruling to deny the motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
Discussion
I. Standard of Review
We review summary judgment rulings de novo to determine whether the moving party has met its burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show either (1) that the plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of a cause of action, or (2) that there is a complete defense. If that burden of production is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to that cause of action or defense. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Code Civ. Proc., ยง 437c, subds. (c) & (o)(2).)
In reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, we must independently review the record that was before the trial court to determine whether the facts as shown by the parties give rise to a triable issue of fact. We strictly construe the affidavits of the moving party and liberally construe the affidavits of the opposing party. "We accept as undisputed facts only those portions of the moving party's evidence that are not contradicted by the opposing party's evidence. [Citation.] In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be accepted as true." (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 299, 309.) Lastly, we are not bound by the trial court's stated reasons in support of its ruling; we review the ruling, not its rationale. (Stratton v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1083.)
II. Medical Negligence Cause of Action
The complaint against the defendants for medical negligence rests on their alleged failure to timely diagnose the malignant tumors in Mrs. Levitin's breast tissue and axillary lymph nodes. To establish a medical malpractice cause of action, a plaintiff " `must establish the following basic elements: "(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of this 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." [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)
In this instance, defendants challenge the causation element of the medical negligence cause of action, asserting there is no evidence to support an inference that the delay in diagnosing Mrs. Levitin's tumors was a cause of any harm to her. While causation is generally a question of fact for the jury, where expert testimony precludes a finding of causation by a reasonable trier of fact, summary judgment for a defendant may be granted. (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 288-289.)
Here, defendants challenge the cause of action by asserting i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|