Garland v. Pacific Lipo CA2/2, B336682

Deandra Garland underwent elective cosmetic surgery at a clinic operated by Pacific Lipo, paying $12,500 for liposuction, tummy tuck, and fat transfer to her buttocks.
During surgery, anesthesia complications required the procedure to be halted, so the fat transfer was not performed.
Garland signed several consent forms acknowledging the risks of surgery, lack of outcome guarantees, and that the surgeon and anesthetist were independent contractors, not Pacific Lipo employees.
Garland, representing herself, sued Pacific Lipo for medical malpractice and breach of contract after being dissatisfied with the surgical results and the incomplete procedure.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Pacific Lipo, finding that Garland provided no expert testimony to oppose Pacific’s expert declaration and that no contract promised a specific result.
Garland appealed the summary judgment ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Medical malpractice	Pacific negligently performed surgery and caused disfigurement.	Followed standard of care; independent expert said halting surgery was proper.	No triable fact; no expert from Garland.
Breach of contract	Paid for fat transfer and didn’t receive it; expected specific results.	Consent expressly disclaimed guarantees; no promise of a specific result.	No guarantee promised; claim fails.
Liability for contractors	Providers were really Pacific Lipo’s employees or agents.	Garland signed forms showing providers were independent contractors.	No agency; forms were clear notice.
Procedural deficiencies	Pro se status should excuse failure to meet procedural rules.	Rules apply equally to all parties.	No exception; rules enforced.

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment standards and purpose)
Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal. 4th 482 (Cal. 2007) (de novo review on appeal from summary judgment)
Lattimore v. Dickey, 239 Cal. App. 4th 959 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (elements of medical malpractice)
Barragan v. Lopez, 156 Cal. App. 4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (elements of medical malpractice)
Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center, 159 Cal. App. 4th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (expert testimony required for standard of care)
Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, 180 Cal. App. 4th 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (expert required to oppose summary judgment in med-mal cases)
Willard v. Hagemeister, 121 Cal. App. 3d 406 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (failure to provide expert declaration is fatal to appeal)
Markow v. Rosner, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (independent contractor disclosure negates agency as matter of law)
Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2 Cal. 5th 536 (Cal. 2017) (evidence in summary judgment must be admissible)
Christ v. Lipsitz, 99 Cal. App. 3d 894 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (breach of contract in medical cases requires clear, specific promise)