Green v. Suzuki CA2/7
B295980
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2022Background
- In March 2014 Gabriel Green was placed on a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150) and admitted to Aurora Las Encinas Hospital (LEH); he alleges mistreatment including a strip/skin-integrity check, monitored urine testing, withholding/substituting medications, restricted cell‑phone access, exposure to second‑hand smoke, and unmet dietary/medical needs.
- Green sued treating psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Suzuki and his practice (SMPA) for professional negligence, dependent‑adult abuse/neglect, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; other defendants (LEH, etc.) are not part of this appeal.
- Dr. Suzuki and SMPA moved for summary judgment, submitting declarations from Dr. Suzuki and forensic psychiatrist Dr. Robert Linden (reviewing excerpts of Green’s hospital records) concluding care met the psychiatric standard of care and did not cause Green’s injuries.
- Green opposed with procedural irregularities and a two‑page letter from his treating psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Fast that admitted he had not reviewed Green’s hospital records; Green otherwise failed to produce admissible expert evidence and had multiple procedural defects in pleadings and discovery requests.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Suzuki and SMPA (finding defendants met their initial burden and Green failed to raise triable issues), denied Green leave to file a third amended complaint as untimely, and entered judgment; Green appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal (effect of new‑trial notice) | Green: his filed notice of intention to move for a new trial extended the appeal deadline; his appeal is timely under rule 8.108(b) (180‑day extension) | Defs: notice was invalid or did not extend time; appeal therefore untimely | Appeal is timely — valid notice of intention existed and defendants did not serve a notice of entry of order denying the new trial motion, so 180‑day extension applied. |
| Admissibility/foundation for expert declarations and records | Green: defendants’ experts relied only on excerpts of medical records so declarations lack foundation; many evidentiary objections | Defs: records were authenticated (custodian verification) and experts may rely on record excerpts they cite | Trial court properly considered Drs. Linden and Suzuki declarations; records were authenticated and objections forfeited on appeal without developed argument. |
| Sufficiency of summary judgment evidence on standard of care and causation | Green: triable issues exist on breaches (strip search, meds withheld/substituted, phone restriction, diet, smoke exposure) and causation; Dr. Fast’s opinion would create issues | Defs: Dr. Linden's sworn opinion establishes care met standard and that alleged lapses did not cause injury; Dr. Fast’s letter lacked foundation (no record review) and was not properly before the court | Defs met initial burden; Green failed to raise triable issues. Summary judgment affirmed as to negligence, dependent‑adult abuse/neglect, and IIED. |
| Denial of leave to file third amended complaint | Green: denial was erroneous; he should have been allowed to add Unruh/Bane Act claims | Defs: motion for leave was procedurally defective (untimely service) | Trial court did not abuse discretion — motion was untimely under CCP §1005/§1013; Green also forfeited appellate challenge by inadequate briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (Cal. 2018) (summary judgment standard; de novo review and liberal construction of opposing evidence)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (defendant’s initial burden on summary judgment shifting burden to plaintiff)
- Paul v. Patton, 235 Cal.App.4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (elements of professional negligence claim)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (elements and standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 771 (Cal. 2004) (nature of dependent‑adult neglect claim and distinction from medical malpractice)
- Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (plaintiff must present specific facts, not pleadings, to defeat summary judgment)
- EHP Glendale, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, 193 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (limits of relying on fragmentary administrative record — distinguished on facts)
- Serri v. Santa Clara Univ., 226 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (authentication and foundation requirements for documentary evidence)