Hays v. Covenant Care La Jolla CA4/1
D068249
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 12, 2016Background
- Hays, an elderly patient, was admitted to Sharp Hospital with malnutrition, diabetes, and a Stage III sacral (coccyx) pressure ulcer; she was transferred to Covenant Care La Jolla (Center) on June 11, 2011.
- While at Center, Hays’s coccyx ulcer progressed to Stage IV despite dressings, wound cultures, debridement, and later transfer to Kindred; she required a gastrostomy tube for nutrition during this period.
- Hays sued Center (and Sharp) for professional negligence and elder abuse, alleging Center’s inadequate wound prevention and nutrition care caused ulcer progression and injury.
- Center moved for summary judgment, submitting a declaration from its gerontology expert (Dr. Josephson) and the medical records she reviewed; Josephson opined Center met the standard of care and did not cause the progression.
- Hays opposed with a declaration from her wound-care expert (Dr. Navazo), who opined Center’s care fell below the standard and caused progression; Center objected that Navazo lacked foundation because the records he reviewed were not separately filed with his declaration.
- The trial court sustained some of Center’s objections to Navazo, excluded portions of his opinions, granted summary judgment for Center as to negligence (and granted summary adjudication on elder abuse); the Court of Appeal reversed as to negligence and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Center meet its initial burden to show Hays cannot establish negligence? | N/A (challenge focuses on exclusion of plaintiff expert) | Center: Josephson’s declaration + lodged records make a prima facie showing that breach and causation cannot be established. | Held: Yes. Josephson’s declaration and lodged records satisfied Center’s initial production burden. |
| Were portions of Navazo’s declaration properly excluded for lack of foundation because Hays did not file the records he reviewed? | Navazo sufficiently stated he reviewed the records lodged by Center; duplicative filing not required; his opinions create triable issues. | Navazo’s opinions lack foundation because he did not attach or separately lodge the records he reviewed. | Held: Trial court abused its discretion in excluding those portions; Shugart and related authority allow reliance on records already before the court. |
| Were Navazo’s opinions conclusory and therefore inadmissible? | Navazo cited Braden scores, glucose/nutrition findings, lack of documented care plan — his opinion has adequate factual support and is entitled to favorable inferences. | Center: Opinions are conclusory and insufficiently explained to raise triable issues. | Held: Navazo’s opinions were not inadmissory as conclusory; they were sufficiently explained to create triable issues on breach and causation. |
| Elder-abuse cause: did Hays preserve challenge to summary adjudication? | Hays effectively conceded below and did not challenge on appeal. | Center: summary adjudication proper. | Held: Hays waived appellate challenge; the appellate court affirmed that portion and instructed trial court to grant summary adjudication on elder abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standards and burdens under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (appellate review scope after summary judgment)
- Shugart v. Regents of Univ. of California, 199 Cal.App.4th 499 (plaintiff expert may rely on records already lodged by moving party; opposing expert need not re-file those records)
- Powell v. Kleinman, 151 Cal.App.4th 112 (construction of affidavits in summary judgment context; treatment of opposing expert declarations)
- Hanson v. Grode, 76 Cal.App.4th 601 (liberal construction of plaintiff expert declarations; experts in opposition need not explain every evidentiary detail)
- Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 168 Cal.App.4th 1320 (expert declarations are inadequate if unsupported; contrasted here with admissible expert opinion)