Jameson v. Desta
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jameson sued Dr. Desta for breach of fiduciary duty (lack of informed consent) and professional negligence arising from interferon treatment while incarcerated at Donovan.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication/judgment for Desta on both claims on remand from prior appeals.
- Evidence consisted of Dr. Hassanein’s declaration (within- and outside-prison standard of care) and Dr. Cooper’s later declaration (opinions on appropriate treatment duration and causation).
- Jameson contended he suffered harm from unnecessary interferon injections and side effects, not cured by Desta’s treatment, and that Jameson was entitled to informed consent disclosures.
- Court on appeal reversed the trial court’s rulings, remanding for further proceedings and addressing indigent-prisoner access concerns.
- Desta is the only respondent on appeal; relevant procedural history concerns deposition participation of a pro se inmate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Desta breached fiduciary duty by informed consent failure | Jameson; lack of informed consent alleged | Desta; no addressed theory in motion; no prima facie showing | Trial court erred; breach claim not properly adjudicated on summary judgment. |
| Whether Desta breached standard of care causing harm (professional negligence) | Jameson raised triable issues via Cooper declaration | Desta; standard of care as to prisoners; Hoffmann protocol; no causation shown | Trial court erred; triable causation issue exists. |
| Whether the court erred in depriving Jameson of meaningful deposition participation | Jameson was deprived of telephonic deposition due to incarceration | Court allowed deposition; limits moot due to late designation | Trial court erred; remedy requires ensuring inmate access to deposition. |
| Whether standard of care for prison medical treatment is different from general community | General standard of care applies; no lower prison standard | Department protocol may guide practice but not lower standard | Court cannot adopt a prison-specific lower standard; involves remand for factual development. |
| Whether Dr. Cooper’s deposition supports causation despite Haasanein’s opinion | Cooper shows six-month combination therapy would differ | Hassanein supports cure under existing protocol; causation unresolved | Triable issue of causation exists; summary adjudication improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (prima facie burden and production standards in summary judgment)
- Tortorella v. Castro, 140 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2006) (unnecessary surgery creates triable causation issues)
- Nelson v. State of California, 139 Cal.App.3d 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (duty to exercise diligence once practitioner summoned to treat prisoner)
- Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 (Cal. 1972) (informed consent duty of physician)
- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (duty to disclose information material to patient consent)
- Rosales v. Battle, 113 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. App. 2003) (three-step summary judgment analysis; issues framed by pleadings)
- Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center, 159 Cal.App.4th 463 (Cal. App. 2008) (standard of care governs physicians; prison setting not lowering standard per se)
- Barris v. County of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.4th 101 (Cal. 1999) (standard of care and malpractice elements)
- Jameson v. Desta, 179 Cal.App.4th 672 (Cal. App. 2009) (prior remand discussing indigent prisoner access and deposition procedures)
- Castaneda v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 212 Cal.App.4th 1051 (Cal. App. 2013) (government tort liability; standard of care context)