Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange County
193 Cal. App. 4th 453
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Rosen sustained injuries from an MTA bus collision in Oct 2004 and a subsequent debilitating stroke in Nov 2004.
- St. Joseph Hospital treated Rosen; Openshaw (Vascular Specialists) performed an angiogram at the hospital to diagnose her condition.
- Rosen alleged Pene and Openshaw stole the angiogram to undermine her claims in the underlying MTA action, hindering expert testimony and settlement leverage.
- In the MTA action, Rosen’s experts were barred from testifying that the bus caused her stroke, and the jury ruled in favor of the MTA on causation and duty.
- In Dec 2009, Rosen filed suit against Pene, Pene’s firm, St. Joseph Hospital, Openshaw, and Vascular Specialists for various tort theories and a contract-based claim.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer to four causes of action as spoliation claims barred by Cedars-Sinai/Temple, allowed amendment for a fifth claim, and later entered judgments for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation claims are cognizable at all | Rosen sought spoliation-based relief under contract/fiduciary theories. | Cedars-Sinai/Temple foreclose spoliation claims as tort theories against parties to the underlying litigation or nonparties. | Spoliation claims barred; no tort remedy recognized. |
| Whether Rosen could amend to plead a contractual duty to preserve | Cooper shows promissory undertaking can create a duty to preserve. | Cooper relied on a specific promise; Rosen lacks such promise. | No viable contractual duty pleaded; amendment would not cure causation defect. |
| Whether a duty to preserve evidence could exist independently of tort law | Temple/Cooper allow contractual or special relationships to create a duty to preserve. | Cedars-Sinai/Temple policy favors non-tort remedies and rejects general duties. | No independent duty to preserve arising from preexisting relationships or records in this context. |
| Whether Rosen adequately alleged causation against the named defendants | Breached preservation prevented Rosen from proving MTA’s duty/causation. | Even if preserved, MTA’s own verdict on causation precludes damages; no link shown. | Causation not established; cannot prove damages against Openshaw/Vascular/Hospital. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (no tort cause of action for intentional first/third party spoliation; prefer non-tort remedies)
- Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 464 (Cal. 1999) (no tort cause of action for intentional third-party spoliation; remedies exist elsewhere)
- Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 177 Cal.App.4th 876 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (promissory undertaking to preserve evidence can create a duty to preserve)
- Coprich v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 1081 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (no general tort duty to preserve evidence; contract/promise may create duty)
- Farmers Insurance v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (preexisting relationships do not automatically create spoliation duties without specific promises)
- Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (special relationship arguments do not alone create spoliation duties)
- Forbes v. County of San Bernardino, 101 Cal.App.4th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (court reporters and other duties; generally no spoliation claim absent specific promise)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2002) (limits on judicial notice; not central to spoliation theory here)