Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Trans.
F069843M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- High school player Abraham Sanchez suffered a helmet-to-helmet head injury during a game on October 2, 2009; on‑site standby ambulance crew (paramedic Aaron Moses and EMT) assessed him and called for a transport ambulance.
- Standby crew contacted Sanchez ~21:25; Moses radioed for transport at 21:30; transport crew first made contact at 21:38 and departed field by 21:42; transport to hospital took ~30 minutes; ER custody at ~22:13; surgery (craniotomy) began ~00:35–02:58 timeframe, with mannitol given ~23:00.
- Sanchez was diagnosed with a right subdural hematoma and later suffered a posterior cerebral artery (PCA) stroke; he sued Kern Emergency Medical Transportation alleging gross negligence for failing to immediately transport him in the standby ambulance and that the delay aggravated his brain injury.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, supported by expert declarations concluding (based on medical literature) that short delays (0–30 minutes) do not affect subdural hematoma outcomes; defendant also presented timing analysis showing any unnecessary delay was very brief (approx. 2.5 minutes).
- Plaintiff opposed with neurosurgeon Dr. Fardad Mobin’s declaration asserting earlier transport would have improved outcome and that the delay caused/ contributed to stroke; trial court sustained several objections to portions of Mobin’s declaration as speculative and lacking foundation and granted summary judgment for defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed admissibility of expert opinions, causation evidence, and defendant’s sanctions motion; the appellate court affirmed judgment and denied sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented admissible expert evidence tying defendant’s conduct to worsened outcome (causation) | Mobin: earlier transport (immediately at first contact) would have reduced swelling, led to earlier mannitol, prevented/would have lessened brain injury and PCA stroke | Defense experts: literature shows no evidence that delays of 0–30 minutes affect subdural hematoma outcomes; timing analysis shows only minimal unnecessary delay; Mobin’s opinions lack foundation and are speculative | Court upheld trial court’s exclusion of the challenged portions of Mobin’s declaration as speculative, conclusory, and not based on matters experts reasonably rely on; no triable issue on causation |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the expert evidence | Sanchez argued sufficient expert opinion created triable issue on causation | Kern argued it met burden showing no triable issue and plaintiff failed to present admissible contrary expert evidence | Affirmed: defendant met prima facie showing; plaintiff failed to raise triable issue of material fact on causation after excluded portions removed |
| Admissibility standard for expert opinions in opposition to summary judgment | Plaintiff contended opposing expert need not be as detailed and court should liberally construe expert declaration | Defendant contended opposing expert must respond to and counter defense experts and literature; speculative opinions may be excluded under Evid. Code § 801 and Sargon gatekeeping | Court applied Sargon/Evid. Code §801: expert must provide reasoned explanation and rely on appropriate bases; where defense undermined plaintiff’s assumptions plaintiff’s expert had to do more and failed |
| Whether sanctions were warranted for frivolous appeal | Plaintiff’s appeal lacked merit but was not taken for improper purpose | Defendant urged sanctions as frivolous and delay tactic | Court denied sanctions: appeal lacked merit but was not frivolous under Flaherty standard (not totally and completely without merit nor taken for improper purpose) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standards and burdens)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (expert gatekeeping; require reasoned explanation and reliable basis)
- Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 1108 (expert opinion on causation must illuminate why facts make causation more probable than not)
- Powell v. Kleinman, 151 Cal.App.4th 112 (expert declarations in summary judgment context; conflicting expert evidence premise)
- In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (standard for imposing sanctions on frivolous appeals)